Home/Blog2024 Sets New Record for Warmest Year In Satellite Era (Since 1979)
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2024 was +0.62 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down slightly from the November, 2024 anomaly of +0.64 deg.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2024) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
As seen in the following ranking of the years from warmest to coolest, 2024 was by far the warmest in the 46-year satellite record averaging 0.77 deg. C above the 30-year mean, while the 2nd warmest year (2023) was +0.43 deg. C above the 30-year mean. [Note: These yearly average anomalies weight the individual monthly anomalies by the number of days in each month.]
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2023 | Jan | -0.06 | +0.07 | -0.19 | -0.41 | +0.14 | -0.10 | -0.45 |
| 2023 | Feb | +0.07 | +0.13 | +0.01 | -0.13 | +0.64 | -0.26 | +0.11 |
| 2023 | Mar | +0.18 | +0.22 | +0.14 | -0.17 | -1.36 | +0.15 | +0.58 |
| 2023 | Apr | +0.12 | +0.04 | +0.20 | -0.09 | -0.40 | +0.47 | +0.41 |
| 2023 | May | +0.28 | +0.16 | +0.41 | +0.32 | +0.37 | +0.52 | +0.10 |
| 2023 | June | +0.30 | +0.33 | +0.28 | +0.51 | -0.55 | +0.29 | +0.20 |
| 2023 | July | +0.56 | +0.59 | +0.54 | +0.83 | +0.28 | +0.79 | +1.42 |
| 2023 | Aug | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.45 | +0.78 | +0.71 | +1.49 | +1.30 |
| 2023 | Sep | +0.80 | +0.84 | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.25 | +1.11 | +1.17 |
| 2023 | Oct | +0.79 | +0.85 | +0.72 | +0.85 | +0.83 | +0.81 | +0.57 |
| 2023 | Nov | +0.77 | +0.87 | +0.67 | +0.87 | +0.50 | +1.08 | +0.29 |
| 2023 | Dec | +0.75 | +0.92 | +0.57 | +1.01 | +1.22 | +0.31 | +0.70 |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.77 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.22 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.62 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.06 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.70 | +0.75 | +0.41 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.32 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.61 | +0.64 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.88 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.53 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for December, 2024, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Happy New Year.
Same for you he…
Very strange – and slightly worrying that the new record exceeded the previous record by such a large margin.
While alarmists like you may find it concerning, for unbiased and objective individuals, it’s an opportunity for learning and a reminder that the science isn’t as settled as popularly claimed.
Unbiased and objective individuals would seek to explain the seemingly huge jump in warming indicated by Ranked Annual Averages.
Science is always settled unless contradictory evidence of the same quality comes along but then real science changes.
So given this new temperature data trend – what changes need to be made in climate science and by who?
So, what did you learn from the latest yearly data?
What was it about the latest data that specifically reminded you that the “science isn’t as settled”?
Why did the phrase “slightly alarming” indicate to you that professor P is an “alarmist”?
Boy was that nonsensical
I noticed that many climate alarmist are telling people they are worried as if that is supposed to mean something.
CERES may show even further reduction in clouds. Climate alarmist will try and link that to CO2 induced warming because when all you have is a hammer, you get paid by the nail.
A major new study by Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah University of Science and Technology finds that, since the pre-industrial era, the observed average climate in the Middle East and North Africa “has warmed by 1.5°C and is on the brink of exceeding 2°C.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024JD041625
Note that the Saudis get paid by the barrel!
GHG AGW is a slow continuous phenomenon. Transient temperature excursions have nothing to do with AGW from GHGs. It is ridiculous to contend otherwise. and ICPP AR6 chapter 12 section 12 reveals essentially no extreme weather trends outside natural variation for everything except temperature, although it would not be unexpected or alarming that some small trends do occur. Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great as to be almost beyond our ability to appreciate, and far offset any of these proposed minor extreme weather variations (excluding temperature). and it is true CO2 is a green gas that is greening the planetThe plants and animals love this recent human intervention. And the true global ECS is about 2 C, which has been grossly over evaluated for over 40 years by the AGW alarmist propagandists in and out of academia.
“Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great”
But what if the benefits of renewable energy are even greater?
Fossil fuels are often dirty, producing emissions and solid wastes harmful to human health.
They are non-renewable, and when they do become scarce, without alternatives in place, they will produce economic havoc.
And as we saw in Europe and the Middle East, fossil fuel supplies can be used as political weapon.
If carbon fuels could be replaced economically or practically, fine. I would love to see it, and leave CO2 levels at their current “perfect” value(430 ppm). But they cannot be, and will not be. The only benefits of “renewables” is the reduction of CO2 emission. Everything else is much, much worse. The costs (including subsidies)have been, and will continue to be astronomical. Reliability and practicality…terrible. And the switch to renewables at this high cost has produced virtually no corresponding effect in temperature rise, but a tremendous increase in energy prices. This is an eco fantasy, not a practical alternative.
And carbon fuels are in no danger of running out for over a century. We have still not reached peak oil. It is renewable options that are unreliable, and they are extremely wasteful of resources, leaving tremendous waste products(including CO2), especially after they wear out in 10 to 20 years.
Europe is in their predicament BECAUSE of ridiculous “renewable ” eco energy policies. They refuse to “frack” for available methane locally, which reduces CO2 per megawatt hour by a factor of 2 over coal plants….but then use coal AND buy expensive methane from others…and destroy their Nuclear energy capability which France has shown to be extraordinarily successful. If solar power IS a practical alternative in some regions, then it will flourish naturally, but Europe cannot rely on solar during the winter or at night…which is when heating power is essential.
Renewable energy replacement is “easy” for those who don’t actually have to do it or pay for it, but like talking about it, and how inexpensive renewables WILL be. And if China and India continue to increase coal burning, forget any hope of CO2 emission reductions.
I understand the desire and eventual need to reduce warming trends, but don’t try to argue “renewables” provide greater benefit.
Therefore, achieving a “NetZero” carbon emission agenda within several decades is not only operationally
unobtainable, impoverishing and debilitating, but unnecessary. A “NetConstant” or “NetReduction” global
carbon emission agenda would be a more realistic and effective approach over many decades, with a “NetZero”
in global CO2 emissions realized on the order of centuries, concurrent with realistic (and affordable) advances
in technology and climatological forecasting.
‘at their current perfect value(430 ppm).’
How do you know what is perfect? Human civilization flourished for millenia at 280 ppm.
“The costs (including subsidies)have been, and will continue to be astronomical.”
You are not up to date on that.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2024/photovoltaic-plants-with-battery-cheaper-than-conventional-power-plants.html
carbon emission agenda would be a more realistic and effective approach over many decades”
I tend to agree. Historically our ramping up of the exploitation of new enery sources (oil, hydro, nuclear, natural gas) has required around 3 decades.
Not centuries.
Nate thinks so-called “renewable energy” is clean, when it is at least as dirty as using fossil fuels. In fact, mining lithium, other rare earths, turning them into useful products, etc. is in fact dirtier.
He also thinks living pre fossil fuel days was “human civilization flourished for millenia at 280 ppm”. The whales disagree, as does anyone with common sense.
The final annual figure was pretty much locked in over the last couple of months, but it’s still astonishing to see how much of an outlier it is in the graph. Most other data sets are not going to show as much if a discrepancy between this year and last year, though that’s more because they started with 2023 being somewhat warmer than UAH.
Compared with other spikes this still seems very different to me. Starting earlier and cooling less rapidly. I still think we’ll have to wait and see what happens in 2025 before we have a clue as to what’s been happening the last two years.
Compared with other spikes this still seems very different to me
`Because its not real
https://youtu.be/BXfudZK1DEQ
https://youtu.be/VrJiU9BOEBI
There appear to be two warming influences at the present time. The increase in high altitude water vapor and the decrease in clouds. In 2021 December was at 0.16 C and was also in La Nina conditions. This puts the warming influence between .4-.5 C.
I think 2021 will be a reasonable year for comparison over the next 5-6 months. We can see if these effects are dissipating by comparison.
The thicker Sun blocking clouds will come back when galactic cosmic rays can penetrate our magnetosphere again.
Mostly the 2030s.
Very clear, Richard M.
The HTE is slowly dissipating, as indicated by the link you provided months ago:
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_qbo_75S-75N_10hPa.pdf
There are indeed “warming influences”, just not CO2. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.
The H-T Volcano had a slight cooling effect, and it ended by the end of 2023:
MR Schoeberl et al, (2024). Evolution of the climate forcing during the two years after the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai eruption. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 129, e2024JD041296. https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041296
David will discover the truth eventually. His denial and similar denials from the climate cult will disappear along with the HTE warming.
Richard, can you point out the errors in the cited publication?
Ad hom rejections of legit science won’t make your case.
Sorry Nate, climate pseudoscience is nothing but a cult. You won’t find any real science in their sermons.
Then we can safely ignore your science-free rants.
Appell religiously refers to his cult’s nonsense paper, not understanding the first 5 words of the abstract: “We calculate the climate forcing”
“Calculating climate forcing” is cult nonsense. It’s all false beliefs stacked on false beliefs. It all started with Arrhenius claiming he could add CO2 and create energy.
That ain’t science.
“‘Calculating climate forcing’is cult nonsense”‘ sez the person who did no calculation but arrived at a conclusion anyway!
All you guys offer is correlation ‘must equal’ causation, which certainly ain’t science!
Clint R says
“CO2s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface.”
The second law of thermodynamics is about a thermodynamic system that starts and ends in a state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium, that means no macroscopic flows. The earth’s atmosphere is not such, and the second law says nothing immediately about it. On the other hand, the concept of local thermodynamic equilibrium does apply in many atmospheric scenarios. It is generally accepted that, when local thermodynamic equilibrium prevails, and the flows are not too large, then the local time rate of entropy production is positive. That is a kind of version of the second law.
No sensible person, not even warmists I guess, will try to say that “CO2s 15μ photons CAN warm a 288K surface”. What reasonable people say is that an influx of CO2s 15μ photons can slow the cooling of a 288K surface. For us, the question is ‘by how much’? The answer is ‘not enough to have a noticeable effect on the climate’. That’s where the controversy is.
Nate,
CO2 is correlated to temperature. It has been through all the historical data and real-time. CO2 has lagged temperature on both long and short, time scales.
Stephen, of course warming causes outgassing, eg from the ocean or soil. Which increases atmospheric CO2.
But not nearly enough to account for the rise of the last century.
The causality can be reversed. There can be an increase in CO2 due to something other than temperature.
In the 20th century it was due to emissions.
Nate,
Yes, not enough. Humans account for about 30 ppm of the rise (at most), nature 100 ppm. Also, the GHE is thermodynamically improbable.
“Yes, not enough. Humans account for about 30 ppm”
Stephen, You dont listen or learn and keep rehashing this argument that has been debunked here dozens of times.
Go back and read!
Meanwhile you cannot explain how a temperature increase of 1 degree K can cause a 50 % rise in CO2. See Henry’s Law for CO2 in water.
And given that all reservoirs (ocean, land, air and bio) are sinks for CO2 and show an increase in CO2 concentration, that leaves you no source for it other than fossil fuels.
So you are believing in a magical fantasy.
Chris, 2LoT does NOT require a “state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium” The law applies all the time, in every situation. Thats why it’s a LAW. So 2LoT definitely applies to Earth, ALL the time.
You’re correct that no “sensible person” would say that CO2 could warm Earth, but Warmists are not sensible people. They definitely believe CO2 can warm the planet. Ever heard of “back-radiation”? That’s how they claim CO2’s 15μ photons can warm the 288K surface. Heck, some here have even tried to compare atmospheric CO2 to a laser. They believe because a CO2 laser can etch steel, then CO2 can heat the planet. That’s why we know they ain’t scientists.
And, “slowing the cooling” is not warming. One person that used to regularly clog this blog claimed that CO2 “slowed the cooling” at night so when Sun came up in the morning, Earth would reach a higher temperature than if the cooling had not been “slowed”. He didn’t realize Sun is always warming the planet. He was confused about day/night, possibly believing Sun was not warming the planet during his night. Go figure.
Straw man argument Nate. You’ve already provided the source of the CO2 and then supposedly debunked it when Berry or Salby have done no such thing. They don’t propose a source or cause of the natural CO2 increase, only they have shown that it can’t be from fossil fuels. The Equivalence Principle is a law of nature. CO2 from fossil fuels and nature are identical. Their etimes are the same.
Strawman? Hardly. You clearly suggested that T rise of 1K caused the Co2 rise of 50 %. But have no rational explanation. Nor can you rationally explain the source of CO2. Nor can you account for the T rise.
But keep on believin in magic.
Hi Clint R. Responding to
“Chris, 2LoT does NOT require a state of internal thermodynamic equilibrium The law applies all the time, in every situation. Thats why its a LAW. So 2LoT definitely applies to Earth, ALL the time.”
The law is a law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is about processes in bodies that start and end in internal states of thermodynamic equilibrium, or in bodies local thermodynamic equilibrium. For some bodies, it doesn’t even make sense to specify their temperatures. Then the law doesn’t apply.
“Youre correct that no sensible person would say that CO2 could warm Earth, but Warmists are not sensible people.” Agreed for most warmists. Some are quite sensible though still deluded.
“They definitely believe CO2 can warm the planet.” I am not talking immediately about warming the planet. I am talking about warming the condensed matter surface of the planet.
“Ever heard of back-radiation?” Of course.
“Thats how they claim CO2s 15μ photons can warm the 288K surface.” I am talking about the sensible ones. They don’t claim that added CO2s 15μ photons can warm the 288K surface. They claim that added CO2 slows the cooling of the surface enough to result in warming of the planet.
“Heck, some here have even tried to compare atmospheric CO2 to a laser. They believe because a CO2 laser can etch steel, then CO2 can heat the planet. Thats why we know they aint scientists.” They are not the sensible ones.
“And, slowing the cooling is not warming.” I engaged in a bit of loose language there. By ‘slowing the cooling’ I mean contributing negatively to the overall rate of removal of energy, by radiation, conduction, and evaporation from the condensed matter surface. In that sense, enough ‘slowing the cooling’ will actually warm the planet. A small ‘slowing of the cooling’ will be substantially opposed by negative feedback, so that there will be practically no noticeable rise in temperature. I am saying that the latter wins, contrary to the beliefs of the sensible warmists.
“One person that used to regularly clog this blog claimed that CO2 slowed the cooling at night so when Sun came up in the morning, Earth would reach a higher temperature than if the cooling had not been slowed. He didnt realize Sun is always warming the planet. He was confused about day/night, possibly believing Sun was not warming the planet during his night. Go figure.” Too complicated for me to figure.
“A small slowing of the cooling will be substantially opposed by negative feedback, so that there will be practically no noticeable rise in temperature”
Evidence?
Don’t concede high altitude water vapor without satellite data. You’re going to make Dessler and Soden vert happy if you do.
Interesting. I still think a warmer planet is a better planet, with fewer people dying from the cold.
And CO2 undoubtedly is greening the planet.
There doesn’t seem to be any data showing extreme weather events increasing in number, though there does seem a lot of attribution of weather events to climate change which seems closer to Scientology as actual science.
“Global warming already driving increases in rainfall extremes: Precipitation extremes are affecting even arid parts of the world, study shows,” Nature 3/7/16
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-already-driving-increases-in-rainfall-extremes-1.19508
“Increased record-breaking precipitation events under global warming,” J Lehmann et al, Clim. Change 132, 501515 (2015).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-015-1434-y
Evidence for more extreme downpours:
Papalexiou, S. M., & Montanari, A.(2019). Global and regional increase of precipitation extremes under global warming. Water Resources Research, 55,49014914. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024067
Here we show that, worldwide, the number of local record-breaking monthly temperature extremes is now on average five times larger than expected in a climate with no long-term warming.
– Coumou, D., A. Robinson and S. Rahmstorf, 2013: Global increase in record-breaking monthly-mean temperatures. Climatic Change, doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0668-1.
All of those links just indicate Earth is in a warming trend. That’s all.
Learn some history man, there has been no increased precipitation in the UK, not even close to historic records.there are vast amounts of data that prove the past was wetter and warmer, high water levels from flood events are marked on bridges and buildings all across Europe and the UK, church records record thousands of deaths, whole towns and villages washed away.climate did not start in 1850 or 1979 so why the obsession with those dates?
Ian, the UK is 0.02% of global surface area and uniquely situated in N Atlantic currents.
“church records record thousands of deaths, whole towns and villages washed away.”
Yes we have always had damaging floods, especially before dams and levees etc were constructed.
The question is whether the odds of extreme events changed in certain regions.
David, it is all superficial, and does not bear scrutiny once you dig into historic events,in Europe and Ancient China,
How can a tiny addition ‘trace’ gas’ have any effect?
Each part per million of that ‘trace gas’ in the atmosphere represents approximately 7.82 gigatonnes of that ‘trace gas’.
Focusing on 400+ parts per million or 0.04 percent of the atmosphere underestimates just how much ‘trace gas’ is circulating in the atmosphere.
CO2 is required for all life on Earth, but it can’t raise Earth’s temperature.
Clint,
Yes, GHE is improbable. Not impossible, but improbable. Also, the physicist Yong Zhao, has shown that albedo is probably not emissivity is not 0.95 but much lower around 0.61.
Sorry, emissivity not 0.95 but probably around 0.61.
GHG AGW is a slow continuous phenomenon. Transient temperature excursions have nothing to do with AGW from GHG’s. It is ridiculous to contend otherwise. and ICPP AR6 chapter 12 section 12 reveals essentially no extreme weather trends outside natural variation for everything except temperature, although it would not be unexpected or alarming that some small trends do occur. Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great as to be almost beyond our ability to appreciate, and far offset any of these proposed minor extreme weather variations (excluding temperature). and it is true CO2 is a “green” gas that is greening the planet…The plants and animals love this recent human intervention. And the true global ECS is about 2 C, which has been grossly over evaluated for over 40 years by the AGW alarmist propagandists in and out of academia.
There is no section 12 in chapter 12. I wonder if you meant Chapter 11. But then that states “It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensityof some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial
time, in particular for temperature extremes.”
It seems the graph cannot be enlarged by clicking on it, Roy.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2024_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg
Thanks, Nate, but that’s just through November.
Ok good point.
If you right click on it and ‘open in new tab’ you get the higher res version.
The common appeals to increased stratospheric water vapor and reduced clouds/aerosols have missed the important causative action.
People should not be surprised by the 2024 anomaly as it should already be known that the lower troposphere lags the ocean sea surface temperature by several months.
The 2024 SST average was higher than in 2023.
In 2024 solar irradiance was higher than in 2023, with both years being the highest TSI years in over thirty years.
The ocean warming since 2022 was predicted by me as a function of solar activity above a decadal ocean warming threshold, and it happened.
https://i.postimg.cc/GmTgSCrM/Decadal-Warming-Steps-since-2000.jpg
The 2024 UAH LT anomaly is thus simply following the solar cycle influence on the ocean. The LT anomaly will fall again as the SST declines, following the solar cycle decline. In fact it has already started to do that towards the end of 2024.
Bob, No one really knows how TSI has changed over 30 years. There isn’t consensus on the consensus composites of spaced-based sensor data.
The differences in instrumental composites are fairly minor, not important here. If by “consensus” you expected ‘exactly the same’, why?
The CERES composite reveals that in SC#25 the sun has emitted 23 W/m2 more irradiance by the 60th month than in SC#24. The CERES composite is comprised of SORCE and TSIS-1 TSI data from 2003-2018, and from 2018-now, respectively, managed by Dr. Greg Kopp of LASP since 2003.
He knows what he’s doing.
https://i.postimg.cc/6pTD6F62/Tale-of-2-Cycles.jpg
The rapid rise of this cycle delivered 23/4/5 = 1.15W/m2/year more to the climate in the last five years since this cycle started than SC#24.
Find a stronger climate driver from the past five years if you can.
Your ‘no one knows’ attitude is wrong. It’s not the 1990s anymore.
TSI is well correlated with sunspots. “No one really knows,” seems a little exaggerated.
Both step-ups in sst align better with El Ninos than TSI.
Both step-ups started after TSI exceeded the threshold, just before the El Nio in both cycles shown.
Bob, so a highly nonlinear response ro solar input. Why?
You cherry pick the last 2 El Ninos.
1997 was at solar minimum.
Changes in solar irradiance just aren’t that important over decadal timescales. From the IPCC 6AR WG1 TS.2.2 p67:
“Since 1750, changes in the drivers of the climate system
are dominated by the warming influence of increases in
atmospheric GHG concentrations and a cooling influence
from aerosols, both resulting from human activities. In
comparison there has been negligible long-term influence
from solar activity and volcanoes.”
You can also get an approximation for solar irradiance influence from the Stefan-Boltzmann law for the planet:
S=cT^4
where S=solar irradiance, c=constant (albedo, emissivity, SB constant) and T=temperature (surface temperature or brightness temperature, it doesn’t much matter). Then for T=288 K and S=1360 W/m2
dT/dS = T/4S = 0.05 K/(W/m2)
[K=kelvin]
Appell indicates his confusion about the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The relation between temperature and flux is NON-LINEAR, not linear.
He still won’t understand….
Clint, for small variations the linear approximation Appell does is perfectly valid. If the sun should start fluctuating so much that the approximation no longer is enough we are all dead anyway…
David, you genuinely believe that the albedo of the planet has stayed the same? That is so adorable.
Thomas P, if you’re trying to cover up for Appell’s incompetence, you better pack a lunch….
For example, explain his “4” nonsense.
CLINT asks for understanding: “For example, explain his 4 nonsense.”
THEORETICAL:
dS/dT = 4cT^3 = 4c(T^4/T) = 4S/T
DT/dS = 1/(dS/dT) = T/4S
… exactly as stated
EMPIRICAL:
Set c = 0.287
When S = 1360, T = 288.044
When S = 1361, T = 288.097
Delta(T) = 0.053 K for a 1 W/m^2 increase.
… exactly as stated
Bob,
The impact of the solar cycles on temperature is easy to check. Smashing the cycles 10-24 to test if there is a systematic increase of global temperatures at the time of the highest solar activity clearly shows that the impact is at best minor. ENSO episodes dominate.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit?usp=sharing
Am I missing something?
ENSO isn’t a causative mechanism – it’s an empirical observation, based quite substantially on SST.
My interest in Bob’s work is that he seems to have a predictive mechanism for ENSO based on solar output that makes intuitive sense. That doesn’t make it right necessarily, but it does make it worth investigating.
Unfortunately main-stream climate science was happy to say ‘CO2 did it’ and has ignored proper measurements and thorough understanding of solar activity. Far too many paid scientists seem happy with the idea that oceans are warmed by the air above when they should be worrying about the photons hitting that top meter or so.
No long-term TSI (and ideally broken down by wavelength and global location)? Then you have no real data to aid first principals understanding. That forces Climateers to average day/night/seasons until there is no real signal left to study: except CO2 vs Air Temp which of course tracks quite well because warming water outgasses CO2. They have to correlate fairly well.
ENSO is a cyclic tropical atmospheric/ocean phenomena. It predictably drives a response in global T and other weather variables.
The sun’s cycle is 11 y. That the solar cycle is driving ENSO, with a 3-5 y period, is not intuitive, nor is there an identified mechanism
Dixon,
Yes, you are missing something.
This graph clearly shows no noticeable correlation between sunspots or solar activity and global temperature over the last 15 solar cycles. Therefore, Bobs claim that the high temperatures in 2023/24 can be explained as a function of high solar activity has no basis in the observations from previous solar cycles. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit?usp=sharing
Bob states: “In 2024, solar irradiance was higher than in 2023, with both years being the highest TSI years in over thirty years. The ocean warming since 2022 was predicted by me as a function of solar activity above a decadal ocean warming threshold, and it happened.”
However, since short-term temperature variations are closely linked to ENSO (El NioSouthern Oscillation) phases, this indicates no clear connection between ENSO and solar activity.
Sig: “This graph clearly shows no noticeable correlation between sunspots or solar activity and global temperature over the last 15 solar cycles.”
This isn’t quite right. There is a small correlation between solar activity and global temperature as shown, for instance, in Foster/Rahmstorf 2011.
Bob’s issue is that his thesis is based on only the last two solar cycles (24 and 25). If one looks at earlier solar cycles, cycle 24 stands out as noticeably weaker most any cycle of the 20th century and that solar irradiance has generally been on a downward trend since the last half of the 20th century.
The peak of solar cycle 25 did contribute to the record high UAH TLT for 2024, but likely not very much compared to other drivers.
Mark B,
Thank you for referencing Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), which strongly supports my observations. F/R state: This confirms that the influence of ENSO is greater than that of volcanic forcing and much greater than that of solar variation,
However, their analysis covers less than three solar cycles. I examined sunspot data spanning 15 solar cycles alongside HadCRUT4 global temperature records starting from 1850. I excluded temperature data for the two years immediately following major volcanic eruptions to minimize their impact. Since solar cycles vary in length, I normalized the time scale by expressing each cycle as a percentage of the duration between sunspot minima.
Sunspots/TSI and the corresponding temperature impact should be closely aligned for all 15 cycles (F/R assumes 1 month delay). A clear positive temperature deviation would be expected to show up around solar maximum in the combination curves. It does not. This tells us, like F/R stated, that the variable TSI effect is totally overwhelmed by other factors(ENSO).
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Of7yZ4zPw26ptxB0CqKHkwmJwhZfhgszYsw9O7tdmgk/edit#slide=id.p
Furthermore, if ENSO were driven by solar cycles, a systematic temperature pattern corresponding to sunspot activity would be evident. Yet, no such correlation is observed. This indicates that El Nio and La Nia events are independent of solar cycles.
So yes, there is no noticeable (= easily seen) correlation between sunspots and global temperature. The small impact of the TSI-variation is overwhelmed by other factors.
You are right that “solar irradiance has generally been on a downward trend since the last half of the 20th century”. And cycle 24 was the weakest in more than 100 years. However, the reality is that the excess radiation in C25 is less than 0.04 percent higher than in C24. It is apparent that the minor TSI variations are insignificant relative to other factors.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SgAuAvx8O4e6ngL3LJ2X0JordaL8hk3Sh_ud8kn38WU/edit?usp=sharing
The cyclone that will hit the U.S. Midwest is visible in the tropopause.
https://i.ibb.co/jMNqQ55/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f072-1.png
Robert Cutler.
Could you explain how we don’t know how TSI changes?
It would seem to me that knowing how much energy we are recieving from the sun would be a fundamental variable in the climate models. I always assumed that it was measured and factored in.
Surely it is easy to point a spectrophotometer towards the sun and measure the amount of energy at each wavelength wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum and do a simple calculation to work it out?
The hard bit would be modelling how each frequency interacts with the atmosphere and Earth’s surface.
Mark, TSI can’t be measured from earth. There were early attempts to measure it from mountain tops, and from balloons, but the amount of data collected is small, and not without its own controversies.
Satellites were launched in the late 70’s, but the lifetime of a satellite is about one solar cycle, and all of the various satellites don’t agree, and there’s also a gap in time that was the result of the shuttle disaster.
There are different groups that have used different techniques to create a single composite record of the satellite data. These composites don’t agree.
For a bit more info jump to chapter 8 on this web page. This same info is often found in various peer-reviewed papers.
Long-term TSI reconstructions from proxy data (e.g.14C isotopes) have their own set of problems and vary widely. The IPCC uses a TSI reconstruction with the least amount of variability. You can probably guess why.
Sorry, Forgot to include the link.
https://www.heritage.org/climate/report/the-unreliability-current-global-temperature-and-solar-activity-estimates-and-its
Heritage Foundation is a political advocacy enterprise, a poor source for unbiased science.
Anything from science papers?
Heritage Foundation attempts to counter the nonsense from political groups like the IPCC. But, too often they fail because they haven’t taken the time to learn the basic physics.
Nate,
Almost all your links are from leftist activist organizations. From Nature to IPCC, leftist.
Hardly.
“There are different groups that have used different techniques to create a single composite record of the satellite data. These composites don’t agree.”
A comparison of these composite records of TSI would be helpful to see how significant these differences are.
Barry, This recent paper provides a good comparison.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/
ad7794
Of the composites that the authors didn’t put together themselves for the purposes of the paper, the living and legacy composites are quite similar other than at the beginning of the record, 1979 and 1980, where ACRIM and SOLID have higher TSI than PMOD.
Other than that, the records agree very well on the phases of TSI change, with slight disagreements in TSI output, owing not only to relying on different composites of instruments, but also on their different objectives in compiling the data.
I don’t see any evidence from these disagreements that we ‘know nothing’ about TSI, and the fact that the phases line up extremely well with SSN suggest that they are good estimates of TSI.
Lets formulate for the Planets Temperatures Comparison THE INITIAL AXIOM.
For two completely identical planets (or moons), which may differ only in size, their respective average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin, relate as the fourth root of their respective fluxes (Flux1) and (Flux2) in W/m^2:
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Roy, what do you suppose is causing this protracted temperature spike? The extra 13% water vapour in our normally dry stratosphere resulting from the Hunga Tonga submarine volcanic eruption seems too big a possibility to ignore. What do you think from your vantage point?
I can’t believe the tone of the posts The peak was horrendous and in no way reflected a sudden non existent massive rise in Co2 so the only culprit has to be Hunga Tonga. Also despite that peak falling nicely, people seem to be suddenly panicking where they weren’t when it was higher
Alarmists live every day terrified of some imaginary scam. One day, theyll look back from their deathbeds and realize they spent their entire lives panicking over nothing. Truly tragic but also kind of funny.
Average global Water vapor has been increasing more than twice as fast as possible from just average global temperature increase.
It takes a lot of heat to evaporate water.
The failure to define or describe the most significant event in the history of the satellite record is a glaring failure of science. None of the climate models came even close to predicting this. After more than a year of effort by the best minds in the business, yes, business, of climate prediction, there is no solid explanation. The three most prominent climate predictors, Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann, all claim it is not a “tipping point”. Incremental increase in CO2 is not to blame.
That has not stopped the climate change media from making the most of this. If you wanted proof that climate change is real and already happening, this is it. We have surpassed 1.5 C and beyond. In case anyone thinks this is temporary, we were reminded by the official CNN climate expert, Bill Weir, that 2024 was not only the warmest year in the history of the earth, but it was also the coldest year we will ever see again.
“official CNN climate expert, Bill Weir”
That’s so funny. I can’t stop laughing.
2024 was the warmest in Earths history, that has got to be one of the dumbest statements ever made , and Bill expects to be taken seriously?
”
The failure to define or describe the most significant event in the history of the satellite record is a glaring failure of science. None of the climate models came even close to predicting this.”
Ugh. Just the usual hyperbole and misinformation from Tim.
Gee I thought the ‘pause’ was the most significant event. What makes this, so far brief, warm excursion significant-er?
Climate models are not designed to predict yearly T variation, only long term trends. For example, they do not predict or know next year’s ENSO states.
And Bill Weir is simply a reporter, not a scientist or climate expert.
Nate, thank you for the compliment. I can always tell what bothers you by the part you leave out. You did not reply directly because people might read the whole thing, and see your comment in context. The ‘pause’ as you state is your problem, not mine. I did not comment on that.
Sometimes a coherent thought requires more than just a sound bite. Here is what you left out:
[After more than a year of effort by the best minds in the business, yes, business, of climate prediction, there is no solid explanation. The three most prominent climate predictors, Hansen, Schmidt, and Mann, all claim it is not a “tipping point”. Incremental increase in CO2 is not to blame.]
I can see why some folks might be embarrassed about Bill Weir, but he is not “simply a reporter”. His official title is Chief Climate Correspondent. He is the face of climate science on CNN. He reports on the science, not just human interest. He presents himself as an expert. There are other science experts in the media making bold statements. CBS News has an entire department making up climate news.
Bill Weir is a reporter who has interviewed climate scientists, who are indeed experts. That does not make Bill Weir an expert, as you claimed, so as to tarnish the actual experts.
The media regularly gets science wrong. And they tend to exaggerate weather phenomena.
I have no idea what ‘tipping points’ you refer to.
Hansen for several years has been predicting climate change acceleration, due to aerosol pollution reductions.
What you declare a ‘glaring failure’ of climate science is, rather, a feature of an active field of science research: the fact that not everything has already been explained.
Nate, according to Bill Weirs wiki page he has a degree in creative writing. So yes you are correct that Bills input on Climate Change should be ignored as overhyped rants of an activist. Bit like Hansens views ought to be gauged by his employment. He worked in a agency that was having it’s budget being reduced by 90% and just so happened to find an invisible
Bogeyman to save his job.
In reply to Anon for a reason’s calumnious comment about Dr. James Hansen:
Education.
BA with highest distinction (Physics and Mathematics), University of Iowa, 1963.
MS (Astronomy), University of Iowa, 1965.
Visiting student, Inst. of Astrophysics, University of Kyoto & Dept. of Astronomy, Tokyo University, Japan, 1965-1966.
Ph.D. (Physics), University of Iowa, 1967.
1-long-paragraph bio
Dr. James Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is an Adjunct Professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, where he directs a program in Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of Dr. James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. His early research on the clouds of Venus helped identify their composition as sulfuric acid. Since the late 1970s, he has focused his research on Earth’s climate, especially human-made climate change. Dr. Hansen is best known for his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in the 1980s that helped raise broad awareness of the global warming issue. He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1995 and was designated by Time Magazine in 2006 as one of the 100 most influential people on Earth. He has received numerous awards including the Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Roger Revelle Research Medals, the Sophie Prize and the Blue Planet Prize. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to power, for identifying ineffectual policies as greenwash, and for outlining actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other life on our planet.
Arkady,where did I say that Hansan was uneducated? I didn’t, so why the straw man argument from the peanut gallery?
I did question Hansan motivation, which can lead people to be blindsided by facts and have an almost religious like faith in their position. There is a multi billion dollar industry that is pursing a radical green agenda.
I’m still open minded about the issue. What about you?
Yeah, you should keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.
“He worked in a agency that was having its budget being reduced by 90% and just so happened to find an invisible
Bogeyman to save his job.”
If you are talking about NASA cuts in the mid 70s, when
Hansen moved from studying the atmospheres of other planets back to the atmosphere of Earth, when climate change research was ramping up. A wise move.
Around 1980 he stuck out his neck to measure and explain the 20th century climate record, AND to boldly predict that the amount and timing of the warming in the 80s 90s 2000s and beyond, including the spatial pattern of the warming and the opening of Arctic ocean. His predictions proved accurate.
This is in sharp contrast to the predictions of many climate skeptics after 2000 of flattening (Roy) or cooling, which have not come to pass.
It will be interesting to see what the next few months brings.
It may take longer than “the next few months” and it won’t be particularly interesting, but we’re already well into the start of the next Monckton Pause.
“It may take longer than ‘the next few months'”
And if it does?
Dr. Spencer, in 2010 (~fifteen years ago) you wrote:
Since the PDO has been in a negative phase since 2017 while Global LT temperature anomaly has risen by 2X during that period; do you suppose this indicates that climate sensitivity is greater than you anticipated?
Regards.
Except neither you nor anyone else can know if the current rise reflects a sustained increase or just a temporary deviation.
Wait for few months more to find out.
That is not the question.
The question is about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, https://ibb.co/w7CmvVg, whether temperature data for the period 2010-2024, combined with a persistent negative PDO, contradict his lower-sensitivity hypothesis.
Or put another way, is his model of the strength of anthropogenic forcing relative to natural variability due for a revision?
This is how 2025 is going to go.
Only took 3 innocuous and scientific comments for Roy to block me again.
Roy is afraid.
David,
Maybe not. Many of us have been having problems posting from our usual IP address. I can only post on my mobile network.
Testing.
Roy blocks me because he’s afraid of what I have to say.
Then stop talking nonsense David.a little constructive thought or curiosity might not come amiss.dont need to be an Oxford Don to come to the conclusion that the climate has improved but still has a long way to go to catch up with earlier warm periods, how long will this recovery last?. no one knows,it may continue for centuries as it did many times in the past,or it may end withing your lifetime, such is the nature of climate.we do not wind the clock that makes those changes.
‘Roy’ doesn’t block you, Appell.
Use the TOR browser which doesn’t transmit the dynamic IP addresses allocated by the server of your Internet provider.
And by the way, Appell: no one is ‘afraid of what [you] have to say’.
You overestimate your relevance by dimensions.
David A,
He blocked you because you arrogantly insulted him.
Concorde was nixed as a mass form of transport at least partly over concerns about the impact of it’s emissions in the upper atmosphere.
Where is the concern over rocketry?
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/196aqq7/orbital_launches_by_year_19572023_new_record_in/?rdt=51042
Dixon, Concorde was prevented from flying supersonic over land due to the sonic boom. That cost more than its competitors. The second issue was the crash at the French airport due to a small bit of rubbish causing catastrophic damage. The fleet was grounded during the investigation and then no one wanted to fly on Concorde due to the risk.
There was never any issue due to emissions. So your revisionist view is just plain Willard. Nothing to do with rockets either.
Hello, Anon.
Is there something you’d like to tell me.
Dixon
Are you really worried about a few rocket launches?
How about adding up all the B-52, B-1 and B-2 flights that partly exceed 50,000 feet?
Even a Bombardier Global Challenge 7500 can reach an altitude of about 43,000 feet while crossing the North Atlantic.
The only thing that worries me about climate is how much public money people like you think should be spent trying to understand it and the damage its done to the reputation of scientists.
My point about Concorde is based on old research which pointed out that fuel oxidation products (including water vapour) at cruise altitudes could have significant climate impacts. The fact that the US had the market on commercial passenger aircraft was not lost on those promoting Concorde. This was decades before the tragic Paris crash called time on the, by then obsolete design.
And it wasnt a worry it was a suggestion to look at rockets as a possible cause for unexpected departures from the mean in apparently predictable variables. Thats complex because of the inertia in so many climate variables. Yes, I suspect aviation has a significant impact on climate. Id have had a lot more respect for climate scientusts if they had all given up global air travel when video conferencing became a thing. Id also point out there are big differences in the altitudes we are talking about here but you must know that. Thats why some of us are so convinced that HT must have had an effect on global climate.
Oh how interesting…
Dixon complains about the occasional travel of scientists but is wonderfully silent about
– the billionaires who use their jets every day, sometimes only flying a few hundred kilometers
– the military that flies all over the world all the time
– mass tourism, which causes about a million times more than what scientists, billionaires and the military alltogether manage.
Interesting, really.
***
By the way: interesting too is that after having been able to send a couple of comments using Firefox, I got the next one blocked, causing a ‘403 Forbidden nginx’ output by
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-comments-post.php
This here was sent once more using TOR, a browser which does not communicate the dynamic IP addresses allocated by our providers.
Dixon, aviation does effect the climate. The most noticeable day was sadly September 11th when the majority of planes where grounded. Scientists noted the daylight was brighter, which means even without the visible contrails a portion of the sunlight is reflected away from the ocean & ground.
Of course this could be seen as a positive.
Just bobbing through the posts above, I find it interesting that very few people here are now in denial of the warming and its effects, which most of us now can see and feel.
This contrasts to the outright denial of reality that we saw in previous years and even decades.
Progress is slow, but continuous, when reality starts to bite.
So, according to you, the future is always going to be warmer than the past!
Not every year will be warmer than the next, because there are short-term drivers of global temperature that fluctuate, but in the long run, absent any cataclysmic event like a meteor strike or cascading volcanic eruptions, as long as atmos CO2 increases, so will global temperature.
I’m willing to make a bet on it, but no skeptic is willing to take me up yet.
Glad to see you use the word “reality”, Nail.
The reality is CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
And the two related facts below sound even more realistic:
– No real scientist claims that 15 mu photons increase the temperature of the Earth;
– Only perverse ignoramuses like Clint R. intentionally misrepresent real science, no matter what field – beginning with… the mix of physics, math and astronomy introduced by no less than… Isaac Newton.
Bindi, it’s a NEW YEAR. Why not grow up and end your insults and false accusations?
Your hatred of reality is keeping you from learning. You don’t want to be like gordon and the rest, do you?
Climate pron
https://youtu.be/Xi90AI6aw6Y
The ugly truth is seen from the bar plot – the average is not average. Wild manipulation trying to lower the actual warming data. Shame, doc!
The temperatures of upper surface waters of Earths oceans (say, from surface to 100 m depth) must necessarily reflect changes in incoming/outgoing energy exchange at Earths surface similar to that of GLAT. These measurements automatically account for changes in (a) stratospheric water vapor absorption/GHG effects, (b) any changes in tropospheric and stratospheric SO2 concentrations, (c) any tropospheric cloud coverage temporal and spatial variations, and (d) any subtle changes in solar insolation at TOA.
A color contour plot of globally-averaged temperature anomaly data from the network of Argo ocean floats from 2004 through 2024 is available at https://www2.whoi.edu/site/argo/impacts/warming-ocean/ ). Note that the color scale is for “anomaly” delta-temperatures ranging from -0.17 (deep blue) to +0.17 (deep red) C.
I was gratified to find an EXCELLENT CORRELATION of the Argo-based ocean near-surface (0-100 m depth) temperature anomalies to the variations in UAH satellite-based temperature anomaly data as presented by Dr. Spencer in the above article. That is, in comparing each datasets phasing of periods of relative warming versus relative cooling.
Using either the UAH GLAT dataset or the Argo dataset, there is no evidence of any time-correlated influence from the January 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption and its asserted injection of a massive amount of water vapor into the stratosphere.
Note that Argo-based contour plot reveals the average ocean near-surface (0-100 m depth) water temperatures over the period of 2022 (the year year following the H-T eruption) were actually less than during the two-year period of 2019 through 2020 preceding the eruption. Ocean surface waters are generally considered to be at nearly uniform temperature from the surface down to about 100 m depth. This well-mixed layer arises from wind-driven surface waves and convection currents which distribute solar heating and enhance nighttime heat loss over this depth.
Furthermore, this synchronization of variations in both UAH GLAT and Argo-based global average ocean surface temperature anomalies over the period of 2004-2024 (20 years of data) indicates there is no discernible time delay between the two parameters.
https://corp.oup.com/news/brain-rot-named-oxford-word-of-the-year-2024/
“Brain rot” named the Oxford Word of the Year 2024 following a public vote involving more than 37,000 people.
Oxford University Press defines “Brain rot” as “the supposed deterioration of a person’s mental or intellectual state, especially viewed as the result of over consumption of material (now particularly online content) considered to be trivial or unchallenging.”
But brain rot is not just a linguistic quirk. Over the past decade, scientific studies have shown that consuming excessive amounts of junk content – including sensationalist news, conspiracy theories and vacuous entertainment – can profoundly affect the brain.
Research reveals that social media consumption can reduce grey matter, shorten attention spans, weaken memory, and distort core cognitive functions; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.31887/DCNS.2020.22.2/mkorte
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/01/climate-models-earth/681207/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=flipboard&utm_campaign=all
“From the 1970s on, people have understood that all models are wrong”
Gavin Schmidt
And yet they can be useful, as he noted.
“all models are wrong”
Stopped clocks are correct some times!
RLH, here’s another cherry pit for you to choke on:
“For nonscientists, coaxing useful information from climate models requires professional help.”
Seek professional help.
Arkady relies on stopped clocks.
Stopped quotations are often wrong, and can be used to try to deceive, as you do here, RLH.
The original quote that Schmidt is paraphrasing, was ‘All models are wrong, but some are useful’. It is simply stating that models are not reality, and thus cannot ever perfectly match reality. But they can usefully capture the main features of reality.
Science deniers like to leave off that last part of the quote, to mislead.
Nate relies on stopped clocks. They are useful also.
Cliches are not evidence.. or even an argument.
Says you.
Says me too.
Cliches are not evidence.
Neither are ad hominem, waffle, assertion and any blather that is not corroborative.
P.s.: https://ibb.co/VMPM9F7
Arkady, as long as the blinkers have been removed then science is useful. Sadly with many the only answer is CO. Or it’s the majority affect with everything else being downplayed.
You have to consider the motivation and the backers of the research.
‘Skeptics’ often suggest, erroneously, that they can read the minds of scientists and know their hidden motivations.
Meanwhile the clearly stated motivation of corporations, profit, is ignored. Even when they reluctantly admit, as ExxonMobil did, that their own internal research, which showed fossil fuel emissions cause climate change, was hidden for decades from the public, so as not to harm profits.
Anon for a reason
All the potential forcings have been considered. Most are neutral or slowly cooling.
The only two having much effect at present are the cooling effect of aerosols and the warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases.
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/exploring-the-drivers-of-modern-global
Anon for a reason, feel free to bloviate about “the motivation and the backers of the research” behind the following two reports.
From 1971:
From 1979:
Nate,
That’s a terrible thing for a Corporation’s motive to be profit.
Nah, capitalism is fine. Oligarchy, where govt policy is designed by corporations for corporations, not fine.
At the moment thats where things appear to be headed.
https://www.livescience.com/space/the-moon/what-temperature-is-the-moon
Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster.
–
.https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It was mistakenly asserted, that no matter how fast a planet rotates (all other things equal), a planet absorbs the same exactly amount of heat.
It is the GREATEST MISTAKE !
Because a faster rotating planet ABSORBS LARGER AMOUNTS OF HEAT !
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Evidence?
Thank you, Nate,
“Evidence?”
“Rotisserie, also known as spit-roasting, is a style of roasting where meat is skewered on a spit a long, solid rod used to hold food while it is being cooked over a fire in a fireplace or over a campfire, or roasted in an oven. This method is generally used for cooking large joints of meat or entire animals, such as pigs or turkeys. The rotation cooks the meat evenly in its own juices and allows easy access for continuous basting.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotisserie
“Evenly” and “faster” are incongruent concepts.
Need your physics and math, Christos.
The amount of SW reflected is unrelated to rotation rate.
Arkady Ivanovich
Interesting article.
One of his references claims that the Middle East and North Africa have experienced significant warming since the pre-industrial era.
These two maps of global weather station coverage from the late 19th and early 20th centuries reveal minimal, if any, observation stations in the region through 1950.
https://postimg.cc/w7WshvKD
https://postimg.cc/47Cf6CN6
Its peculiar why Ark would endorse such a study. Credibility is important.
Why is Trump threatening to invade Greenland?
Obviously he is betting on continued GW.
Sorry, Trump supporting coolistas.
It’s mainly just Dump being a moran as usual. But yes, he is obviously banking on ice-loss making Greenland’s resources easier to access.
Because sea ice extent might allow shipping through the arctic. 14 days from Europe to Asia, much shorter than Suez route.
Because Russia depends on GIUK gap to deploy its Navy. Greenland is already a significant problem for Russia.
Because China is trying to get a foothold in the Arctic and Greenland is its best opportunity if it loses grip on Canada’s government.
https://arcticportal.org/shipping-portlet/shipping-routes#:~:text=Cargo%20shipping%20services%20around%20the,along%20the%20Arctic%20shipping%20routes.
From your link:
“Global climate change and melting sea ice, offers more and more opportunities for international transportation networks.
Notably, the trend of receding ice cap around the North Pole could possibly make the Arctic more reliable for scheduled navigation, at least during the summer months.”
Two weeks ago you threw a tantrum over me saying the same thing!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2024-0-64-deg-c/#comment-1696003
Sea ice extent has been generally decreasing since 1400. I object to your alarmism about the decrease observed just in the past year.
Too, the website I linked to is highly speculative. There is not now any trans-arctic shipping in existence because sea ice extent is not going away anytime soon.
Too, we don’t know why there was abrupt sea ice extent in 1300s. It could happen again tomorrow. No evidence exists for either solar or volcanic forcing.
FYI, the US already has a military base in Greenland. Perhaps Trump forgot.
You’re the one who’s alarmed. All I’ve done is present the measurements.
There’s one easy solution, don’t look at the data if it upsets you.
The point Trump is making is that if USA is going to own and operate Thule instead of the government of Greenland or Denmark, then perhaps Greenland should be part of USA.
Nuts..
Its not the first time USA has offered to buy Greenland.
Not nuts at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_the_United_States_to_purchase_Greenland#:~:text=In%201946%2C%20the%20United%20States,island%20%22a%20military%20necessity%22.
Sure it’s nuts.
The fact that he has threatened (or not ruled out) the use of military or economic force, on Denmark and Panama, , two countries who have done nothing to us, in order to acquire there sovereign territory, is absolutely nuts in today’s world.
He is bonkers.
He sure is.
It’s mainly Republicans being catfished by Russia
Sen. Tom Cotton, Russian stooge on idea to buy Greenland? https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2022/01/15/sen-tom-cotton-russian-stooge-on-idea-to-buy-greenland
ICYMI in 2019: https://monitoring.bbc.co.uk/product/c2018djo
He understands the strategic importance of Greenland and the Panama Canal, something Carter didn’t understand nor does Biden. I know he’s floated the idea of buying both and when questioned by reporters about the use of military to seize them does not rule it out. Why would he rule that out? He will be the Commander in Chief of the United States.
Its cooling off again. Not good.
Happy New Year, everybody. Still no appreciable cooling. Could be a step change?
What will you say if it indeed gets colder in the next few months?
I will say it is cooling since 2024, but it’s not statistically significant.
Another bullshit paws.
There will be another record year, just not for a while.
I will say it makes sense-we understand how global temp responds to changes in ENSO.
What will be interesting is whether the mid latitude oceans will continue to be warmer than 2 years ago.
https://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ElNino.vs.aerosols.pdf
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/01/09/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-dec-2024/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/01/09/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-dec-2024/
More physical evidence that atmospheric CO2 is the principal driver of Earth’s climate.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-024-01610-2
“The study also shows an unexpected end to the icehouse period around 294 million years ago”
When human caused CO2 was SO important.
Arkady,the cold was responsible for the low concentrations of atmospheric C02. C02 levels only recovered as the planet began to warm,C02 did not drive the warming.
Ian Brown, I prefer the paper’s explanations which are based on high-precision geochronology (resolution ~50,000 years)…
1/ Low atmospheric CO2 prevalent in the Visean stage which, exacerbated by ~3% lower solar luminosity, caused icehouse conditions. These conditions were maintained by enhanced chemical weathering as “collision between Laurasia and Gondwana in the Carboniferous led to the uplift of the Greater Variscan (Hercynian) mountain plateau.”
2/ Rapid CO2 rise due to decreased weathering by early Permian as Pangea steadily drifted into the northern hemisphere, coincident with the “eruption of at least four different LIPs,” particularly the Skagerrak-Centered LIP (SCLIP) dated to 297 ±4 Ma.
P.s.: You haven’t designed any bridges I should know about, have you?
This is old news. Cold ocean water can hold more CO2. Warming oceans release CO2. CO2 reacts to ocean temperature.
Ark,
I’m not sure that’s science.
stephen p anderson, if you (or anyone else) question the scientific validity of my conclusions derived from this peer-reviewed paper, I expect a critique of specific methodological flaws, misinterpretations, or data inconsistencies.
Unless you have relevant expertise and can demonstrate where the research fails to meet scientific standards, such dismissiveness diminishes you more than it diminishes me.
“unexpected end to the icehouse period around 294 million years ago when large-scale volcanic activity triggered a rapid rise at least on geological timescales in atmospheric CO2, and Earth became warmer and drier”
No, no, no say the armchair ‘paleo experts’ here, volcanoes didn’t raise CO2 levels. It had to be the warming, which must’ve come first!
Give me a break.
Yet all large volcanic eruptions since records began have caused cooling.
Geology can tie CO2 rise at several periods to volcanoes. Once emitted it persists for a long time.
The cooling is caused by SO2 emitted which does not persist in the atmosphere for a long time, a couple of years.
Ian Brown, I’m invoking Brandolinis Law on your broad sweeping statement.
So where is the climate and temperature short term variability during that long period of time,it must have existed,we know since 10.000 bc there have been many such changes, even 40.000 years ago parts of North America were ice free, and people walked out of Asia, hence the physical resemblance between Inuits and some Asian communities ,i was taught this at school some 70 years ago, ps,i dont build bridges, too easy.
What part of high-precision geochronology (resolution ~50,000 years) did you not understand? Cheese and rice!
Anytime I see a study with 19 co-authors, I smell a rat. This paper is obviously written by a group of converted undergrads.
No proof here, Ark, just more alarmist conjecture.
You never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, do you?
It is official now! I was watching the CNN coverage of the fires in Los Angeles, and Michael Mann made time for an interview. He went into great detail explaining that the fires are “definitely” the result of drought caused by climate change. It is a dry year. He got that part right. He did not mention that last year was a wet year. He did admit that the wind storm is a natural condition that is common this time of year.
The real irony is that he was followed by a series of reports from reporters on scene, including Anderson Cooper himself, explaining that the fire was jumping from house to house — rooftop to rooftop — in a fully urban area. So there you have it. Climate change is causing roofs to catch on fire. Who knew?
Not to be outdone, Bill Weir arrived on scene talking about “climate adaptability”. This is actually humorous as he explains that it was a wet year last year with lots of plant growth and now a dry year — all because of climate change. Some of us would just call that variability in the weather.
I need to mention that Michael Mann is a brilliant and honest scientist who would never intentionally try to mislead the public. If there is any error in his statements, it is an honest mistake on his part.
The fire damage is caused by negligence mismanagement of resources and incompetence
https://youtu.be/VFMGEb15FQo
Does Michael Mann not know that drought have come and gone in the West for hundreds of thousands of years? Does Michael Mann not know that the American Indians used to do controlled burns to control wildfires? Does Michael Mann not know that the climate has always changed? Does Michael Mann not know that he is a disgraced scientist who has no credibility? Does CNN not know this?
The Sierra Club and Greenpeace crew are probably toasting marshmallows over the fires, thrilled for the perfect excuse to push their climate hysteria sales pitch.
“Does Michael Mann not know that drought have come and gone in the West for hundreds of thousands of years?”
As he’s written about drought in his paleoclimate research, I would think so. Perhaps he is not the one having trouble understanding the issue.
Well, if he’s such a paleoclimate expert then he knows the climate has always changed.
Rural weather station in Southern California:
https://postimg.cc/47hgHmzg
*sub-urban*
I wonder how many temperature records are being broken in that part of the USA? Will any of the weather stations down wind be used to add to the hot weather records
The usual ‘nothing to see here, move along’ from deniers, as unprecedented fires again devastate the West.
And in the middle of the conflagration, we have Trump offering not help, not prayers, but his assessment of who to blame:
Yep, people he hates.
What a mensch!
Trump is only trying to illustrate what happens with utopian lab experiments like California.
Leftist elites are rarely subject to the consequences of their ideology. However, there might be a few in the LA area who feel its tinges.
Nante, wildfires have always occurred in the west.even during the little ice age they occurred. Using words like unprecedented is silly when you have no evidence to back that up.
The 5 largest recorded fires by area in CA occurred since 2018. This one is likely be the most destructive to structures.
Also at 53 sq miles, this one is the largest in history for LA county.
Sure Stephen, it was their politics that caused the combination of extreme dryness and extreme winds in their communities.
Fire departments are designed to handle one or two fires at a time in a town, not thousands.
Show your evidence that the dryness or the winds are extreme. Have you ever been to Southern California? Have you seen old movies from the 1920’s and 1930’s that were shot in Southern California? It’s a dry place. That’s why the old Spanish Missions were made out of mud. And, it’s also windy because it’s near the Pacific Ocean and LA is on the windward side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They call it windward for a reason, Nate. Your hyperbole is nothing more than hyperbole.
Nate,
Last year, 2024, LA recorded the highest amount of rainfall for a two-year period. Also, insurance companies have been refusing to re-write policies because of the wildfire risk and the over regulation by California. This isn’t something that hasn’t been anticipated.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna186801
“Exceptionally dry conditions and strong Santa Ana winds have fueled the dangerous fires in Los Angeles.”
“Flames were fanned by ferocious winds whose gusts exceeded 100 mph in some places on Tuesday”
”
Southern California has been abnormally dry for the past eight months. The last time Los Angeles logged more than one-tenth of an inch of rain was in early May.”
Nate, do some research. The history of the west coast is one of drought and fires that would burned all year long. This was before humans started putting them out. Valid scientific studies show that the last hundred years have been unusually wet. California is returning to normal with extended drought periods that last in the range of 5 to 20 years. This is not climate change by any stretch. It is also is not mismanagement. Talking points on either side do not have any validity for what is a natural event due to random chance events. The source of these fires (the location and ignition source) is under investigation.
Tim, yes no one is denying that So. Cal is drought prone.
Yet the records are what they are. LA county had the second driest year on record, the first was 2017.
The 5 largest CA fires by area on record have happened since 2018.
Climate change warmth has exacerbated the drying during usual drought periods.
“The source of these fires (the location”
In my New England metro area there are one or more home fires somewhere just about every day. Last Fall after a dry summer we had brush fires.. But the don’t lead to the kind of conflagration, with entire community’s destroyed, that we saw in LA.
Your claim is contradicted by data from NOAA’s Climate at a Glance. The precipitation trend for the October – December period shows no change over time, and there is no evidence of worsening drought conditions during drier periods. The link below provides the data.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/city/time-series/USW00023174/pcp/3/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2024
The reality is that hydroclimatic weather whiplash has always been a normal part of Southern California’s climate.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-06-13-nc-780-story.html#:~:text=The%20drought%20of%201862%2D65,of%20the%20natural%20catastrophes%20ahead.
“there is no evidence of worsening drought conditions during drier periods”
Not measuring worsening drought. But it does agree this year is one of lowest rainfall.
For drought select Drough Severity Index.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/12/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020&trend=true&trend_base=10&begtrendyear=1895&endtrendyear=2024
For Southwest region. Same result for West region
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/0/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020
Clearer drying trend when all months included.
Interesting small differences between
https://web.archive.org/web/20241125043019/https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
and
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
For example
Archive
2024 10 0.73
Today
2024 10 0.75
… and many many other places :–)
The only reason there might be a similarity is abject cheating by NOAA. There is simply no way to compare sat telemetry, which covers 95% of the entire planetary surface, with NOAA surface stations with one thermometer covering 100,000 km^2 on average.
A very interesting article – I had been looking forward to the December satellite data which shows the continuing downward trend after the peak in 2023. It makes total sense that the sharp uptick was due to the Hunga Tonga Hunga Ha’pai eruption and now that all that extra water vapour is precipitating out of the atmosphere – the short term peak is exposed for what it was – water vapour forcing! As for the California fires – we go through regular bushfires in Australia which are predictably due to large fuel loads after wet years, then drying over the summer months, then a high wind day with ignition either from lightning, arson or stupidity and including house to house transmission as well as through the forests. There is no reason to claim it is due to climate change when our worst fire ever in Victoria was 1851 when a quarter of the state burned.
I’ve just started reading this blog and have a couple of questions. Why is 1979 the starting point for the graphs? Is there any usable data before 1979? Thank you.
The satellite data start in 1979. -Roy
Yet more cooling…some 0.15C below the 2024 average. Could the next Little Ice Age be nigh?
tim s…”I need to mention that Michael Mann is a brilliant and honest scientist who would never intentionally try to mislead the public. If there is any error in his statements, it is an honest mistake on his part”.
***
Hope your tongue does not get stuck in your cheek, Tim. Good humour.
Mann has been nothing more than a clown prince for the eco-alarmist set. Only a fake news outlet like CNN would bother to consult with him.
nate…”…we have Trump offering not help…”
***
Trump was talking about water mismanagement in California in relation to the fires. This is a state with drought issues the past century at least yet they likely have the highest water consumption for frivolous entities like swimming pools and car washes.
Trump was talking constructively about re-routing water from the northern pacific states down to California rather than it being dumped into the ocean. Such a concept is being blocked by eco-alarmists who think, for some reason, it will interfere with smelt hatcheries. Not too long ago, the same eco-loonies wanted logging banned because it interferes with the habitat of the spotted owl.
A think to be noted is the areas with the fires have manicured, green laws which require a lot of water. The lawn are well cared for but the fire fuel, like dried vegetation, goes unattended. When a fire breaks out, there is abundant tinder dry vegetation to fuel it.
We had the same problem in Canada. The town of Jasper burned down long after the federal government had been advised by experts that the forests were being neglected re a build up of dead wood, which is a fire fuel. Calls were made to clean up the forests around Banff and nothing was done.
Jasper is in a federal park and people are required to pay a fee to visit in the park. The justification is that the money is required to pay for forest services. Appears it was used for something else.
There were reports that firefighters were hampered fighting the California fires due to a lack of water. That was subsequently denied by fake news outlets like CNN.
This fire thing is an annual event in California yet apparently nothing has been done to combat it. The main reason is that Yanks have a problem paying taxes and when you don’t want to pay taxes you can’t have the services required to combat these fires. We are currently sending them water bombers from Canada along with other firefighting tools.
There was plenty of water avaolable in S CA, Gordon. Trump is blowing hot air without facts, as usual.
christos…”Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth rotates faster”.
***
True.
Also, the Moon does not rotate at all, therefore it heats up on one side for 14 days while the other side is cooling. That heating/cooling is due to the lunar orbit not lunar rotation.
Also, Earth has an atmosphere and oceans that store heat.
A lot of people don’t like Fox News but I have found Fox is necessary to get the other side of stories. Does not mean the other side is unbiased or accurate but it is the other side which fake news outlets like CNN stifle regularly.
CNN has been front and centre denying a problem reported that fire hydrants have run dry. CNN had their star reporter, Anderson Cooper onsite denying the problem. In fact, he had hand-picked fire chiefs claiming it was not an issue.
Here we have governor Newsome admitting there is a serious problem with water delivery.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-gov-newsom-orders-independent-investigation-after-hydrants-run-dry-we-need-answers
I wonder how CNN and other fake news outlets will cover this up?
“The LADWP was initially pumping aqueducts and groundwater into the system, but demand was so high that there wasn’t enough to refill three 1-million gallon tanks in the hilly Pacific Palisades that help pressurize hydrants”.
No surprise when people are likely using it to water lawns, fill swimming pools, and wash their cars.
More..LA Country cut it’s budget that affects fire-fighting…
“The Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) chief warned a month ago that a near $18 million budget cut had plunged it into “unprecedented operational challenges” which would hamper its ability to respond to large-scale emergencies like wildfires”.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/la-fire-sounded-alarm-budget-cuts-impacting-wildfire-response-memo
Trump recently shot off his mouth about Canada becoming the 51st state. He thought he was being funny and reaching through to discontented Canadians who might like to join up. The thing he fails to grasp is that 90% of Canadians have absolutely no interest in joining the US. We regard that notion as a major step backwards. If the US wants to join Canada as a new territory, we might consider that.
CNN:
“Hydrants in fire-ravaged Pacific Palisades went dry early Wednesday, prompting an outcry from residents. While there is plenty of water in Southern California reservoirs to fight the fires, the logistics of getting enough of it to Pacific Palisades and at the rate firefighters need to control these blazes have been difficult, according to water officials.”
https://edition.cnn.com/weather/live-news/los-angeles-pacific-palisades-eaton-wildfires-01-08-25#cm5oh0o8j00283b6n2j292zu7
I looked at one video of Anderson Cooper reporting onsite, and he said the hydrants ran out of water.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L45PLpkfvgM
“Hand-picked fire chiefs.” Quite the conspiracy. Maybe the fire chiefs are saying things you’d prefer not to hear. Certainly CNN is not denying that water ran out. And certainly D Trump has made it a political issue.
barry picks one sentence from Cooper’s brain-dead reporting in which he claimed to have talked to one fireman who said there is no water in that particular area.
All Cooper is doing is walking around like an ijit saying…”oh, oh, look at this, and oh, oh look at that”. What is he doing there, he is an anchor?
The LA mayor just fired the fire chief because she reported to Fox News that the LA fire department is under-funded. No kidding, that goes to the point where they don’t have water to fight this fire.
It’s time they sent Newsome and his Democrat propagandist packing.
There are far too many eco-loonies having their way and it’s time we told them to eff off.
What do ‘eco-lonies’ have to do with the water shortage in the Pallisades?
“CNN has been front and centre denying a problem reported that fire hydrants have run dry.”
So I found a CNN article reporting it with a few clicks.
Your nonsense is regularly exposed by a quick google you are regularly too lazy to do yourself before ranting.
And it took one search term to find a fact check on the issue.
https://laist.com/news/climate-environment/why-did-pacific-palisades-water-hydrants-run-dry
Political posturing is inevitable, as is the reaction to it from people who are more interested in grinding axes than informing themselves.
“The LA mayor just fired the fire chief because she reported to Fox News that the LA fire department is under-funded.”
That didn’t happen, either.
What cesspools of dross are you getting your info from? Facebook, where your preferred views are spoon fed you?
Victor Davis Hanson calls California a Green New Deal, DEI hydrogen bomb. Newsome has been bombing dams and releasing fresh water into the ocean to protect this small smelt fish, and also he has prevented the creation of fire breaks and brush removal from nature areas and around residential areas, as I said, a utopian lab experiment gone wrong. If Pacific Palisades has no water to fight fires, then no one in California has water to fight fires. The high winds are not extreme or new, ask anyone from the area. Nothing has changed except utopianist policy. This is what geniuses like Nate and Barry want. They want electric cars, no drilling, no mining of coal or natural gas stoves. Who is going to suffer? Poor people. There will be mass starvation and privation. Totally unncecessary.
Right on, Stephen!!!
At last sanity prevails,the LA disaster was totally avoidable, weather forecasts for the area were 100% accurate. and nothing was done untill it was too late.same old story,years of neglect, it reminds me of the Australian fires a few years ago.same forest management neglect, then when the inevitable happens scapegoats are found,but do they learn? Not untill nature does the job for them,
“the LA disaster was totally avoidable”
Monday night quarter-backing in full flow. A number of experts have said that there would have been catastrophic damage even if more fund were made available to firefighters and for ramping up water availability.
“Totally avoidable” said the guy wielding a pitchfork.
“DEI”
Ugh.
DEI doesn’t control weather.
There was plenty of water available in So. California.
Urban fire depts and water distribution systems are not set up to handle thousands of homes on fire at once.
We are looking at a situation that is just completely not part of any domestic water system design, said Marty Adams, a former general manager and chief engineer at the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power”
You guys are extremely gullible. Will believe any crap spooned out for you by right wing talking heads.
Stephen makes a lot of wild claims, without showing the sources.
They can be safely ignored.
A FUNDAMENTAL misconception!
It was mistakenly asserted, that the not reflected portion of the incident on surface EM energy gets entirely absorbed in inner layers in form of heat.
But only heat is what SPONTANEOUSLY DISSIPATES from a surface in form of EM energy.
The incident EM energy what it does is to interact with surface matter.
The EM energy doesn’t get transformed spontaneously into heat.
The amount of EM energy degraged to heat depends on the surface’s distinguished features (the planet speed of rotation and the average surface specific heat).
Also, it was mistakenly asserted, that a faster rotation doesn’t affect the amount of absorbed heat.
It is a GREAT MISTAKE !
Because a faster rotating planet ABSORBS LARGER AMOUNTS OF HEAT !
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are again making up fake physics to suit your narrative, Christos.
Nate,
Specific example of what he is making up so we can discuss.
He keeps claiming that SW not reflected energy is not all abs.orbed and converted to thermal energy (heat), but is instead magically converted directly to emitted IR.
There is no physics to support this. According to real physics, IR is emitted only from heated materials, eg blacbody radiation.
There is no physics to suggest that a faster spinning object reflects less SW or abs.orbs more.
He’s observed that planets or moons with higher spin have higher temperatures. He has hypothesized that higher spin results in higher temperature. What’s wrong with that?
Already explained.
There is another reason, related to emission.
Thank you, Nate.
“He keeps claiming that SW not reflected energy is not all abs.orbed and converted to thermal energy (heat), but is instead magically converted directly to emitted IR.”
–
It is converted directly to ‘reflected’ IR.
–
“…IR is emitted only from heated materials,”
Yes, of course.
–
“There is no physics to suggest that a faster spinning object reflects less SW or abs.orbs more.”
–
The faster spinning object doesn’t reflect less SW.
The faster spinning object ‘reflects’ less LW.
Because while converting the SW not reflected into IR, there is more EM energy degraded to heat and absorbed in inner layers.
–
Thank you again.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Stephen!
(The faster spinning planet doesnt reflect less SW.
The faster spinning planet reflects less LW.
Because, when faster spinning, the SW EM energy into LW goes towards the longer waves side of the spectra, so the transformation process is more intense, so there is more EM energy degraded into heat, and so there is more heat absorbed in inner layers.)
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The EM energy reflection is not a pure 100% SW frequencies EM energy.
When EM energy reflection it is a more or less intensive the EM energy frequencies transformation.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“is converted directly to reflected IR.”
Again not by ordinary physics.
Show us a legitimate science source to support this claim.
Thank you, Nate.
” “is converted directly to reflected IR.”
Again not by ordinary physics.
Show us a legitimate science source to support this claim.”
–
Please, tell us, what science says, why EM energy gets only partly reflected?
And, on the other hand, why EM energy is not entirely absorbed?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Please, tell us, what science says”
You are telling us what you think the science says, and I’m asking you to back that up by showing us your source for that information.
If you don’t have one, then we can know that it is just science fiction.
People arguing politics and cracking jokes, meanwhile an area the size of San Francisco is decimated, the death toll is climbing, and those alive are fleeing and losing everything, but go off about politics. Unreal!
Keeping the people of the City of Angels in my prayers.
“The Lord himself goes before you and will be with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged.” Deuteronomy 31:8
Ark,
Unfortunately, it is leftist utopian ideology that has significantly contributed to their problems. That is not to say these wildfires would not have occurred without their dumb decisions but much less probable.
Name specific decisions that have significantly contributed to their problems.
Ark,
Refer to my January 10, 8:28 pm post above.
So you’re parroting Victor Davis Hanson. You don’t actually know anything first hand. Got it.
Yes, I’m parroting him. You’re a genius. How’d you figure that out? He does live there by the way.
There is a difference between parroting and speaking with understanding.
That will work Arkady.it was bound to happen sooner or later,giving the random nature of wildfires, and what appears to be a total lack of forest management, they new conditions were ripe for wild fires,with a gale force wind forecast and large areas of tinder dry fuel on the ground, was the grid shut down ? If not why not, fires do not start themselves.in the UK we have a flooding problem made worse by poor management,drains blocked,rivers and streams silted up ,add on population growth, the building on flood plains because some one decided it was safe to so, under the premise of ,it has not flooded in my lifetime.will anything change? I doubt it considering none these events are new.and no one in power did any thing but sit on their backsides ,Nero all over again,all that is missing is the fiddle.
Significant contributing factors to the wildfires:
1. Diversion of fresh water into the San Joaquin Delta.
2. Insurance Companies canceled policies due to high risk. (Indication of problem)
3. Poor forest management.
4. An antiquated infrastructure causing hydrants to run dry.
5. Budget cuts by the mayor and previous government officials not prioritizing risks that were obviously illuminated by risk assessors.
6. Fire chief dedicated to creating and supporting a culture of DEI in the fire department.
7. Vaccine mandates pushed out a large number of experienced firefighters.
8. Donated fire fighting equipment to Ukraine.
9. Fires started by arson perpetrated by a homeless person.
That’s what Trump said. Why do you believe him?
Why don’t you believe him? Oh, I forgot, he told 20 thousand lies. You leftists counted them.
Has he ever told the truth? Name one.
Name one? Really? That’s your response? So you believe Biden did a better job or Clinton or Harris would have been a better choice?
So you agree that Rump never tells the truth.
No, I don’t agree. He speaks a lot in hyperbole but you leftists don’t understand that. His first supposed big lie was that they spied on him, meaning Obama. Of course, he was right.
Check out the BBC on Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csytgg
“Why does Donald Trump seem to have such a problem with the truth?”
You need to stop watching the BBC.
Facts don’t work for Stephen. It’s better if he doesn’t hear them.
You left out 100 mph Santa Ana winds in a fire-centric eco-system.
In such conditions, once a fire starts nothing can stop the resulting ember storm.
Same as Lahaina.
Santa Ana winds are nothing new. They’re always there.
“Typically, about 10 to 25 Santa Ana wind events occur annually”
Always is doing a lot of lifting there.
So, show your evidence the Santa Ana winds are different this year than any other year. Or any year in the past 5000 years.
Why would that make a difference?
The claim is that the Santa Ana winds and drought due to climate change caused the fires, not bureaucratic policy and spending decisions such as not collecting fresh water, or allowing communities to clean brush around urban areas or create fire breaks.
Trump does not believe in Climate Change.
Santa Ana winds are often there,
in the wet season.
This year, so far, there has been no wet season, normally starting in October.
It is that combo, extreme dryness, plus strong Santa Ana winds that drove small brush fire in the hills rapidly down into town like a blast furnace.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/timelapse-videos-capture-rapid-spread-of-the-palisades-fire-229064261614
Plus extra brush growth from last year which was quite wet.
More wild claims lacking evidence or sources from Stephen.
Seems that he hears some opinions spouted by MAGA talking heads, and he passes that off as facts.
Sorry DEI doesn’t affect weather.
RLH,
Wildfires are a tough thing. We had wildfires here in Gatlinburg, Tennessee a few years ago. Gatlinburg had good equipment, experienced firefighters, plenty water, but it still almost burned the entire town. It happened in the Winter during a dry spell when a couple of underage teenagers went smoking in the woods and tossed their cigarette butts. No one blamed it on climate change. Crap happens. The left are the ones who blamed the California Fires on climate change. They politicized it, not us. We only pointed out their stupidity.
The only person who is stupid is Trump.
You need to see a therapist. Your perception is distorted.
Trump derangement syndrome is a thing.
Get over it.
I’m not the only one who thinks so. We can’t all be wrong.
See Charles Mackay’s book: ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds’ 1841.
Yes, you can all be wrong.
“Gatlinburg had good equipment, experienced firefighters, plenty water, but it still almost burned the entire town.”
And yet you are sure that in LA it must have been DEI, and incompetence!
Everybody paying attention is aware that climate has always changed and always will. The mistake is blaming it on burning fossil fuels. The only human contribution to average global temperature increase is the human contribution to increasing water vapor (which is a greenhouse gas). Water vapor has been accurately measured since Jan 1988 by NASA/RSS using satellite-based instrumentation (no uncertain HEI effect). The total increase in water vapor is about 1.4 % per decade which is substantially (about 60 %) more than possible from just planet warming. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com)
Dan,
I have a problem with the whole Greenhouse Effect. I believe it is thermodynamically improbable. And, is therefore much less than proclaimed, possibly one or two tenths of warming. Not a degree of warming. The problem is there is no way of determining that I see.
Radiation heat transfer analysis does not violate 2L.
UAH6.0 2024 global temperature is 0.34 C above the next highest year, which was 2023.
All the major global surface temperature datasets have 2024 and 2023 ranked first and second warmest years. Here are the differences between the two years.
GISS: 0.11
NOAA: 0.10
Had5: 0.08
JMA: 0.08
RSS Dec 2024 data not yet out.
UAH is a standout for the size of the departure over the previous hottest year, whereas the surface records increase over the previous hottest year is not so extraordinary compared to other record-breakers.
Who cares about fake, interpolated surface data.
Scientists need data to verify or test there models.
You got better data?
The U.S. Climate Reference Network began operations early in this century, which isn’t a long time ago.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/crn/why.html
Even without the December report, all of the MSU TLT anomaly series (UAH, RSS, NOAA STAR) are up a lot more over the 2023 record than are the surface temperature products. It’s not just UAH.
Mark,
While the LT seems to be more sensitive to el Ninos in the global temp record compared to surface, 2024 is a startling departure (at least for UAH, haven’t checked the others). I wonder if the response of the LT this year might eventually lead to a better understanding of the cause/s.
Stephen P Anderson (and RT the Russian-state media outlet formerly known as Russia Today), politicizing the tragedy brought by wildfires ripping through Los Angeles, insinuated a connection between the Klamath River area dam removal project and Los Angeles County’s recent water shortage troubles: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696505 .
The truth is that…
I hope that the next meteor really destroys everything. I don’t want future archaeologists to know we were saying stuff like this.
I didn’t mention anything about the Klamath River dam.
Oh yeah, so this is Trump Russia propaganda. You do know the Marxists are who the Democrats pledge to?
That’s what Victor Davis Hanson is talking about here: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696505
Protip: read the content before parroting it.
Yeah, he was talking about policy. Those four dams could have been used to supply water to Southern California for one. You can’t collect water if you bomb the dams. LA gets a third of its water from Northern California. Palisades Reservoir ran out of water.
His whole point was why are we removing water reservoirs in a state that is perennially short on water?
Wrong!
The water stored in the dams, located more than 500 miles away from Los Angeles County, was primarily used to spin a turbine and generate electricity. The dams’ reservoirs were used to supply water to firefighting forces fending off wildfires, but only in that region, not in Southern California.
But they could have if they had a reservoir. The current aqueduct is 223 miles long. Also, they need to get the new dam going on the San Joaquin River. Been on hold 10 years, mostly under Newsom.
You’re all over the map. Just admit your authority figure Victor Davis Hanson doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground and move on.
I’ll give you a couple of examples of properly managed places: Florida and Israel. Of course, California is not going to do that. It might endanger some clam.
Ark,
These aren’t the first run away wildfires in California in the last 10 years and Newsom has been getting rid of reservoirs and insurance companies have been leaving the state.
Trump tells the truth. Never.
Newsom has been getting rid of insurance companies?
Just like DeSantis in Florida right?
stephen p anderson, beware of Brain Rot:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696329
DeSantis hasn’t been getting rid of any insurance companies. There’s all kinds of insurance companies in Florida even after all the hurricanes.
The problem in Florida is they are requiring Condos to increase their maintenace and repairs to prevent what happened to the condo in Miami.
Florida’s insurance crisis is the result of several factors, including hurricanes and litigation, that have caused home insurance companies to pull back, leave the state or even go out of business. Homeowners in Florida face some of the highest home insurance rates in the nation, with dwindling coverage options.
Where have you been the past 10 years?
From here
https://www.insurance.com/home-and-renters-insurance/home-insurers-leaving-florida
Testing (yet again)
Dan Pangburn
Global average temperature has risen by 1C since 1988.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2025/01/2024-hindsight/
As you know from your physics that would increase the water content of the atmosphere by 7%.
7% in 36 years is 1.9% per decade.
The 1.4% per decade you quote is not only possible, it is probably conservative.
Found a paper that says models predict an increase. The observations are showing that the actual increase is somewhat less than the models.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0702872104#:~:text=Data%20from%20the%20satellite%2Dbased,explained%20by%20climate%20noise%20alone.
If I had to make a criticism, it’d be that the period of observation is rather short.
From the paper:
“The SSM/I trend over 19881999 is larger than the mean of the model distribution of forced trends, in part because of the effects of the large observed El Nio event in 1997/1998 (Fig. 1A), which is close to the end of the trend period”
I didn’t mention anything about the Klamath River Dam.
https://klamathrenewal.org/faqs/
See here.
Newsom is more interested in placating local Indian tribes and environmental groups than supplying the people of California with water.
Trump is more interested in lies.
Remember 2016 when firefighters from across the state rushed to Gatlinburg to battle the mega wildfire only to find the hydrants were running dry?
You do know why? Many of Tennessee’s power lines are attached to poles above the ground. I said before, wildfires are a tough thing. Stop blaming it on climate change.
Tennessee is taking action to control wildfires.
https://www.tn.gov/agriculture/forests/landowners/services/firebreak-installation.html
I have not said a single thing about climate change vis a vis the L.A. fires. But since you brought it up, I will take a look at the data because unlike you, I believe that overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another.
I’m not sticking my head anywhere. I choose to live in a state that has a budget surplus, low taxes, is proactive, and believes in the Bill of Rights. What about you?
I split my time between Texas and Wyoming. Dad used to say that we like to be hot in the winter and cold in the summer.
That’s funny. The whole utopian promise is a lie.
The Utopian Promise I was raised with refers to the concept associated with the 17th-century Puritan settlers’ vision of creating a perfect or ideal society of harmony, justice, and moral purity. The promise was fueled by religious aspirations, the belief in a divinely guided mission, and the idea of America as a “New World” offering unlimited potential for human progress.
Ark,
They even had leftists back then. The USA is the greatest country that has ever been but still not good enough for the utopianists. They would just as soon see it all burn down into a pile of rubble as long as they’re standing on top of the ashes declaring themselves King of the Ashes.
Yes, paranoia (excessive suspicion, irrational fear, and the perception of threats or conspiracies) has been present throughout human history.
Herodotus, Nero, King Richard III, Salem Witch Trials, boogeymen and secret societies; and that’s just since we started keeping records.
Oh come now, Ark, how can we have content-free conversations if we meaningfully define everything?
It is quite evident that water vapor is a True greenhouse gas.
The Hunga Tonga volcano pumped billions of cubic meters of water into the atmisphere in January 2022, leading to this amazing spike in average temperatures.
Soon we will see a precipitous drop in global average temoerature.
This will most likely result in many Grand Solar Minimum groupies to say,” it is finally happening”.
The planet endured centuries of Nini Ice Age cold spells. Now for 150 years or so we have been warming,NATURALLY, through routine cycles. The 10th through 13th Centuries were warmer than today. If no believers, explain working farms on Western Greenland, Vineyards on the Thames,palm trees on Southern Ireland, tree stumos on the edge of Arctic Ocean and the Bristlecone Pine forests recession downward in Bishop California area.
The more we study, the more we learn.
Lake Nipigon impact site from 12,980 or so years ago, the megafauna die off in same epoch and relief carvings in Gobekli Tepe.
We are just a big rock away from anothet big reset.
Quit blaming people for everything.
We are not that imoactful.
All 8 billion or so people, most of which have minimal carbon footprints could all fit, socially distanced 6 feet apart in little Massachusetts at 8500 or so square miles.
This would leave the 195,000,000 or so square miles of Earth void of humans.
We aren’t that important of a player in climate activity as that huge ball of super heated hydrogen bombarding our atmosphere with 1370 btus per sq meter constantly.
Any small variations in Solar output has major impacts on our little blue ball.
Get over yourselves people. We are only this populated because of Natural warming cycles, aspirin and penicillin.
One VEI 8 eruption could send us spiraling into hellish circumstances.
If that happens, we will be digging up lsndfills for fuel to stay warm.
“Quit blaming people for everything.”
Teenagers worry about blame. Adults act responsibly.
Teenagers worry Barry because you bombard them with propaganda, time to take of your crown of thorns and hemp vest,you nor anyone on this planet caused the climate to change.
So say science deniers. Where is your science to back that up Ian?
“Quit blaming people for everything.
We are not that imoactful.”
Oh Noes, the blog’s scanner still is deranged.
Reply thus via pdf on Google Drive…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ct0baHoLOqRzSo11aJpXa-oSNwdc9puC/view
It is a PARADOX:
Earth’s average 288K, Earth’s effective 255K, 288K – 255K = 33K.
paradox
a seemingly absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition that when investigated or explained may prove to be well founded or true
There is nothing self-contradictory about the difference between Earth’s effective and surface temperature. You are fuzzy on the meaning of the word you all-capped.
Thank you, barry,
“You are fuzzy on the meaning of the word you all-capped.”
–
What the 33K is?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, barry,
You are fuzzy on the meaning of the word you all-capped.
What the 33K is?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Are you not familiar with the scientific understanding that the atmosphere affects the global energy budget at the surface?
It’s why the average surface temperature of Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being nearly twice as far from the sun and having a much higher albedo than Mercury.
For those who think a planet’s rotation speed appreciably affects its temperature, Venus spins at a much slower rate than Mercury.
For those who think the pressure of the atmosphere is the cause, one merely has to be a scuba diver to know that a tank of air at twice the pressure of Venus at the surface is no warmer than the ambient air temperature on Earth.
Atmospheric science has the best explanation for the difference between effective and surface temperature.
barry is comparing apples and oranges.
The atmosphere of Venus is based on a measured 450C surface temperature. Also, Venus has a very dense atmosphere as compared to Mercury which hardly has any atmosphere at all.
One cannot compare air pressure to water pressure. Water molecules are bound by weak hydrogen bonds to form the viscous fluid we call water. Since the molecules are bound together, they have an actual weight which builds up with depth.
Air molecules are not related as such and a column of air has no weight as weight is understood. Certainly, one could sum the weight of individual air molecules but that summed weight cannot act as a cohesive weight as we understand weight. That’s because air molecules do not act cohesively as does water molecules.
If a column of air had weight, then the air molecules above our heads at 15 lbs/in^2, when summed over a square foot would have a weight of 15 lbs/in^2 x 144 in^2/foot = 2160 pounds. Talk about having a weight on one’s shoulders.
Hurricane-force winds are another matter. In those winds, the air molecules are moving at over 100 mph and they do act en masse, using our entire bodies as surfaces on which to exert such a force.
https://en.meteorologiaenred.com/How-hurricane-force-winds-impact-the-human-body.html
“Those of category 1 are already more than enough so that the skin of the cheeks already moves and makes you lose your balance. If you get hit directly in the face, breathing difficulties are usually quite significant. Imagine if they are category 5 winds … With that force, they could make us fly without any problem”.
If a vertical column of air had the same effect, we would surely notice it. However, the air molecules, while affected by gravity, also have their own momentum in various directions including upward. otherwise, air molecules would collect to depth o the surface. Water does not work in the same way.
Gordon,
You’re bringing the oranges to the table. I’m not talking about water pressure, just atmospheric pressure.
The differences between Venus and Mercury are components of reasoning to make a point. I’m not sure you understood the argument. You didn’t address it at all.
barry…”Adults act responsibly”.
***
Some examples of Barry’s adults acting responsibly…
1)defunding police and setting dangerous criminals free without bail.
2)allowing men into women’s washrooms and allowing men to compete on womens’ sports teams simply because the men think they are women.
3)encouraging children in elementary schools, long before they have developed sexual feelings, to identify as a sex other than the sex they were given at birth.
4)creating a hysteria that the atmosphere is being warmed catastrophically by a trace gas.
4a)using unvalidated climate models to project unrealistic warming after announcing in IPCC TAR3 that future climate states cannot be predicted.
5)creating an energy budget for Earth based on theorized inputs and outputs of heat.
6)creating a fake greenhouse tale that in no way resembles the heating of a real greenhouse. In this fairy tale, real glass in a real greenhouse is replace by trace gases in the atmosphere that cannot possibly surface trap heat.
7)inventing a fake greenhouse effect that has raised Earth’s average temperature 33C from an Earth’s fake estimated temperature of an Earth with no atmosphere and no oceans to an Earth with oceans and atmosphere where the temperatures are averaged using 1 thermometer every 100,000 km^2.
I see a lot of exaggeration and a bunch of assertions or implied assertions in your remarks. Common traits of adolescents.
Listing the talking points does not make them any more credible.
There is a lot of debate and discussion about the fires in LA. I cannot find any discussion about the possible effects from global greening of the planet due to increasing CO2. The alarmists have to stick with their narrative about warming and climate change. The deniers have to stick with their narrative that there is no effect — nothing to see here. No other considerations are ever mentioned.
Everyone seems to avoid the obvious, that more plant growth means larger and hotter fires. Bill Weir of all people was talking about the effects of wet years followed by dry years, but no mention of the possible effect of CO2 on plant growth rates. It takes water to make plants grow. CO2 is also essential, and if there is more growth, it should also grow faster during the wet years.
There are billions of dollars of research funding going into the climate study industry. Why are there no studies on this effect?
There is no change in amount of precipitation in the data since records started being kept in Los Angeles.
There is nothing to indicate the fires are due to climate change. The winds and the fires have always occurred in Los Angeles area.
The concept of larger hotter fires because plant growth being faster seems prima facie absurd. No insult intended.
The discussion is that there are lots of action items that Los Angeles could have taken before the fires … clearing dry brush being just one item.
Too there is systemic problems with governance and the DEI ESG policies that have really contributed to the scale of the disaster.
Its not climate change and its not due to greening of the earth.
Here are two interviews of interest:
Tucker Carlson and Michael Shellenberger Break Down the California Fires
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdvqSncd4FY
Los Angeles Fires – the Latest Updates! Live with Evacuee Mark Groubert! Viva Frei Live!
https://rumble.com/v68dl17-los-angeles-fires-the-latest-updates-live-with-evacuee-mark-groubert-viva-f.html?e9s=src_v1_cw&playlist_id=watch-history
“There is nothing to indicate the fires are due to climate change. The winds and the fires have always occurred in Los Angeles area.”
Because there were wildfires before people existed, therefore people are can’t start wildfires?
No one claims climate change causes fires to start. Hotter temperatures mean quicker drying of foliage after rains, increasing the risk of fire. California temps have increased. Rainfall hasn’t.
Tree cover loss due to fires has increased in California. Fires are getting worse because the conditions for them to start and burn on are increasing.
There you have it. I do not know these people, and it is not a setup. They walked right into it on their own, and stepped in it up to their ankles.
Clean your shoes! I cannot wait for Nate to come along and spin this with statements I never made.
Defend the narrative! They are so consumed with talking points that they do not realize how foolish they are. It seems that the concept the more fuel causing a bigger fire with more heat is not as simple as I know it to be. If you are cooking on a gas stove and you want more heat, do you turn the gas up for a bigger flame or turn it down?
I could go on about the synergistic effect of temperature on vegetation pyrolysis, but that would be rubbing it in. In effect it is a runaway exothermic reaction. More heat causes a faster reaction which causes more heat — the temperature rises dramatically. Claiming that ambient temperature has any effect on this process is absurd. The only effect of weather related temperature and humidity on plants in a fire is related to moisture content.
I am done here. Goodnight.
Who knows what Tim is crowing about….
So Nate, are you a fire mechanism denier? Since you seem determined to direct you comments to poorly educated people, I will explain.
One of the few solids that burn is carbon. Coal fired power plants have crushers that break it down to a dust so it will burn faster and more completely.
All other fires require vapors. The burn rate of a fire is often controlled by the rate of vapor formation — typically from liquids. Vegetation is no different. The process of turning solid into vapor is commonly referred to as pyrolysis. As I explained above, heat (temperature) increases the rate of vapor formation. More vapor means faster burning if air (oxygen) is available. Faster burning means more heat to sustain a high temperature and therefore produce more vapor. Beyond that, it is similar to understanding the greenhouse effect. It requires some level of education and intellect to put it all together.
Have fun creating confusion and pushing your agenda!
Okay, not done. This is too much fun. With this alternative browser, I can go a lot faster if I do not reply to the sub-comment, but start a new comment instead. This is fun:
[The concept of larger hotter fires because plant growth being faster seems prima facie absurd. No insult intended.]
– No insult needed, you seem perfectly capable of insulting yourself.
LOL Tucker Carlson is a comedian who has made millions teasing people that he is making serious comments. Tucker is one of the smartest people in the news business, and he knows his audience is gullible.
[The discussion is that there are lots of action items that Los Angeles could have taken before the fires clearing dry brush being just one item.]
– It is the oil content in sage brush that makes it so flammable, and why the moisture content is not as important as with other plants. Do some research!
Here is another one:
[Tree cover loss due to fires has increased in California. Fires are getting worse because the conditions for them to start and burn on are increasing.]
– See the paragraph above about the oil content of the sage brush that grows in this semi-arid desert landscape. The trees are only at higher elevation in the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains.
Not enough information. The conditions for ignition and continued burn of fires in California have gotten worse over time. What has sage brush to do with that?
The elefant in the room is Environmentalist activism which includes DEI and ESG factors.
Business Continuity Planning is about preparedness and mitigation strategy that prevents or minimizes loss when disaster strikes. The environmental lobby has prevented clearing brush, prevented building berms and firebreaks, interfered with maintenance of electrical and water infrastructure, and undermined the fire department abilities.
It is obvious to me, even as a non-expert, that there is no way to prevent fires in a fire-centric ecosystem but there is a lot of effort that could have been done prior to the fire to prevent the apocalyptic scale of the disaster in LA. Business Continuity culture has been pointedly ignored in California due to poor government policies. Some go so far as to say its been done deliberately by green anti-human attitudes.
We can argue about the effect of CO2 on the brush and whether the drier conditions over the past 25 years are factors … but the claim of climate change due to anthropocentric forcing is not supported by any data supported evidence.
“The environmental lobby has prevented clearing brush, prevented building berms and firebreaks”
So you say. Evidence?
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/01/13/california-forest-management-hotter-drier-climate/
“but the claim of climate change due to anthropocentric forcing is not supported by any data supported evidence.”
Of course it is. What a silly comment.
Spectral observations of CO2 in the lab confirm it absorbs infrared radiation at Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures
CO2 concentrations have measuredly risen in the atmosphere
Anthropogenic emissions account twice over for the atmospheric increase over time
The world has warmed while CO2 increases, and the rate of warming has increased as atmos CO2 accumulation has increased
The lower stratosphere has cooled while the troposphere has warmed – a signature of GHG warming rather than other causes
This is only a tiny fraction of observed evidence for anthropogenic global warming. There is multitudes of “data supported evidence.”
“The Blue Marble” is a famous photograph of the Earth taken on December 7, 1972, by the crew of the Apollo 17 spacecraft en route to the Moon at a distance of about 29,400 kilometres (18,300 mi). It shows Africa, Antarctica, and the Arabian Peninsula.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blue_Marble
–
There is no visible atmosphere on the “Blue Marble” photographs, because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
But you can see clouds, which are part of the atmosphere.
They reflect light, not absorb it.
Irrelevant to the point. No atmosphere, no clouds. It is visible.
The part that is unmodeled (but instead parameterized) is unimportant?
Are you saying you don’t understand the point being discussed?
If you want to start a new topic, make a new thread.
So the part of the energy being reflected is unimportant?
Clouds reflect solar light. Due to presence of clouds Earth’s Albedo is a ~ 0,3.
Without clouds Earth’s Albedo is a ~ 0,08.
Moon’s Albedo is a ~ 0,11
Mercury’s Albedo is a ~ 0,08.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. It is there, but it is a very thin atmosphere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth’s atmosphere is 480 kilometers thick.
“Very thin” meaningless label.
The atmosphere is thick enough to produce weather. Which is capable of producing drastic temperature variation.
Consider the temperature atop Mt Everest, with much of the atmosphere below it, vs. the Dead Sea in Israel, below sea level, at roughly the same latitude.
Whereas on the Moon temps atop mountains are no different from on the plains.
Nate,
“Consider the temperature atop Mt Everest, with much of the atmosphere below it, vs. the Dead Sea in Israel, below sea level, at roughly the same latitude.
Whereas on the Moon temps atop mountains are no different from on the plains.”
–
At the top of Mt Everest the air is very rare. Warmed on the surface air cannot rise too much, because it is more dence than upwards, because of the gravity.
–
The warming is an ORBITALLY FORCED NATURAL PHENOMENON!
–
Please visit – Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The point that you are trying hard to miss is that the atmosphere matters. It is thick enough to produce a much warmer surface.
Of course the atmosphere matters.
It is cold now in Athens Greece, because cold winds from the North made us cold.
When in the midday the solar rays warm us, but as soon as sun is gone, it is cold again.
It is winter, so the duration of day is much smaller, and there is not enough time for sun to warm us properly.
It is +6 oC at night and +13 oC at late midday.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Reminder for those suggesting climate change cannot have increased fire risk in CA.
This Drought Index data clearly shows worsening conditions in the last 25 y in the Southwest Region. Similar result for Western Region.
The index incorporates both rainfall and temperature, which influences drying of fuels.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/pdsi/1/0/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1991&endbaseyear=2020
Any comment on the obvious periodicity in the below
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/image.png
Yes. I can comment:
In this case the periodicity is statistically non-significant.
Only the trend line is significant.
This is something that armchair experts fail to understand.
You can test this yourself by applying the same filter to randomly generated data. There will always appear to be some form of periodicity – but it is a mirage. It has no meaning.
In really simple terms, it is akin to defining a trend based on just two data points. The apparent “trend” will exist, but is meaningless.
“Only the trend line is significant.”
And if the trend in the future is negative, what then?
“This is another claim of weather variability as evidence of climate change.”
Climate change is a fact with plenty of other evidence.
The warming and drying of the Southwestern USA, as a consequence of AGW was predicted back in 1981. Based in part on paleo records
The drought index data during the instrument period since 1890s are consistent with that prediction.
“And if the trend in the future is negative, what then?”
Absent any other cause for long term cooling and CO2 emissions increase, then that would put a significant dent in AGW.
Short term cooling deviations are an expected result of other, short-term drivers. These are not statistically significant trends. The only stat sig trends we have are of warming.
Anyone feeling confident enough about future long term cooling to make a bet with me? US$1000 under agreed on conditions. I’m confident I’ll win. ‘Skeptics’ aren’t confident enough about their views to bet on long term cooling.
See Fallen Leaf Lake.
Trees grew on the bottom of the lake, 380 foot deep, during a drought.
The remains of the trees are still standing on the bottom.
Can current ‘dry’ conditions be blamed on AGW climate change? Not.
More hot air, Ken.
This is another claim of weather variability as “evidence” of climate change. California has a history of droughts going back as far as the oldest Giant Sequoia trees — thousands of years. The tree rings from those old trees is the evidence. Severe droughts last for many years at a time. They are normal for California. That last 100 years or so have been unusually wet.
Science studies show that the current sea level rise started in the middle of the 19th century. Yes, it is moving at a higher rate over the last few years, but that kind of change in rate has happened in the early 20th century as well.
Once again, CO2 is increasing and it is having an effect, but it is not the only influence on weather and climate.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696721
Here is some expert opinion.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/research/climate-change-resources/faq-climate-change-california#:~:text=The%20last%20two%20decades%20underscore,as%20atmospheric%20rivers%20(ARs).
“Scripps researchers have found that the number of wildfires could grow significantly over the next 40 years. With an increase in summer temperatures, the area burned by wildfires has risen fivefold from 1972 to 2018. Warmer summer temperatures and climate-driven aridity are likely to fuel more wildfires in the future. One Fourth Assessment model predicts that large wildfires (greater than 25,000 acres) could become 50% more frequent by the end of the century if emissions are not reduced, and the average area burned statewide would increase 77 percent.”
Tim S
” Science studies show that the current sea level rise started in the middle of the 19th century. Yes, it is moving at a higher rate over the last few years, but that kind of change in rate has happened in the early 20th century as well. ”
I’m not interested in any CO2 discussion. Only in measurable facts.
*
Where are the sources for your non-committing claims?
Hopefully something more substantial than the usual WUWT head posts by SLR deniers like Middleton or Hansen!
*
I work on PSMSL’s tide gauge and SONEL’s vertical land movement data since years.
Here are graphs showing sea level data from tide gauges and satellite altimetry processing by different groups – and myself as a layman.
1. The data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Or0jeeNG9Or1dPvxzb48QtrsUgeNE8GJ/view
2. The change in rate in the data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view
It is easy to see how the tide gauge trends change over time, from about 1.5 mm per year for 1900-2015 up to about 3 mm per year for 1995-2015, which means that tide gauge measurements and satellite altimetry show the same trend for the satellite era.
*
The correspondence between tide gauges and altimetry is best shown when comparing Dangendorf’s results and sat data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xkdM6bd47s2WWraL2I6p2Nmz3g70JzNL/view
Data sources
PSMSL tide gauge data
https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/rlr.monthly.data/rlr_monthly.zip
SONEL GPS station data
https://www.sonel.org/-Vertical-land-movements-.html
Scripps researchers have found that the number of wildfires could grow significantly over the next 40 years. With an increase in summer temperatures, the area burned by wildfires has risen fivefold from 1972 to 2018. Warmer summer temperatures and climate-driven aridity are likely to fuel more wildfires in the future. One Fourth Assessment model predicts that large wildfires (greater than 25,000 acres) could become 50% more frequent by the end of the century if emissions are not reduced, and the average area burned statewide would increase 77 percent.
The projections made in this quote are based on fairy dust and unicorn farts. The only ‘evidence’ to support the ‘claim’ is the rather specious statement that ‘area burned by wildfires has risen 5 fold from 1972 to 2018’ … leaving out all the rest of the US wildfire data and paleontological record previous to 1972. Its cherry picked data.
Its simply more of the useless alarmism that is interfering with rational planning. The government uses this kind of crap science to deflect away from their responsibility in preventing disasters like the LA fire from getting so far out of control.
There is no evidence to support the claim that the size and number of fires now is out of the realm of natural climate variability.
There was a major fire deficit during the 20th century. Reasons for which are explained in the paper:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1112839109#:~:text=The%20decline%20in%20fires%20during,spread%20of%20many%20forest%20fires.
Your source:
“In earlier periods, changes of this scale were driven by climate; in the past 200 y, human behavior has played a much larger role. Fire suppression practices have greatly reduced fire, whereas global warming has increased the probability of fire. A widening gap, or fire deficit, therefore exists between actual levels of burning and expected levels of burning given current climate conditions”
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/statewide/time-series/4/tmax/4/9/1895-2024?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=1950
Ken, the maximum daytime summer temps have increased 4 deg F over the last few decades, due to climate change.
C’mon, you cannot deny that this T increase should result in drier foliage during dry periods?
I want to be careful here because I do not know how this error happened. The post by Bindidon is wrong in reaction to my very correct statement. The polite response is that it is an honest error and not an attempt to fool people. Using “10 year running means” as an attempt to refute changes in the data is just wrong in every way.
The fact is that between 1930 and 1951 see level rose by about 70 mm (7 cm or about 2.75 inch). It was not until 2003 or maybe 2006 that the same 70 mm of increase occurred. Most of that rise occurred after 1994. That is the point that variability happens in the natural world and labeling everything as climate change does not represent reality.
There was almost no sea level rise in the 1960s and 1970s. Clearly, these effects of short term rate changes in sea level rise can be completely erased by data smoothing as Bindidon attempted to do.
Look at the data from NASA:
https://podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/Podaac/thumbnails/JPL_RECON_GMSL.jpg
Tim, that sea level data looks very much like the temperature data.
Global temp and sea-level have a similar flat trend mid 20th century.. as expected.
No surprise.
https://climexp.knmi.nl/getindices.cgi?WMO=CSIROData/ssh_church_extended&STATION=global_sea_level&TYPE=i&NPERYEAR=1&id=someone@somewhere
Church and White tide gauge plus satellite altimetry.
quote Ken, the maximum daytime summer temps have increased 4 deg F over the last few decades, due to climate change.
Cmon, you cannot deny that this T increase should result in drier foliage during dry periods? unquote
The graph is interesting. I would suggest ‘average temperature’ would be more appropriate than ‘max temperature’ as a gauge. There is a lot of year to year variability in either measure.
Higher T doesn’t equate to drier foliage. See Amazon for details.
Higher T data for California probably only shows is that there is less precipitation. Recall there has to be enough precipitation for the foliage to grow before it is dried out. I would suggest the years of lower precipitation are a greater indicator of fire risk than T.
Dry is Dry. Higher temperatures aren’t going to make already dry foliage drier.
The article I posted suggests there is more fire risk when there is drought but it also shows there is now a massive fire deficit, as in there should be more fires, because of human activity that prevents fires from breaking out.
The human influence is a much greater factor than either drought or temperature in fires like the one in LA.
Look up kiln dried firewood.
It is removing moisture from the wood to make it burn efficiently. Requires months at room temp, but is sped up at higher temps.
Nate,
If droughts have been in the West for hundreds of thousands of years and a researcher at UC Irvine has published extensively about it, then how is climate change the problem?
There’s no logic here. It’s like saying that because species went extinct long before humans came along, how can humans be responsible for the extinction of any species?
Drought severity and frequency responds to climate change. Weather is random, climate isn’t, or Summer would be colder than Winter half the time.
The Polar Vortex is being short-circuited by a high-pressure system.
Some real global warming….
Ah, the polar vortex again. What a handy excuse. Has it been changing in the same direction for the last 50 years?
Child, your comment reveals your ignorance of the science, as usual.
More people are catching on. but we have still ways to go to get the rest
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/13/monday-mirthiness-cnn-freaks-because-polls-show-most-people-dont-think-climate-change-is-responsible-for-the-la-fires/
CNN made a silly interpretation of google searches and WWUT enjoyed the show.
Eben took it all a bit too seriously. I guess the title of the article didn’t land with him.
I imagine that a whole bunch of other searches went down in number as Californians focussed on news of the fires.
Checked google trends for searches in the US with the terms “wildfires climate change.”
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=wildfires%20climate%20change&hl=en-GB
Oh look, a sudden peak in January after 12 months of not much.
You can spin that many ways. Possibly as cretinously as CNN did.
Climate change is beginning to upend insurance markets around the country.
Homes built in hazard areas can be built accordingly — Fire retardant materials, water/wind capable, tornado shelters, etc.
Responsible adults have known this for some time.
Its not climate change that is the looming threat; its that cost of assets have risen and the amount of assets located in risk prone areas has increased dramatically that have made insurance uneconomical.
As an example, a hundred years ago almost no one lived in Florida. No one gave a damn if a hurricane made landfall. Now there are a million homes at risk. This is what is driving insurance out; its not climate change.
A spoof of Ark’s insurance fears:
https://xkcd.com/3037/
LONG TERM is at least 100 years.
Bollocks. The phrase is malleable to context.
1: occurring over or involving a relatively long period of time
seeking long-term solutions
2
a: of, relating to, or constituting a financial operation or obligation based on a considerable term and especially one of more than 10 years
long-term bonds
b: generated by assets held for longer than six months
The classic climate period is 30 years, defined by the WMO.
I’ve offered a bet that the world will warm over the long term, and as you have been one speaking of future cooling, I am very happy to agree on a period that is less than 30 years so we can collect before we die.
Shall we discuss terms?
No.
It is worth reading https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/92/6/2010bams2955_1.pdf before discussing 30 years.
While probing the utility of the classic climate period may be interesting, I don’t believe it is interesting for you except as an attempt to score a point.
What I am happy to discuss is a mutually agreed period on which we could make a bet based on AGW. But you’re not interested in that either, so no worries.
Barry does not wish to conclude that 30 years is arbitrary at best, so no worries either.
I’ve said before that baseline choice is quasi-arbitrary, but why would I make a different conclusion to the paper about the classic 30-year period?
It seems you didn’t read your own source.
“The standard WMO climate normal is a useful, albeit imperfect, metric. Indeed, no metric can be perfect by definition. Climate change, and in particular significant nonzero trends in climate time series, renders the standard WMO climate normal less useful. For use as a reference period average for computing climate anomalies, climate normals retain their usefulness despite climate change, although updating the reference period can lead to dramatic changes in the anomaly values (and their interpretations). Climate monitoring centers should proceed with caution if and when base periods are changed for computing real-time anomalies.”
Your attempt at point-scoring has not made me forget what you contended:
“LONG TERM is at least 100 years.”
Your source offers no support for that.
Arctic Ice Extent has been generally declining since 1400.
‘Long Term’ should perhaps be considered on the order of a thousand years.
Given Milankovitch is 40k years … maybe even a thousand years is ‘short term’
30 years isn’t long enough to discern any meaningful trends in climate.
Since 1400?
Data?
We have cycles in climate that are at least 60 years, so 30 years seems short term.
Data
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aba4320
“A cycle of period ~60 years has been reported in global mean temperature of the earth (Schlesinger, M.E. and Ramankutty, N., 1994, Ogurtsov, M.G., et al., 2002, Klyashtorin, L.B. and Lyubushin, A.A., 2003, Loehle, C., 2004, Zhen-Shan, L. and Xian, S., 2007, Carvalo, L.M.V., et al., 2007, Swanson, K.L. and Tsonis, A.A., 2009, Scafetta, N., 2009, Akasofu, S.I., 2010, D’Aleo, J. and Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, Loehle, C. and Scafetta, N., 2011, Humlum, O., et al., 2011, Chambers, D.P., et al., 2012, Ldecke, H.-J., et al., 2013, Courtillot, V., et al., 2013, Akasofu, S.I., 2013, Macias, D., et al., 2014, Ogurtsov, M., et al., 2015)”
Which graph shows a general decline in sea ice since 1400?
What happened to the LIA?
The Milankovitch cycles put us on a long term cooling trend.
A sustained positive energy imbalance does not require an external forcing.
So you admit there are cycles, but only those that are thousands of years long.
“Plenty of ash but no phoenix.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpRl-0fR2mw
stephen p anderson says:
January 11, 2025 at 12:11 PM
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696547
“He’s observed that planets or moons with higher spin have higher temperatures. He has hypothesized that higher spin results in higher temperature. What’s wrong with that?”
Thank you, Stephen.
–
LinK: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Venus has very slow rotation period of 243 Earth days.
Do you expect its surface temperature to be low?
Thank you, Archie, for your response,
“Venus has very slow rotation period of 243 Earth days.
Do you expect its surface temperature to be low?”
–
We have all kinds of planets and moons in our solar system.
Let’s first formulate for the Planets Temperatures Comparison
THEINITIALAXIOM.
For two completely identical planets (or moons), which may differ only in size, their respective average surface temperatures (T1) and (T2) in Kelvin, relate as the fourth root of their respective fluxes (Flux1) and (Flux2) in W/m2:
T1 /T2 = [ (Flux1) /(Flux2) ] ∕ ⁴
–
The method followed:
We used for analysis all on planets and moons available data to help identify three separate major parameters.
–
The temperatures comparison process:
In order to gather the data, we first used the satellite measurements, which can be compared and reconsider, so to speak, by looking at how the certain deflections in temperatures are shared between planets and moons with similar features.
–
LinK: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
arch…the surface temperature of Venus was measured at 450C. Obviously, something else is causing such extreme warming and would be independent of rotational speed.
Christos, what would the temperature of the surface Venus be with your model. Can you show us the result?
Yes, barry, please visit the pages:
Venus’ T comparisons | cristos-vournas.com
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/452371292
And
Venus’ Tmean 735 K | cristos-vournas.com
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/446364348
Thank you, Chrstos. I’ll quote your results here:
“Tmean.venus = 258.87 K [without atmosphere]
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.venus = 735 K, measured by satellites.
What we see here is that planet Venus has a strong greenhouse warming effect due to the greenhouse gas CO2 96,5 % high content in the Venus’ atmosphere.”
Which of course means that the GHE cannot be ignored for the Earth. Declaring that it is neglible because the Earth’s atmosphere is thinner than Venus’s, is not a quatitative assessment. It is just a feeling.
A lot of confusion here, as usual.
High temperatures on Venus are not due to solar, or its rotation. They’re caused by vulcanism. There are puddles of lava on Venus surface!
So, as on Earth, we can ignore the GHE nonsense.
Io is far more volcanically active than Venus, with constant, widespread eruptions and lava flows, and yet its average surface temp is -130C.
Io is just as irrelevant as is Venus.
Venus’ atmosphere has 280.000 (two hundred eighty thousands) times more CO2 molecules on the ground level that Earth’s atmosphere has.
Whatever influence the CO2 on the surface temperature, it is 280.000 times less on the Earth’s surface compared to Venus’ surface.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s too naive a conclusion, Christos. For examples, the influence on temperature must also account for optical depth, emission profiles at different pressures, and whether there are factors not common to each planet (such as abundant water vapour) that might enhance or mitigate the pure radiative forcing.
Lets continue the Venus/Earth comparison :
Atmosphere of Venus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Height Temp. Atmospheric pressure
(km) (C).(atm)
0 .. 462 92.10
5 .. 424 66.65
10 . 385 47.39
15 . 348 33.04
20 . 306 22.52
25 . 264 14.93
30 . 222 9.851
35 . 180 5.917
40 . 143 3.501
45 . 110 1.979
50 . 75 1.066
55 . 27 0.531 4
60 . −10 0.235 7
65 . −30 0.097 65
70 . −43 0.036 90
80 . −76 0.004 760
90 . −104 .. 0.000 373 6
100 −112 .. 0.000 026 60
Venus has a runaway atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Albedo a = 0,76 (Bond), S= 2601W/m2
(1 0,76)*2601 W/m2 = 624 W/m2
Earth Albedo a = 0,306 (Bond), So = 1361 W/m2
(1 0,306)*1361 W/m2 = 945 W/m2
Lets compare:
Earth 945 W/m2 1 atm., CO2 0,04%, 14 (C)
Venus 624 W/m2 0,235 atm., CO2 96,5%, -10 (C)
Venus
624/945 = 0,66
0,235*96,5 = 22,68
0,66*22,68 = 14,97
Earth
945/945 = 1
1*0,04 = 0,04
1*0,04 = 0,04
Lets continue the Venus/Earth comparison :
14,97/0,04 = 374 times more CO2 but the temperature is -10(C)
**************
Venus’ atmosphere has 280.000 (two hundred eighty thousands) times more CO2 molecules on the ground level than Earth’s atmosphere has.
Whatever influence the CO2 on the surface temperature, it is 280.000 times less on the Earth’s surface compared to Venus’ surface.
*************
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Unless you know how to calculate the GHE, your claims about is magnitude are not credible.
ark…”Climate change is beginning to upend insurance markets around the country”.
***
There is no scientific proof of any significant climate change throughout the planet.
Climate has a natural variability. In the US and Canada during the 1930s, the western interiors (prairies) of both countries experienced drought conditions for a decade. The drought was accompanied by a record number of heat waves in that decade and modern era heat waves are miniscule compared to that record.
California alone has experienced drought conditions for a couple of hundred years yet modern droughts are blamed by some on a scientifically unprovable ‘climate change’. No climate change, the drought are business as usual for California.
Gor… Geographical cherry-picking is a disingenuous strawman that signals your lack of understanding of the coin of the realm.
https://ibb.co/2nvnzZq
In science, the accepted currency include evidence, hypotheses, theories supported by empirical data, repeated testing, independent verification, statistical significance, model predictions, falsifiability…
Glad to see you attempting to define “science”, Ark. But remember, science is NOT beliefs. There is no viable theory if it violates the laws of physics.
The GHE nonsense started in the 19th century. They didn’t even know what a photon was in those days.
Gor…
Acknowledging historical droughts in California does not contradict the reality that modern droughts are influenced by anthropogenic climate change. Climate change does not negate historical drought variability, instead, it shifts the baseline, making droughts more intense, longer-lasting, and more frequent.
Here’s how it works:
1/ Rising temperatures accelerate soil moisture evaporation, making dry conditions more severe and persistent.
2/ California relies heavily on snowpack for water. Warmer temperatures reduce snow accumulation and cause earlier melting, contributing to water shortages.
3/ More persistent high-pressure ridges that block rainfall from reaching California (Remember the “Ridiculously Resilient Ridge?” https://www.alabamawx.com/?p=193514). More recently, the last time it rained more than 0.1 inches in Los Angeles was May 5, 2024.
Modern droughts are not simply “business as usual” but are more severe and prolonged due to human-induced changes to the climate system.
Now Ark, there you go again.
I just recognized you for trying to understand that science is NOT beliefs. And, you come up with “human-induced changes to the climate system”!
Earth is in a warming trend, and you’re believing it is caused by CO2. Yet you have NO science to back it up. Beliefs ain’t science, and a whole bunch of beliefs still ain’t science.
Why is earth in a warming trend?
How long are the cycles?
Sig asks: “Why is earth in a warming trend?”
It’s called “natural variability”.
Various natural events can affect Earth’s temperature. There are lots of theories about changes in orbits, solar, albedo, etc. The most recent example is the HTE which caused an increase in temperatures now going on 3 years.
Solar – cooler over the last few cycles than the middle of the 20th century
Orbitally – Earth has been in a slow decline to glaciation for 10,0000 years, continuing over the next tens of thousands of years
HTE – research indicates a modest contribution to recent warming, or even a net cooling from aerosols, and that the radiative effect was mostly diminished by the end of 2023
You yourself said the effects of HTE were finished quite a few months ago, Clint.
It was the atmospheric waves portion of the HTE that are finished. The water vapor in the stratosphere still lingers, although slowly dissipating.
You won’t be able to ever understand barry. You’re a child of the cult. You have NOTHING.
How, in your opinion, does the increase in stratospheric water vapour cause warming at the surface, Clint?
barry, everyone knows the stratospheric water vapor increased Earth temperatures. Even NASA, that bastion of climate cultism, has admitted as such.
Water vapor, unlike CO2, has a very complex molecular frequency range, able to emit almost a full spectrum. Get an adult to explain it to you.
“Get an adult to explain it to you.”
I already know, but I was curious about your opinion, child. I guess it’s too hard for you to admit water vapor provides a greenhouse effect.
Clint,
You are obviously not able to answer my simple question: Why is earth in a warming trend?
You said “Its called natural variability. Which natural variability?
– HTE cannot explain a warming trend over the past 100+ years.
– orbital changes have cooled the earth over the past 7-8000 years and it is continuing
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1ydT1G2I9E48lvFcit9mFpHPaqg8TEeXGn3gP_Qm_AkQ/edit?usp=sharing
– solar activity has decreased over the last few cycles
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SgAuAvx8O4e6ngL3LJ2X0JordaL8hk3Sh_ud8kn38WU/edit?usp=sharing
You simply has no answer.
Why, over a very long period of time, has Earth been in an Ice Age.
Or similar question, why has average temperature of the entire oceanic surface, been so cold over a very long period of time.
barry — Yes, water vapor can cause global warming, but CO2’s 15 μ photons can not. You claim you already knew the answer to your question. That’s an admission you’re just trolling. Thanks for that admission.
Sig — I answered your simple question, helpfully explaining with examples. Even your cult’s IPCC admits there is “natural variability”. “I can explain it to you, but I can’t comprehend it for you.” It’s not my job here to answer everything about the climate. I’m only here to counter the cult nonsense. And that’s an easy task since you have no science.
” Water vapor, unlike CO2, has a very complex molecular frequency range, able to emit almost a full spectrum. Get an adult to explain it to you. ”
What a bunch of nonsense, based as usual on a prehistorical document dated around the 1990s and certainly based on even much, much earlier radiation data.
The current data source for absorptivity / emissivity is HITRAN2020.
Using the SpectralCalc site, you can present the lines for H2O and CO2 between 5 and 20 microns (the frequency range around the atmospheric window (7.5 till 12.5 microns) relevant to terrestrial IR emissions.
*
1a. H2O and CO2 at the surface
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12n5AfTesNpaIiSlISAGUTCYDH2DaD3Tu/view
1b. CO2 alone at the surface
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gs_moI0J0HfqtzqPsbJowiE2XyxBM8Yw/view
When comparing the two images, we see that though all gas intensity lines are scaled wrt their atmospheric abundance, H2O absorbs at the surface roughly 20 times more than CO2.
2. H2O and CO2 at 10 km altitude
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CHRs4G7IAyWoFDKGPZjH4fA0fSk9JRbb/view
While CO2’s absorption capacity goes down to 40% compared to the surface, H2O’s goes down to 0.5%.
3. H2O and CO2 at 20 km altitude
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b3cDDiSI2mLAO0wPuZe-MbkGX7U05KId/view
Now CO2’s absorption capacity is at 10% compared to the surface, and H2O at… 0.005%.
*
This is known to any scientist working in the area.
And not one of the posters writing on this blog would be able to contradict these scientists when they claim that CO2 plays a role in the climate system.
Not one!
*
Clint R is moreover absolutely unable to accept that not one scientist claims that CO2’s (or H2O’s) reemissions toward the surface would warm it.
What causes warming is that H2O and CO2 absorb IR emitted by Earth, and thus contribute to less energy directly reaching outer space.
Source
https://spectralcalc.com/spectral_browser/db_intensity.php
For example:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9iYwlo2Wo5wfU8GmzzniH2rU3U5iSKw/view
Bindi pops in to offer his false accusations, rambling nonsense, and links he can’t understand.
Nothing new.
The cult kids don’t like “natural variability”. They believe mankind is stronger than nature. Go figure.
We have three examples of “natural variability” now occurring:
1) La Nina
2) The Polar Vortex
3) HTE
How the three interact in the next 10 days will affect January UAH results.
Right now, the result would be a warming over December. Let’s see what nature says….
Any cycle that is not ~60 years long is apparently acceptable.
We have this from Bindidon:
[Clint R is moreover absolutely unable to accept that not one scientist claims that CO2s (or H2Os) reemissions toward the surface would warm it.
What causes warming is that H2O and CO2 absorb IR emitted by Earth, and thus contribute to less energy directly reaching outer space.]
This seems like a confusing statement. Is there a better way to phrase that? Are you an Energy Budget denier? What does 340.3 W m^-2 Back Radiation from “greenhouse gases” mean to you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
Tim S
You are confusing two completely different things:
– my (umpteenth) reaction to Clint R’s nonsense about CO2’s IR 15 micron backradiation (which OF COURSE doesn’t warm the surface even a tiny bit, nor does that of H2O);
– that part of Earth’s energy budget dealing with energy transfer from the atmosphere to the surface in relation to solar input and terrestrial output in respond to the former.
What you wrote isn’t the result of reasoning: it’s rather that of robertsoning.
“water vapor can cause global warming, but CO2s 15 μ photons can not.”
As usual Clint just declares his own ‘truths’, no facts or evidence ever avaliable to back it up.
No logic either: he claims 15 micron photons from CO2 cannot cause warming, oh but 15 microns photons from a CO2 laser can melt steel.
That ain’t science!
Some of the biggest mistakes in the GHE nonsense are in the areas of “radiative physics” and “thermodynamics”. We see that again with the comments from Bindi and Nate.
And the mistakes are repeated in NASA’s bogus “energy budget”:
Reason #3 — The bogus “EEI”
The bogus EEI, Earth Energy Imbalance, does NOT use units of energy. It uses units of flux. Flux is NOT energy. Whenever the cult mentions the bogus EEI, that means they don’t understand the basic physics.
Flux has units of “power per area” or “energy per time per area”. Power is not a conserved quantity, so certainly “power per area” is also not a conserved quantity. Flux “in” and flux “out” do not need to balance, and often don’t balance. A cone in space, with 5 times the area of its base, receiving 900 W/m^2 at its base will be emitting 180 W/m^2 at its final temperature. A flux of 900 W/m^3 does NOT equal 180 W/m^2. Flux “in” does NOT equal flux “out”.
To actually find Earth’s energy balance, energy-in MUST be compared to energy-out. “Energy” must be used, not flux.
But Earth’s energy seldom balances, as both incoming and outgoing energies constantly vary. That’s not a problem, as the laws of thermodynamics control temperatures. Weather is just one example of thermodynamics at work.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
red krokodile, please stop trolling.
Bindidon, please carry on.
Test
Snowstorm on January 21 in southern Alabama.
Arctic blasts are always fun… This one will bring accumulating snow from Houston, Texas, to Wilmington, NC, from Monday through Wednesday.
Snow in New Orleans…