Thirty Years Of Failed Climate Predictions – the video

On June 23 1988, NASA’s James Hansen testified before Congress and made very specific predictions about global warming. In this video I show how he got them exactly backwards, and how scientists and journalists continue to spread baseless misinformation.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
430 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
June 23, 2018 9:16 am

Interesting summary video.

Bob Weber
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 23, 2018 12:21 pm

Indeed. Tony is low-key, humorous, and thought-provoking in rubbing their noses in their own doodoo. Thanks to both he & Toto, and AW for featuring it.

The thing that is most striking today is the complete lack of progress in Hansen’s, Schmidt’s, Trenberth’s, and Mann’s thinking, and down the line amongst the AGW climateers.

They can’t tie specific events like the 1988 drought and heatwave, or other extremes to CO2, yet they are very successful in giving everyone the impression they have. CO2 has increased since 1988, so why haven’t we had more frequent heatwaves like in 1988?

Hansen failed to understand the 1988 drought and heatwave was driven by the rapid rise of solar cycle 22, following the solar cycle influence, coming after solar minimum driven clearer skies La Nina conditions.

We’ve had somewhat similar conditions this year in May. Blazing hot under high UV index, worsening the growing drought in the SW. CO2 was not required for this to happen. CO2 wasn’t required for the 1920’s and 1930’s droughts and heatwaves either.

Ironically – June 23 also happens to be the anniversary of the day in 2014 when I made my first 100% solar activity prediction here at WUWT, which is described in the link above.

It took me about a year to figure out what the AGW crew hasn’t touched in 30 years, how the sun warms and cools the ocean, causing extreme events and climate change.

Jim Hansen’s main competence is in leading AGW cult followers and the unaware to a false belief – making ole Jimmy boy a false prophet indeed.

Greg
Reply to  Bob Weber
June 23, 2018 1:40 pm

The last line of the video sums it up perfectly. It’s nothing to do with facts and all about redistribution of global wealth by controlling world energy policy.

Christina Figeras also openly admitted as much. Sadly that is where we are today.

Chris
Reply to  Greg
June 23, 2018 11:35 pm

What is the redistribution you are referring to. Who are the recipients?

richard verney
Reply to  Chris
June 24, 2018 12:42 am

I do not know whether your comment is click bait, since it is difficult to contemplate that anyone is not aware of the plan.

The redistribution (in the form of climate reparation payments) is from the wealthiest developed nations (those in the West, particularly the USA) to the developing nations (China is classified as a developing nation, so too are nuclear capable counties such as India and Pakistan. China and India are so wealthy that they also have a space program).

Of course, much of the monies transferred to those countries is wasted by the globalist elite, and the corrupt governments of those countries, and is not received by the poor and needy.
Much is wasted on vanity/virtual signalling schemes rather than building gas or coal generators which would give the poor locals a chance to cook with electricity, and a chance to educate/study at night etc.

That is why President Trump said that the Paris Accord was a bad deal, since it made the USA the biggest payer, and that is why he pulled out of the Paris Accord.

The Paris Accord is about the transfer of money, not about CO2 reduction and that is why the likes of China and India (the number 1 and 3 emitters of CO2) get a free pass and are allowed to increase their CO2 emissions. Paris is about increasing CO2 emissions and transferring industry from the developed countries who have to cut back their CO2 emissions, to developing countries who are permitted to increase their CO2 emissions.

Ironically, the USA outside the Paris Accord will be the country that reduces its CO2 emissions the most, and by 2030, it will probably be only the third emitter with China and India ahead of it.

Don132
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 3:24 am

Not sure there is a plan to redistribute wealth. I’m suspicious of such accusations as they assume there is a leftist agenda, yet anywhere you look money and power are NOT going to “the people,” as a leftist agenda would have it, but to elites.

Just because the left promotes alarmism doesn’t mean they are the greatest beneficiaries of alarmist policies. Who benefits? I’d say the big agriculture companies do, as they’re able to appropriate lands from third-world countries, kick people off, strip the land bare and replant with monocrops to export to rich countries (palm oil, anyone?) Or, they can use the lands for “carbon credits,” still kick people off, and few notice. Overall we’re distracted by the MUCH BIGGER problem of global warming: who cares if land grabs happen, if we don’t control CO2 we won’t have a planet? Another beneficiary is the fishing industry, as overfishing is a huge problem that affects reef health but it generally ignored. How about dam builders who go to third-world countries, do they benefit? Can they sell dams as “clean” energy and then destroy the landscape and kick off inhabitants as part of the do-gooder CO2 fighting agenda? We could make a long list of those who benefit from the CO2 agenda, but at the top of the column of “who loses?” would be “the people,” meaning those at the very bottom of the economic ladder who might have only land to enable them to live decent lives. This land is being taken from them. This whole thing may be promoted by “the left” but it’s hardly a leftist agenda. And it’s hardly a scheme to redistribute wealth to third-world countries, unless it’s to grease the palms of those who are all-too-eager to sell out to to the interests of the rich nations.

I look around and I see that my well-off friends really don’t give a crap about curtailing emissions, unless it’s to buy a Prius or to use LED lightbulbs. Do they jet around? Yes. Drive here and there? Yes. Go on ocean cruises? Yes. Buy junk stuff for parties that just gets thrown away? Yes. The list goes on. But you folks with only land to feed you, we need that land for our good works, whatever those may be, and we know what’s best so hand your land over. And, thank you for helping to save the planet. THAT is the “agenda.”

sycomputing
Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 6:43 am

“Not sure there is a plan to redistribute wealth. I’m suspicious of such accusations as they assume there is a leftist agenda, yet anywhere you look money and power are NOT going to “the people,” as a leftist agenda would have it, but to elites.”

Don, you may not quite understand the Progressive agenda. That most of the money and power go to a small group of elites IS the idea.

Don132
Reply to  sycomputing
June 24, 2018 4:31 pm

Support this, sycomputing, with some evidence? That’s not how I understand Progressives, not to be confused with leftists nor with fascists. I’m not arguing that wealth isn’t being siphoned from poor countries to rich elites; I’m arguing that the CO2 warming scam serves to distract us from how this is happening. Because it’s all for a good cause, isn’t it? Maybe we’re not so far apart after all.

ferd berple
Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 6:57 am

The Paris accord takes money from poor people in the rich countries and gives it to the rich people in poor countries in return for keeping their countries poor.

The agreed amount is $100 billion per year in return for keeping billions of people in perpetual poverty.

This money was never intended to go to these poor people. It is payoff money to bribe the politicians in poor countries to hold back industrial development.

Trevor
Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 6:58 am

DonJuan32 ::
You NEED to READ and…………. GET OUT MORE !
Read : UN Agenda 21 signed at Rio !
Also , Read : UN Agenda 2030 One-World-Government
and then re-read what you have written above !
NOTHING LIKE AS moderate AS YOU IMAGINED !

Don132
Reply to  Trevor
June 24, 2018 4:31 pm

Trevor, got any good links?

Trevor
Reply to  Don132
June 25, 2018 1:02 am

TRY GOOGLE !

Don132
Reply to  Trevor
June 25, 2018 3:02 am

Thanks for being helpful! Anything more specific, such as a particularly insightful essay you’d recommend?

WXcycles
Reply to  Trevor
June 25, 2018 5:19 am

Please buy a new keyboard DonJuan and Trevor, your caps-lock key is broken or sticky and it’s making you both seem like you’re off your rockers.

Don132
Reply to  WXcycles
June 25, 2018 6:51 am

Fonzie was right after all!! Level of discourse here can really suck.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 7:50 am

Power and money going to the elites is the natural order of things, especially in the case of leftist regimes. It has always been that way and is that way now.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 7:59 am

Don132 – June 24, 2018 3:24 am

Not sure there is a plan to redistribute wealth. ………………….. yet anywhere you look money and power are NOT going to “the people,” as a leftist agenda would have it, but to elites.

Don132, just what the ell does the leftist leader’s agenda to extort TRILLION$ of taxpayer dollars via the guise they are going to “redistribute wealth” have anything to do with aiding or empowering the “little people” of the world.

Don132, how many TRILLION$ of taxpayer dollars have been expended on The Great Society Program (The War On Poverty) since LBJ signed it into Law in 1964, …. and poverty is more rampant NOW, …… than THEN. The latest figure, more than 60 million Americans receiving “food stamps”, and most assuredly, most of them are living in government provided/subsidized housing.

Don132 – June 24, 2018 3:24 am

Overall we’re distracted by the MUCH BIGGER problem of global warming: who cares if land grabs happen, if we don’t control CO2 we won’t have a planet?

Don132, claiming that you “were/are distracted” really doesn’t come close to explaining what “your problem” is. “DUH”, distractions are easily corrected/explained with very little effort by parties involved. Whereas, your problem concerning your nurtured religious belief (small ‘r’) of CAGW is an OFFENSIVE distraction to learned individuals which they can not easily correct you of.

So, ….. GETTA CLUE, …… iffen you and your “like-minded” ever learn to control atmospheric CO2 at the ppm quantity you stipulated, ……. then you and your “like-minded”, plus a billion or so other individuals, will not be around very long to enjoy your 280+- ppm CO2 atmosphere.

Don132
Reply to  Sam C Cogar
June 24, 2018 4:23 pm

Holy smokes! Did I touch a nerve or what? Understand that I think the CO2 warming scam is just that. However, I don’t buy into the left/right dichotomy that says it’s about redistribution of wealth– except that it’s redistribution from poor to rich, yes. For those of you who say I need to get out more and read more, I suggest you look up a little documentary called “Everything is a Rich Man’s Trick.”

And it IS a distraction. And it DOES distract us from real problems: deforestation, land grabs, overfishing, etc. It’s like a magic trick: don’t look here, look there.

Now there fellas, I think we’re descending into name calling and insults just a wee bit, no? Yes, I may be wrong. Or, there may be something to what I say. So let’s discuss this as adults, or is that too much to ask? I’m willing to admit I’m wrong! Really! Just show me the facts.

Gerkenstein
Reply to  Don132
June 29, 2018 8:57 am

It’s sold as redistribution from poor to rich… So was communism. It never works out that way.

Stonyground
Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 10:31 am

You don’t need to be any kind of virtue signaller to buy LED lightbulbs, they are superior to both fluorescent and incandescent bulbs. A little expensive to buy initially but much brighter, longer lasting and use less energy.

MarkW
Reply to  Stonyground
June 24, 2018 11:37 am

The only lights in my house that aren’t LED are a few closets where the lights only get turned on a couple of times a month.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Stonyground
June 24, 2018 3:30 pm

Then let LEDs drive fluorescent bulbs out of the market. Government law forcing purchase of what is not wanted is tyranny.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 24, 2018 3:53 pm

There is no government law forcing you to purchase any kind of light bulb. If you disagree with me, please post a link to the relevant law.

Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:00 pm

LOL @ Pat FranK.
.
The government requires you to purchase liability insurance to drive an automobile on public roads. You call that “tyranny?”
.
The government requires you to purchase seat belts and catalytic converters on a new car. You call that “tyranny?”

sycomputing
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:11 pm

You’re laughing at Pat Frank when you submit a Red Herring/False Equivalence logical fallacy objection to his argument? Shouldn’t you first pull the log out of your own eye before you point out the (nonexistent) log in Pat’s eye?

By the way, your website configuration isn’t complete – do fix it:

sunspotshurricanesandglaciers.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for *.sites.myregisteredsite.com Error code: SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN

Reply to  sycomputing
June 24, 2018 4:31 pm

It is not a false equivalence, its reality.

sycomputing
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:48 pm

“It is not a false equivalence, its reality.”

You mean because comparing the required purchase of liability insurance that covers someone else’s property in the case of an accident that you cause is the same thing as requiring you to buy a certain light bulb for your own house?

Reply to  sycomputing
June 24, 2018 5:00 pm

1) Liability insurance doesn’t cover someone else’s property. It covers the damage that you do. For example the medical bills you cause are not “property”.
.
2) There is no “law” requiring you to buy a certain light bulb for your house.

sycomputing
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 5:08 pm

I’m so much smarter now that I’ve chosen to interact with you.

Let’s never do it again?

Reply to  sycomputing
June 24, 2018 5:16 pm

You can choose to do whatever you want, but when you need to get smarter, I’ll be available for interaction with you.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:26 pm

The only intelligence anyone has ever gained when dealing with you, is the knowledge of how futile trying to deal with you is.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:25 pm

One constant with trolls, they never let go of a good lie.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 25, 2018 4:17 am

Canada’s Energy Efficiency Regulations are published on the Natural Resources Canada website. The Canadian federal government banned the import and sale of 75- and 100-watt incandescent bulbs, effective 1 January 2014. On 1 January 2015, 40- and 60-watt bulbs were also banned.

Allan
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 26, 2018 4:12 am

@paul.

You arent required to have liability insurance or wear a seatbelt on your own property (at least in my country). So those examples are indeed red herrings.

Whilst its true that no one is preventing you from installing incandescent bulbs, many countries (including mine) have made the sale of them illegal. The simplest way of forcing you not to have them. To call it tyranny is perhaps a stretch, but to just pretend it doesnt exist and equate it to public space rules is dishonest.

Cube
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:13 pm

Yes

Pat Frank
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:33 pm

I do call that tyranny, C. Paul LOL.

People have a right to not wear seat belts. They do not have a right to force publicly funded care when they are injured in a crash.

Insurance companies can include a seatbelt clause in their contracts. The smart ones would do.

No seat belt = no payout on a crash, unless a motorist has paid a no-seatbelt premium.

Let the market decide. The serious benefit is that no legal precedent is set to legally enforce behavior.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 24, 2018 4:50 pm

You are correct that people have a right not to wear seat belts. However, you cannot purchase a new car without them. Changing the subject from “purchase” to “use” doesn’t help you. Insurance companies are not the government, do you know the difference between the two?

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:27 pm

1) Seat belts were offered in cars long before government decided that it would mandate them.
2) Many states you can be pulled over and given a ticket if you aren’t wearing a seatbelt.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:25 pm

Once again CPP tries to glide close enough to the truth in order to hide his lie.
The only liability insurance you are required to buy is to cover any damage you might do to someone else.

And of course, just because government tyranny is used to force people to protect themselves, doesn’t change what it is.

Reply to  sycomputing
June 24, 2018 4:30 pm

sycomputing, the link you provided does not mandate the PURCHASE of any specific light bulb. Is English your 2nd language?
..
Please re-read this and get back to me: “It does not ban the use or purchase of incandescent bulbs.” (from your link)

sycomputing
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:41 pm

” Is English your 2nd language?”

Bada bing!

Clearly logic has no part in yours…

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

‘Please re-read this and get back to me: “It does not ban the use or purchase of incandescent bulbs.” (from your link)”

Nice job cherry picking the text:

“It does not ban the sale or manufacture of ALL incandescent bulbs, just those common household incandescent (and other) bulbs that are not energy-efficient.”

For your edification:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/65/Cherry-Picking

Reply to  sycomputing
June 24, 2018 5:10 pm

ROTFLMFAO …. “sale or manufacture ” is not PURCHASE

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:29 pm

sale is not purchase?
Apparently CPP has his own private language.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:28 pm

Yea, the government wrote the law so that it was impossible to make an incandescent bulb that would meet the law.
But there was no law that specifically mentioned incandescent.
And the troll actually believes that relieves government of all responsibility.

Pat Frank
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 4:26 pm

From the Washington Post: “The federal government caught on to the high cost and energy consumption of lighting in 2007 and passed a law decreeing that lightbulbs must be three times more efficient by the year 2020. Congress didn’t outlaw the old-fashioned “Edison” lightbulb — so named because it’s what we’ve used since Thomas Edison’s time — but it may as well have, because no incandescent bulb comes anywhere close to meeting the new standard.

States then had the choice to accelerate the change, and California moved ahead with it. Starting this New Year’s Day, California retailers must exhaust their supply of incandescents and then sell only bulbs that meet the new standard, which means LEDs and compact fluorescent lightbulbs. The rest of the nation will follow in two years.

Passing a law setting unnecessary standards so as to force a market outcome is just another way of forcing purchase by law.

Reply to  Pat Frank
June 24, 2018 4:45 pm

” is just another way of forcing purchase by law.” ……that is your opinion, and the LAW does not force you to do anything.
..
You posted “Government law forcing purchase “…….there is no such law.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:29 pm

The troll is holding onto his fig leaf with all it’s might.
The only one being fooled is the troll.

Pat Frank
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 25, 2018 9:43 am

Build your own private world, C. Paul LOL, where only your views exist. And welcome to it.

MarkW
Reply to  C. Paul Pierett
June 24, 2018 7:23 pm

CPP, are you really this ignorant, or do you just hope everyone else is.
There are laws on the books OUTLAWING bulbs that use more than a certain wattage. The only way to get a usable amount of light out of a bulb while still staying within the law is to use CFL or LED.

Reply to  Don132
June 24, 2018 8:27 pm

“Just because the left promotes alarmism doesn’t mean …”

Alarmism isn’t specific to the left, but specific to people who when they don’t understand something, believe what they are told by people like themselves, rather than apply the proper due diligence towards listening to both sides of an issue before taking a position. This malady affects anyone who votes a party line for the parties sake and this includes most legislators.

Alarmism is a powerful motivator that the IPCC has applied to coerce conformance to their narrative. It was made even more powerful by being ‘justified’ with complicated sounding science promoted with the message “We know what we’re doing, so If you don’t believe us, you’re denying reality”. This is precisely why the left adopted alarmism in their demonization of Trump, as it facilitates promoting fear without requiring facts.

Of course, CAGW is a UN political goal and the scientific truth doesn’t matter. Unfortunately, many of the lemmings on the US left following their leaders are oblivious to the facts and the underlying motivation of the UN, as are many of their leaders.

Many of the scientists and other believers in the CAGW hypothesis are seriously conflicted between the scientific truth and their political identity which doesn’t allow them the flexibility to change their minds, and not even the scientific method can transcend this bias. This is why politics and science must never be allowed to mix again.

Don132
Reply to  co2isnotevil
June 25, 2018 3:13 am

Thank you co2isnot evil for saying something calm and reasoned that directly addresses some of the thoughts I had. Apparently some replies jumped to the conclusion that I support CAGW, when I think it’s the biggest piece of pseudoscientific junk ever. The comments were not encouraging.

Maybe fonzie was right! (re: another topic at WUWT)

MarkW
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 11:35 am

Chris specializes in pretending ignorance.

Michael Canoy, PhD
Reply to  Greg
June 24, 2018 1:50 pm

Absolute BS! You can’t even differentiate between Climate and Weather.

Reply to  Michael Canoy, PhD
June 24, 2018 2:51 pm

Nobody can differentiate Climate from Weather. What is the ideal Climate? Nobody knows. The idea that you can average temperature world wide is bogus as well. It is simply not a good indicator of what is going on. You can have an above average temperature for July, except for that tiny bit of frost, and you can kiss your climate good bye.

Felix
Reply to  rishrac
June 24, 2018 2:58 pm

To me, climate change that matters if from the height of the Medieval Warm Period to the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum.

But for really significant CC, you need the big swings, from the depths of the Last Glacial Maximum to height of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

The little cycles within secular trends, such as those during our Current Warm Period, matter a little bit, as per the Dust Bowl, but are barely climatic phenomena. Average WX fluctuates in ~30 year cycles, but the Holocene has been fairly stable. The long term trend however is toward colder, so any little bit of warming is a good thing.

Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 5:20 pm

Felix, you don’t need a prolonged period of cold to starve to death or to set off a huge exodus of people. If there is a definition of ‘climate’ it is climate is general and weather is specific…. I agree with what you wrote.

Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 9:22 am

Now that you have looked at Hansen’s 1988 video have a look at a more recent one to see just how mad this madman is. See if you can spot the circular reasoning in one of his points.

2hotel9
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 9:37 am

Wow, was so distracted by the spinning about it almost eluded me! Makes me wonder if that Polo shirt is made of hair? And did he leave his sandwich board blazoned with Doom Is Nigh in the green room? Such a depressing way to view life, wonder how he wakes each day to face it.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 9:41 am

If you can’t spot the circular reasoning in one of his arguments, then try to answer an easier test question. What 2 concepts did Hansen mixup?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 11:02 am

I can’t stomach listening to him and his lies for very long, but he certainly uses every trick in the book to push his propaganda. He is the quintessential liar, and he’s good at it.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2018 12:03 pm

According to Hansen, “something else” causes an initial warming. It doesn’t matter what the initial cause is, but C02, which is then released by said warming then kicks in, causing further warming. The Stupid, it burns. CO2, to these freaks, is like a fire-breathing dragon, which, once awakened, becomes a force unto itself. But, even within their own stupid logic, what stops it from becoming runaway? How does it go, sometimes suddenly, into cooling? Crickets.

Kozlowski
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 24, 2018 2:07 pm

A better analogy is that they want you to believe if you put on an extra blanket to make you a little warmer at night, that you will create run away warming under the blanket which will result in spontaneous human combustion.

richard verney
Reply to  Kozlowski
June 24, 2018 8:02 pm

Think of one of those silvery thermal IR blankets (which in practice substantially work by inhibiting convection – that is why they need to be wrapped around you, not say position a couple of feet from you)..

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 11:09 am

I only watched a little over three minutes, where Hansen mixed up the concepts of energy and heat — that’s where I stopped watching. It was too painful to proceed, after he said that CO2 absorbs heat.

NOTHING “absorbs” heat. To think otherwise is almost as absurd as saying, “I collected three pounds of work today.” Heat is NOT, in and of itself, a stuff that can be absorbed or “trapped”, just as work is NOT, in and of itself, a stuff that can be collected.

Phillip Bratby
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 23, 2018 12:02 pm

Quire right. No proper physicist would mix up the concepts of heat with energy.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 24, 2018 9:53 am

>>
No proper physicist would mix up the concepts of heat with energy.
<<

Really? The old units of heat are calories or BTUs. Both are convertible to joules. The SI unit for heat is the joule. The first law of Thermodynamics is an energy equation which includes both a heat term and a work term. You can use any energy unit for heat–including ft-lbs, Newton-meters, watt-seconds, ergs, etc.

Jim

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 23, 2018 12:51 pm

Very good. Go to the head of the CO2 101 class. Now we are all learning something. Heat is not IR. IR is electromagnetic radiation or if you will, light; light that can’t be seen by the human eye. Everything in this universe eventually breaks down into subatomic particles. Heat itself is not a physical commodity. It is only a measure of the excitation or vibration of the molecules that it affects. Einstein’s equation of E =mc^2 only relates to the massive amount of energy contained within each particle of mass in relation to that mass. When something is burned, the chemical reaction produces different elements plus heat. If a carbon source is burned, CO2 is always produced along with heat. That heat eventually escapes to the rest of the universe through outer space. If it was possible to burn up all the non star materiel in the universe, the heat produced would eventually all find its way into the void of space. Because space is infinite, you cannot heat up outer space.

The heat death of the universe happens after both events of everything burning and /or everything decaying. When the heat death of the universe happens, it is NOT because there is less heat. The heat doesnt even disappear when the molecule that it is contained in ; decays into subatomic particles. Before that happens it just gets spread out to more and more of outer space. Outer space is NOT a perfect vacuum. A perfect vacuum is impossible. Because outer space is infinite you have an infinite amount of space absorbing a finite amount of heat. Thus the amount of heat per volume gets smaller and smaller as time goes on and the closer the universe gets to absolute ZERO. Nothing moves at absolute ZERO. However even absolute ZERO is impossible because even after every molecule decays to a subatomic particle, the space will still contain these subatomic particles. The heat even then is still there. Witness the average temperature of outer space is 2K. Even if all of outer space broke down to subatomic particles the average temp would still be a little bit above 0 K. ABSOLUTE ZERO would mean that there is no heat. But we have just demonstrated that the heat does not disappear. It simply gets spread out more and more over an increasing amount of space. Heat never stops moving. It is the lowest entity in the tree of the universe. You cannot go backward from heat. Heat can never be transformed into a materiel object because it is motion not matter. That motion can never be stopped completely. this concept is known as Entropy. Total entropy always increases.

Now back to Hansen and heat.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html

The above article shows how Hansen and GISS a division of NASA have screwed up the concept of heat and light. Hansen seems to think they are equal or the same thing. That they ARE NOT can be easily shown by focusing the suns rays (using a lens) on a tiny spot on a leaf. The leaf will start burning producing heat. The earth’s atmosphere is composed of almost 99% O2 and N2 and slightly less than 1% argon. The rest of the atmosphere is trace gases like CO2 which is 410 ppm.

Imagine if you had a container outdoors (size doesnt matter) and put thermometers in there. Suck out all the air so that it is almost a vacuum. Assume that outdoor temp is anywhere from 10 to 30 Celsius (Actual temp doesnt matter). Put the outside air back in so that the pressure is the same. Then suck out all the CO2 and all the H2O. The temp will drop so little that you cannot measure the drop. The heat capacity of O2 and N2 is 4000 times the heat capacity of CO2. It will remain essentially the same temp as outside air. Wait until winter until outside air drops to below freezing. Eventually the container temperature will drop so that it eventually equals the freezing temp outside. So what happened? The remaining O2 N2 and argon radiated IR to the walls of the container which radiated it to the outside. Just like a thermos bottle does. Everything contains heat and everything radiates IR. The O2 N2 and argon is why the container’s temperature was the same as the outside. So the O2 N2 and argon lost enough heat until the temperatures inside and outside were the same. So that means that the O2 N2 and argon were holding more than 4000 times the heat that CO2 does. That means that O2 N2 and argon are also greenhouse gases. The only difference is that they do not absorb IR like CO2 and H2O do. But they do absorb other forms of electromagnetic radiation (the short wavelengths) . If they didnt do that they couldnt contain any heat within their molecules and they would be at absolute ZERO. So the physics is all wrong within the computer models. Sure CO2 contains a little heat and absorbs a little IR but again I repeat. The heat capacity of O2 and N2 is 4000 times the heat capacity of CO2.

I contend that any heat increase since 1950 is because the world’s population has tripled and the world’s energy usage has increased 5 fold.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 1:59 pm

Alan T, Its not a heat capacity problem! Many make this false assumption. It is not an ideal gas type situation either. CO2 DOES absorb infra red of specific wavelenghts which causes the molecule to vibrate (flex rapidly) and re-emit infra red. This temporary absorption retards the passage of IR photons and even emits them in different directions because of constant changing orientation and motion of the molecule.

There’s nothing worse than fighting the CAGW stuff alongside sceptics who dont know the basics. This wrong-headed stuff gets thrown back in our faces by the CAGW sude all the time.

MarkW
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 23, 2018 3:43 pm

CO2 atoms also transfer the vibrational energy to other molecules.
Where the atmosphere is thick, like down at sea level, this transfer happens faster than re-emission does.

Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2018 5:10 pm

About 40,000 times faster.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2018 10:07 pm

Collisions dont count or else a room of air would heat up by itself. What happens when a CO2 molecule that is vibrating and then collides? No one really knows but collisions are happening every picosecond. Obviously vibrating CO2 collisions with N2 and O2 don’t increase heat or else again a room would heat up by itself. Don’t forget the floor and walls are also emitting IR. So I must conclude that this backradiation is very overhyped. Modest never even mentions it in his textbook.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 8:18 am

Alan

“Collisions dont count or else a room of air would heat up by itself.”

This is a conceptual error. The temperature of the room does not rise because the total energy of all the molecules is constant, however there is definitely energy transfer between the molecules. This causes any excess heat at one point in the room to spread via collisions throughout the room, with the only difference in the end being the lapse rate between the ceiling and the floor causing a small difference due ot pressure.

Heating any parcel of air by one degree will see that heat eventually spread through the room until the energy transferred between molecules is equal (it does not stop). This continuous interchange causes Brownian motion.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
June 24, 2018 10:18 am

You definitely get thermal equilibrium but no rise in overall temperature unless an external heat source. Deserts at night lose less heat if cloudy but they still lose heat and get colder than the day. Back radiation is overhyped or rainforest temperatures would go through the roof. They are actually cooler than desert temperatures.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 4:37 pm

Alan, what happens is that IR photons get turned into kinetic energy.

That’s what happens when CO2 absorbs IR and transfers that energy by collision to N2 and O2. Radiant energy is converted into kinetic energy = heat.

The real question is what the climate does in response. There are several rapid response channels, and it’s not clear at all that the extra thermal energy becomes sensible heat.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 25, 2018 12:07 am

Pat If the N2 and the O2 absorb the energy (IR photon) within the CO2 and H2O molecules by collision, then in effect they are active players in the greenhouse effect. So by collision the N2 and O2 are the halfbacks who got the handoff from the quarterback H2O and substitute quarterback CO2 who got the ball(photon) from the center(oceans and earth). Taking out the substitute quarterback (removing all CO2 from the atmosphere ) would only decrease the total heat capacity by 1/4000 . We would still have a greenhouse.
Putting more quarterbacks in the game (more CO2 ) let us say by doubling the CO2 only increases heat capacity by 2/4000.

As I understand it ,all materials above 0 K emit IR including the walls of a room . The CO2 must absorb these photons. Since collisions are happening (10^10 collisions per second) and (the speed of O2 at room temperature is 460 metres per second), then if the room temperature is the same temp as outdoors, then everything is more or less in equilibrium. All those collisions arent going to heat up the room even if you doubled the CO2.
As a further test construct a 4 sided building with no roof. Aim an infrared heater to the sky all day long assuming outdoor temperature stays the same during the length of your test. Because you didnt aim the heater at the walls they didnt receive any IR. The sky did however, but the temperature in the room would not change because an infrared heater cannot directly heat air. The CO2 and H2O are absorbing photons but since they are so small in number the air wont heat. Even if you had a CO2 blower, blowing CO2 in a vent into that 4 sided building with no roof, and aiming the infrared heater skyward all day long would not heat up that room very much. That would be a good test though but because the room is ventilated to the sky it would be interesting how much CO2 you would have to vent in to see any measurable temperature increase.

That again brings up my point about the rainforest in the tropics. Their average temperature is 27-28C whereas a hot desert average temperature will be 18-25C even though the maximum temperature in a hot desert gets much hotter than the rainforests. If H2O was such a forcing greenhouse gas, then the tropics would have had runaway warming 4 billion years ago.

Another point to consider is that
In the atmosphere, the O2 and N2 are also giving off energy. And the lapse rate proves that because there is less O2 and N2 at higher altitudes prove that O2 and N2 in the lower troposphere contain heat.

The final point that even Michael Modest admits is that CO2 and H2O emit less as moderate temperature increases.

So the bottom line is I agree that back radiation exists, but it is either too small to worry about or else the convection system provides a strong negative feedback. I contend that any land surface temperature increases have been urban heat island effects. Only Roy Spenser’ s satellite can provide the final word on temperature.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 25, 2018 9:50 am

Alan, once the collisional energy goes into N2 and O2, that energy contributes to the general thermal blackbody temperature of the atmosphere.

So, CO2 converts IR into kinetic energy. That new kinetic energy goes into the blackbody thermal bath, and the air temperature rises if nothing else changes.

But of course, the climate is not static, and things do change. If convection increases a bit, or equatorial precipitation increases a bit, then that extra blackbody thermal input does not produce an increase in sensible heat.

The crux issue is that there is no physical theory of climate that can predict the result or resolve the effect of CO2 emissions. The perturbation is just too small — on the order of 1% change. Climate models can’t do it.

The climate itself shows nothing unusual. So far, the climate effect of CO2, if any, is invisible.

richard verney
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 8:09 pm

I have often wondered about Tropical Rain Forests. they would be a useful study subject.

How much solar is absorbed by the floor of the rain forest? Very little solar reaches the forest floor to be absorbed and reradiated.

Instead solar irradiance is largely absorbed in the canopy and powers photosynthesis. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the solar irradiance absorbed in the canopy gets reradiated.

So does K&T’s energy budget cartoon fall down with respect to tropical rain forests. If so then that is not an insignificant percentage of the land, and materially it is in the zone where most solar irradiance is absorbed, and the area where most energy is re-radiated/

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 8:35 am

Alan Tomalty, were you still celebrating the “Summer solstice” when you penned your above posting?

Heat (thermal energy) can only be transferred through three means: conduction, convection and radiation. Of these, conduction is perhaps the most common, and occurs regularly in nature.
Read more @ https://phys.org/news/2014-12-what-is-heat-conduction.html

Reply to  Sam C Cogar
June 24, 2018 8:59 am

Sam, instead of posting a snide reply to Alan, why don’t you explain to us what is wrong with Alan perfectly correct statement?

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 8:42 am

“Obviously vibrating CO2 collisions with N2 and O2 don’t increase heat or else again a room would heat up by itself.”

Huh? No. What happens is that when more energetic molecules collide with less energetic molecules, some of the energy of the more energetic molecule is transferred to the less energetic molecule.

After the collision, the two molecules have the same total energy as before, but it it is distributed differently. The less energetic molecule is more energetic than it used to be, i.e., it is hotter, and the more energetic molecule is less energetic than it used to be, i.e.

The net result is that the entire system averages out. CO2 cannot be a reservoir of thermal energy. Indeed, ordinary experience confirms this analysis. In desert areas, it gets cold at night.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 24, 2018 10:13 am

Desert areas only get cold at night if they are cloudless. The IR then escapes to outerspace. You definitely get thermal equilibrium but no rise in overall temperature unless an external heat source. Deserts at night lose less heat if cloudy but they still lose heat and get colder than the day. Back radiation is overhyped or rainforest temperatures would go through the roof. They are actually cooler than desert temperatures.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 25, 2018 4:26 am

Alan, please explain the different ways that homes are heated.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
June 25, 2018 4:22 am

Thank you Walter S for responding to C Paul P

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 11:38 am

Collisions don’t generate heat, they transfer heat.
Please, learn a little bit about physics.

Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 7:46 am

Markw,

“CO2 atoms also transfer the vibrational energy to other molecules.”

This is a common misconception among those on both side of the issue. There is no direct mechanism for de-energizing a CO2 molecule where any NET energy is converted between the internal state energy of its electron shells and the translational energy of molecules in motion.

The only possible mode for transferring energy from gas molecules is when a photon with slightly more or less energy than a primary line is absorbed or emitted by a GHG molecule in which case, a small amount of energy is either added to or removed from a rotational state which in principle can be considered a degree of freedom, relative to temperature, per the kinetic theory of gases and shared with other molecules upon collision. However; this operates symmetrically in both directions, thus the NET transfer of energy is zero.

There’s one other possibility for ‘thermalization’ which is when an energized CO2 or H2O gas molecule condenses upon an atmospheric water droplet in which case the state energy of the gas molecule becomes incorporated into the total state energy (temperature) of the liquid. We can see the effect of this in the 15u region, where at TOA, slightly less than 1/2 of what was absorbed is emitted in those absorption bands and this difference is what was ‘thermalized’. However; most of this is the consequence of energized water vapor condensing upon water droplets and not the absorption of energized CO2 molecules.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 23, 2018 9:58 pm

CAGW is impossible. CO2 and H2O emit less proportionally as the temperature goes up. Even though backradiation is real, the amount of CO2 backradiation is laughable. NASA arent even measuring it properly. If backradiation was that important you would see rainforest temperatures go through the roof.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 5:34 pm

Alan,
You said, “When something is burned, the chemical reaction produces different elements plus heat.” I quit reading at that point. I’m afraid that you aren’t a good counter to Hansen’s poor vocabulary.

Felix
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 5:45 pm

Alan,

Burning is oxidation, akin to rusting. It doesn’t produce different elements. It rearranges the available atoms into different molecules.

Producing different elements requires nuclear reactions, not chemical.

Burning methane (natural gas):

CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + 2 H2O.

Same elements. Different compound molecules.

Elementary (!) chemistry.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Felix
June 23, 2018 10:08 pm

I meant molecules

Don132
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 3:37 am

A good “off topic” discussion, re: comments on new website.

Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 10:22 am

Mr Tonality wrote:
“I contend that any heat increase since 1950 is because the world’s population has tripled and the world’s energy usage has increased 5 fold”
.
My comment:
I contend that our planet is
always warming or cooling,
and we have no clue
what the cause is,
other than guessing.

The urban heat island effect
should not affect the average
temperature except where
there was economic growth
near surface thermometers.
.
There are many other possible
man made causes of warming:
.
(1) Haphazard measurements,
where most of the world’s grids
have wild guess “temperatures”,
guessed by the bureaucrats
who predicted a lot of warming,
and they want their predictions
to come true,
.
(2) 1800s thermometers
that tended to read low,
.
(3) Data “adjustments”
may have created one-third
of the warming since 1880, and

(4) Dark soot on the snow and ice
of the Arctic, from continuous
coal and wood burning
in the Northern Hemisphere,
changes the albedo = local warming,
and we certainly have had
unusual warming in the Arctic.
.
My climate blog:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

ripshin
Editor
Reply to  Richard Greene
June 25, 2018 11:53 am

Why is it that I always hear Mr. Greene’s comments (Haha…Mr. Greene! Mr. Greene in the Conservatory with a Candlestick…) like slam poetry?

https://youtu.be/Qae03boj7lU?t=52s

Humorously,

rip

Burl Henry
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 2:57 pm

Alan Tomaly:

You contend that any heat increase since 1950 has been due the world’s increased population and energy use.

It is possible that there could be some effect, but the major cause of the recent warming is due to reductions in atmospheric SO2 aerosol emissions due to global Clean Air efforts.

Follow me on this:

The Roman warming period ended circa. 450 AD, due to a series of large volcanic eruptions: the VEI5+ eruption of Opala (Kamchaika) in circa 430, the larger Plinian eruption of Pele in circa 450, a large unidentified VEI5 or 6 eruption in 536, the VEI6 eruption of Rabaul in 540, etc., etc.

When this series of eruptions abated, or ended, their SO2 aerosol emissions settled out of the atmosphere, resulting in the Medieval Warming period (circa 950-1250), because of increased solar radiation due the cleaner, more transparent atmosphere. Note that the warming occurred even when CO2 emissions too low to have any effect, at about 180 ppm.

This, in turn, was followed by the Little Ice Age (circa 1257), which began with the VEI7 eruption of Mount Rinjani in 1257, and was followed by a string of nine VEI6 eruptions, and at least 17 VEI5 and 77 VEI4 eruptions, culminating with the VEI7 eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815.

Again, as their sulfurous emissions settled out, temperatures began to naturally climb, on their way to temperatures equivalent to those of the earlier warming periods.

However, due to the Industrial Revolution, most of the volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions were replaced by anthropogenic SO2 emissions, so that those temperatures were not immediately attained, although the Earth was gradually warming up.

From 1900 to about 1970 (where reliable data became available), the warming rate was about .05 deg. C. per decade. After about 1970, due to reductions in SO2 aerosol emissions due to Clean Air efforts, the warming rate tripled, to about 0.16 deg. C. per decade.

Thus, the recent accelerated warming rate has been caused by the environmental movement!

With respect to temporary increases and decreases in anomalous average global temperatures, all are caused by increases or decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere, either of volcanic origin (primarily), or anthropogenic.

For example, the super El Nino of 1997-1998 was caused by a 7.7 Megaton reduction in SO2 emissions, and the 2014-16 super El Nino by an estimated 30 Megaton reduction in emissions.

Since Earth’s temperature is largely controlled by random volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions, it will be impossible to predict future temperatures with any accuracy.

Felix
Reply to  Burl Henry
June 24, 2018 3:15 pm

IMO, the LIA owed more to a series of solar minima rather than volcanoes, although they did reinforce the secular trend.

The Medieval WP recovered from the 1257 Samalas VEI 7 eruption. The MWP had a last gasp in the 14th century, although it began badly. There was a VEI 6 around 1280, but the other VEI 6 erputions you mention were in the real LIA, ie after AD 1400.

The Current WP has also suffered quite a few VEI 6 eruptions, such as Krakatoa (1883), Santa Maria (1902), Novarupta (1912) and Pinatubo (1991), although no VEI 7s as yet.

Which not to say that cleaning up the air hasn’t affected global temperature. It has probably had a bigger effect than CO2. But China and India are doing their bit to cool us off again by repolluting with SO2.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 5:42 pm

Felix:

You say that China and India are doing their bit to cool us off again by repolluting with SO2.

However, China REDUCED its SO2 emissions by 29.1 Megatons between 2014 (37.5 MT) and 2016 (8.4 MT). This massive, unexpected decrease in SO2 emissions is what caused the 2014-2016 super El Nino. Google: “Climate sciences: India surpassing China’s sulphur dioxide emissions”.

(India’s SO2 emissions were 13.2 MT in 2014, and 11.1 MT in 2016, only a 2.1 MT offset of China’s decrease)

Felix
Reply to  Burl Henry
June 24, 2018 5:51 pm

Burl.

Does that alleged reduction really seem credible to you? It shouldn’t because it’s a preposterous lie. Satellite observations show the real deal.

Chinese power plants apparently grossly underreport their pollution levels:

https://cen.acs.org/environment/pollution/Chinese-power-plants-underreport-sulfur/96/i26

I’d advise not to believe the Communist Chinese government about almost anything, such as military spending.

Even if China and India have in fact slightly reduced SO2 emissions since 2014, they’re still way higher than during the 1970s, when the West started reducing its air pollution, which was my point.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 6:22 pm

Felix:

The report seemed credible to me, since the climate responded exactly as I would have predicted: an increase in anomalous global temperatures due to fewer SO2 emissions.

It was published in the Journal “Scientific Reports”, and was based upon satellite data.

Felix
Reply to  Burl Henry
June 24, 2018 6:31 pm

From 38 to 8 MT in two years is not credible. The more you know about Chinese economic and environmental statistics, the less credible it becomes.

As the link I supplied shows, that reduction wasn’t based upon satellites.

But anyone who has breathed Chinese urban air or looked at their skies in the past five years knows that it’s a ludicrous lie.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 7:06 pm

Felix:

You say “from 38 to 8 MT in two years is not credible”

Easily credible, if there were a push to install SO2 scrubbers on power plants, and other polluters, in an effort to improve their air quality.

Again, the report was based upon satellite data, with the author being based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center.

Further, the ONLY way that temporary increases in average global temperatures can occur is due to net reductions in global atmospheric SO2 levels.

Felix
Reply to  Burl Henry
June 24, 2018 7:23 pm

I get nothing when I go to NASA Goddard’s time plot site:

https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/pix/daily/0218/china_so2pca_pbl_ts_plot.html

As my prior link showed, there is a big discrepancy between satellite observations and China’s claims on the ground.

So please show me the SO2 satellite data:

https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/

But even if China has reduced SO2 since 2007, the fact remains that China and India, as I said have cancelled out much of the gain in pollution reduction in the developed world since the 1970s.

https://www.fondriest.com/news/sulfur-dioxide-good-news-china-bad-news-india.htm

MarkW
Reply to  Burl Henry
June 24, 2018 7:31 pm

Scrubbers are big things. They take time to build and install.

Felix
Reply to  MarkW
June 24, 2018 7:38 pm

China’s closing down older coal plants while building newer, more efficient ones might have an effect, but a drop from 38 to 8 MT in two years is to laugh.

And, as I said, the more familiar you are with Chinese statistics, the more ludicrous is the claim.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 8:54 pm

Felix:

The link which you supplied to me earlier begins “Emissions of sulfur dioxide levels from China’s coal-fired plants dropped significantly OVERALL after a new pollution limit took effect in 2014, as shown by data from monitoring instruments AND a NASA satellite”.

SO2 scrubbers were undoubtedly built in advance and installed so as to comply with the new 2014 pollution limit.

Also, the SO2 reduction HAD to have happened; otherwise we would not have experienced the 2014-2016 super El Nino.

WXcycles
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 25, 2018 5:46 am

Alan
” … I contend that any heat increase since 1950 is because the world’s population has tripled and the world’s energy usage has increased 5 fold. ”
—-

In other words, AGW is correct then?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 23, 2018 1:31 pm

Fine Robert and Alan T, but how would YOU describe to a lay audience what CO2 does that delays exit of LWIR to space? Surely you can find enough wrong with the CAGW spiel that you dont get hung up on the minutae of the arguments. Teaching my grandson chemistry Im guilty of using Bohr’s simple structure of the atom to show how Na and Cl join to form table salt. I do tell him it is a very simplified stucture.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 23, 2018 2:25 pm

Downward backward IR DOES exist. The problem is that it has never been measured properly. NASA assumes emission of a blackbody of 1.
Emitted radiation = e * 5.67×10^-8 * T^4
where e = emission coefficient and K =Kelvin degrees
The Stefan Boltzmann law is only valid if the emitting source is a blackbody. Therefore e is always = to 1 . The e was never in the original equation and thus was always = to 1 because the equation is only valid for blackbodies. The reason why is that gases like CO2 and H2O actually emit less proportionally as the temperature goes up. Everybody then tries to use the equation for non blackbodies. They then put an emission number 0<e<1 where e is the emission. The problem is how do you know what e is? Lab experiments can determine it for each material but if you polish the surface, e changes . On top of that the emission itself changes proportionally as the temperature goes up. So there is no equation that gives you the exact emittance. Modest gives the Voight profile equation but that assumes thermal equilibrium and even that equation is unsolveable. The best that industry has is the Modtran computer program. Some researchers give a value of e =0.002 for CO2. Others give 0.2

So back to the problem of how to explain this to your son?

Simply tell him that even though CO2 does absorb IR coming from the oceans and land; the amount absorbed is so small and the amount emitted is too small to worry about. Explain to him that NASA has not shown how downward backward IR has actually increased any temperature at the surface and that this whole scare actually does not have the science to back it up. Tell him that O2 and N2 that make up 99% of the atmosphere have 4000 times the heat capacity of CO2 and that they are the real greenhouse gases.

The very small temp increase in last 68 years of 0.7C is explained by the world's population increase from 2.5 billion to 7.6 billion and the world using 5 times the amount of energy it used in 1950. Your son's textbooks need to be changed because the sea level rise is the same as it has been for the last 14000 years and Greenland , Antarctica and the Arctic periodically lose ice and then gain it all back. So nobody will drown because of rising seas and no one will burn up because of rising temperatures. We have been scaring little kids for 30 years because of 1 man James Hansen.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 5:40 pm

If you are suggesting that the atmosphere is heating because of waste heat from human activity, I can only say that it is obvious you haven’t even done your ‘back of envelope’ calculations.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 23, 2018 10:16 pm

All I am saying is that the total amount of energy burned and used is
likely the amount that is showing up in the surface temperature records all caused by the Urban heat effect. The increase in temp is only 0.7 C in 68 years. Couldnt all of this be explained by the urban heat effect? If the satellite records definitely show an increase then I am wrong. However I think we need 10 more years of satellite records to prove this one way or the other.

Paulclim
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 3:03 pm

It is a quite easy calculation. Take all the energy that we are using on earth (240,000 TWh), calculate its power (27.4 TW) and suppose that we just harvest 7.4 TW for mechanical work from it. That leaves you 20 TW max. for heating the surface. You will end up with a power of around 0.04W/m^2 coming from our energy usage. That will by no means increase temperature by 0.7 deg C. It‘s probably much less than a tenth of it.

Another example. Take a candle (40 Watts) and place it in yor 1,000 m^2 garden. That gives you the same power per area. Do you believe the candle raises the temperature in your garden by 0.7 deg C?

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 25, 2018 9:56 am

@Alan Tomalty June 23, 2018 10:16 pm;
Please don’t make me do this again, as you are repeating your unjustified WAG from another thread where I also corrected you.

“All I am saying is that the total amount of energy burned and used is
likely the amount that is showing up in the surface temperature records all caused by the Urban heat effect.”

The sum total of all the energy produced through human activity in one year is equal to the amount of solar radiation striking the surface of the earth in one hour. This is far too little to have any appreciable effect on urban temperatures. Land use (misuse) and local construction materials are the primary driver for UHI.

Felix
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 5:47 pm

Human energy use isn’t a pimple on the posterior of the gigantic energy fluxes from within Earth and especially from the Sun.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 8:46 am

Alan

“…of it is re-absorbed, and op of that the emission itself changes proportionally as the temperature goes up.”

Well, technically true but the emissivity of dark grey iron changes very little between 0 and light-yellow-hot at 900 C. In short, your proposed effect is insubstantial. The emissivity of CO2 at a peak absorption frequency is as good as a back body. If you could look up from the ground seeing only IR, the sky would be nearly white because the virtually all the IR is absorbed and 50% radiated back down. That which comes down, is re-radiated sooner or later, and re-absorbed, with 50% of it re-emitted back to the ground at some angle.

Round and round it goes. losing 50% each time. The average number of trips a photon makes before leaving is 1.8. This is known as the optical thickness of the atmosphere. See Miskolczi’s publications for the calculation details. It hasn’t change in 60 years because as CO2 is added to the atmosphere, water vapour is removed. And that is my answer to Garys ‘s question about how to teach this subject.

Graduation day here in Beijing. At least some of them have learned how to think and analyse. They have been taught not to make assumptions about such matters. For such an extraordinary change in appearance, the emissivity changes very little.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
June 24, 2018 10:27 am

No one knows what the emissivity is for gases. You get a different figure for every researcher on the subject.
If NASA could measure the back radiation properly then this could get resolved. The problem is the only valid equation to use is the Voigt profile. Modest says there is no closed form solution for that equation. It is too complicated to reproduce here. I will simply quote what Michael Modest said in his textbook on Radiative Heat Transfer.
The most important sentence with respect to CO2 in Modest’s textbook on page 315( the chapter on gases) is the following. I quote

” we note that ,at moderate temperatures , the rotational partition function causes the line strength to decrease with temperature as 1/T or 1/(T^1.5), while the influences of the vibrational partition function and of stimulated emission are very minor . ”

What this means to me is that at the temperatures we see in our troposphere, the vibrational effect is small for gases and the rotational effect decreases with temperature increase.

On page 309 Modest says and I quote “while symmetric molecules such as CO2 show a rotational spectrum only if accompanied by a vibrational transition.”

So Modest seems to be saying that even though CO2 absorbs IR, the line strength of absorption/emission at moderate temperatures is too weak to worry about, especially since the rotational partition strength of the spectrum decreases with temperature increase. So not only CAGW is impossible, it seems that AGW is impossible to any significant degree (pun not intended).

If only Michael Modest would clear this up, but I suspect he is too afraid. Such is the strength of the CO2 inquisition.

Trevor
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 25, 2018 1:33 am

GOOD PUN though Alan !
Like your work !

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 23, 2018 9:04 pm

Fine Robert and Alan T, but how would YOU describe to a lay audience what CO2 does that delays exit of LWIR to space?

I cannot speak for Alan T, but speaking for myself, I would never say that CO2 “delays exit of LWIR to space”. This is another version of the “slowed cooling” claim, which I also would never say. First, I am NOT convinced that there is enough CO2 in the atmosphere to have such a “delaying” or “slowing” effect. Second, I am NOT convinced that this “delaying” or “slowing” manner of speaking is the correct way to speak about what CO2 does.

The difference between heat and radiation is not mere minutia. Physics is about precision, no ? I have been led to believe that here, of all places, is where we are very focused on minutia — the details — the precision of language — the precision of MEANING.

Alas, I’m still trying to get the minutia straight, and it seems that on this level of detail is where the greatest difference in people’s understanding exists, and where the greatest amount of argument happens.

Heat cannot be trapped. Heat is not a substance.

Energy is not a substance. Energy cannot be trapped.

Energy might better be thought of as motion, where heat is a particular kind of change in motion at a very small scale.

My impression is that the largest mass of gas that delays or slows energy release, in relation to energy input by the sun, is the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere, which is nitrogen and oxygen. CO2, in its very small concentration, distributes some energy to this bulk, and cools this bulk, but it does NOT “delay” or “slow” the cooling of this bulk.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 23, 2018 11:08 pm

If NASA could measure the back radiation properly then this could get resolved. The problem is the only valid equation to use is the Voigt profile. Modest says there is no closed form solution for that equation. It is too complicated to reproduce here. The most important sentence with respect to CO2 in Modest’s textbook on page 315 is the following. I quote

” we note that ,at moderate temperatures , the rotational partition function causes the line strength to decrease with temperature as 1/T or 1/(T^1.5), while the influences of the vibrational partition function and of stimulated emission are very minor . ”

What this means to me is that at the temperatures we see in our troposphere, the vibrational effect is small for gases and the rotational effect decreases with temperature increase.

On page 309 Modest says and I quote “while symmetric molecules such as CO2 show a rotational spectrum only if accompanied by a vibrational transition.”

So Modest seems to be saying that even though CO2 absorbs IR, the line strength of absorption/emission at moderate temperatures is too weak to worry about, especially since the rotational partition strength of the spectrum decreases with temperature increase. So not only CAGW is impossible, it seems that AGW is impossible to any significant degree (pun not intended).

If only Michael Modest would clear this up, but I suspect he is too afraid. Such is the strength of the CO2 inquisition.

Paulclim
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 24, 2018 3:50 pm

Nearly the whole theoretical temperature increase caused by CO2 comes from the effective emission height that is being elevated by higher CO2 concentrations. Higher emission height means lower temperature, means less energy radiated to space, means more heat remaining in atmosphere. This should increase the heat top down because convection moves it upwards but radiation doesn’t manage to get rid of it.

This is the theory. It does not need any back radiation which – I believe- doesn‘t exist to a significant extent because any theoretically small back radiation would be reabsorbed, thermalized and transported upwards again.

This, by the way, leaves ocean warming solely to conduction between a small mass of air and an incredibly huge mass of water. Good luck with that Mr. Global Warming!

Trevor
Reply to  Paulclim
June 25, 2018 2:15 am

Paul……NOT if you consider volcanoes !
The INTERIOR of the Earth is still VERY HOT !
Continual Continental-plate Movement means that there is
continual exposure of magma to the water and heat transfer
obviously occurs.
It is probably sub-sea volcanic action that is melting the ice
in West Antarctica. I have NOT seen it for myself but I have seen
it’s effects on the ice in Iceland and I think that it is a distinct
possibility that something similar is occurring in Antarctica.

Trevor
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 25, 2018 1:50 am

YES ! That is WHAT I remember I was taught long ago !
The Sun irradiates the Earth and is the major source of heat.
The “photons” are the “energy bundles” that transfer the Sun’s energy to Earth as LIGHT.( electromagnetic radiation ).
Energy is un-trappable…it becomes motion in the molecules.
Heat can be measured with a thermometer and
increased gas motion as increased pressure in a closed vessel.
Solids ( surface ) heat and transfer that heat by conduction.
Gases near the surface absorb that heat by conduction
and spread it by convection .
Radiation ( light ) from those molecules releases the energy and
the motion reduces by the equivalent amount.
….and that radiation (light ) eventually goes back into space !
So ,the whole atmosphere is what constitutes
“the greenhouse gases”.
Water Vapour and CO2 are both MINOR constituents
of that total mass.
Mind you……….THAT is only what I remember
ps….and it all happens at the speed of light or damn nearly !

richard verney
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 24, 2018 1:25 am

It is about minute detail. As the saying goes, the devil is in the detail. The warmist always wish to gloss over the details, and that is indeed why the theory of the GHE is named on a process that does not apply to greenhouses.

The precise wavelengths, and the precise absorption characteristics of the gases in our atmosphere and water are extremely material and need to be considered in fine detail if one has the slightest chance of understanding how the radiant GHE works, if indeed it does anything at all, and whether increasing the amount of CO2 is likely to lead to any significant change in temperature.

Accordingly one must consider the wavelengths at which CO2 absorbs photons, it has 3 absorption windows (at wavelengths 667, 1388, 2349 cm-1) corresponding to 3 different vibrational states of the molecule.

However, for the main part these absorption windows overlap with water vapour, and materially they are equivalent to a cold BB temperature/spectrum.

Whilst of course, photons do not have a temperature, their wavelength/frequency is related to the temperature of the emitting surface.

Apart from the Antarctic and the top of Everest/the Himalayas (which is not really at the surface but rather at about 8.8 km up in the atmosphere) there are no surface emitters that can supply photons of the right wavelength that would be absorbed by CO2.

This means that it is very difficult to conceive how the GHG effect, if it is happening at all, can happen at low altitude. What is the source of the necessary photons (ie., those of a wavelength that fall within the CO2 absorption bands), and where do these photons come from?

It would appear that if the GHE effect exists at all, it would have to be at high altitude (since the photons need an equivalent BB temperature of around – 50 to – 80 deg C to be be of the right wavelenth that they would be absorbed by CO2), and there are relatively few CO2 molecules at high altitude so there are not many CO2 molecules to perform the absorbing and the re-radiation).

One also has to consider the energy states of the atoms, relative to one another, and whether photons from DWLWIR have sufficient energy that they can truly raise the energy state of other atoms. Which of the atoms are capable of being raised to a higher energy state, and precisely where are these atoms in Earth’s atmosphere?

PS. I have not checked the equivalent BB temperature of the CO2 absorption bands and the – 50 to – 80 deg C equivalent temperature is stated merely from recollection, but I believe it to be sufficiently accurate to illustrate the point that the oceans and the surface of the land, which have an average temperature of around 15 deg C, cannot even taking into account statistical spatial spread be emitting photons at the necessary wavelength that they fall within the main absorption bands of the CO2 molecule.

If one goes back to the K&T energy budget cartoon, the surface of the planet is emitting at a lot of LWIR, but (ignoring spatial statistical spread) the photons are not of the wavelength that would fall within the narrow absorption bands of CO2. It is difficult to conceive how that cartoon rightly portrays what is happening since the detail is conspicuous by its very absence.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 1:55 am

“since the photons need an equivalent BB temperature of around – 50 to – 80 deg C to be be of the right wavelength that they would be absorbed by CO2”
This was the subject of a long argument here recently. It just isn’t true. Here is a plot of observed spectra at Barrow, Alaska over a thawing ice field (click to enlarge)

comment image

I’ve marked the characteristic 15 μm line for CO₂ in red. The bottom spectrum is for downwelling IR at surface. The green arrow shows the intensity of 15 μm , which is near peak. The top dotted curve is BB for 270K, and you can see that it is near peak for that, and will be so for 280 K or even 290 K.

The top spectrum is TOA looking down, and you can see that most 15 μm radiation has been absorbed, since the intensity is now what you expect for emission at TOA temperature.

richard verney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 8:49 pm

Thanks Nick.

Of course Barrow is a fairly cold place and without doing a lot of research, I do not know the temperature of the polar ice sheet, but it may well fit in with the general thrust of the point that I was making since it is obviously a cold surface.

I am not disputing the CO2 absorption bands, nor that there are photons in the atmosphere of the requisite wavelength, which potentially could be absorbed by CO2, I am merely querying the source,

I do not consider your plot addresses that issue, at least not without a series of spectral images looking down taken say every 200 metres upwards to 20 km.

I clicked your link but could not locate discussion of the point that I raised.

richard verney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 9:39 pm

Nick

Further to my comment at 08:49 hrs 24th June.

According to K&T, the back radiation is shown as emanating from the Tropopause, viz, from the cloud layer

comment image

Materially, K&T refer to “greenhouse gases” as the source of the LWIR, not to CO2, and perhaps this is deliberate because it is probable that it is water vapour, not CO2 that is doing almost everything.

This can be seen when the mid atmosphere is measured, it shows that CO2 is radiating a lot above the Tropopause (assisting the passage of LWIR to TOA and thence to the void of space), but very little below the Troposphere.

See, where the dotted line marks the Tropopause (source as per annotation on plot).

comment image

You will note from this that the CO2 radiative window is closed at the precise point where K&T are suggesting that the DWLWIR emanates and flows downwards. With this shut door, it would appear difficult for CO2 to cause more DWLWIR to reach the surface, and if anything it is more likely to simply aid the outward passage of LWIR to TOA and thence to space.

Quite simply below the Tropsphere convection is king and rules, and above the Troposphere radiation takes over and becomes the more dominant factor. Materially, CO2 does not appear to be doing anything of significance in the lower atmosphere below the Tropopause. It would appear what little effect it has in this lower region is already fully saturated.

PS. There appears to be so many things wrong with the K&T energy budget cartoon. The minute detail is missing, and this becomes very important when one is looking for a possible energy imbalance of no more than circa 1 to 2 W/m2

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 10:01 pm

“According to K&T, the back radiation is shown as emanating from the Tropopause, viz, from the cloud layer”
No, it’s just a diagram. It isn’t meant to indicate a spatial level where the DWLWIR originates. In fact, in the frequencies most strongly absorbed, most DW received comes from gas quite close to the surface. But the heat that it supplied was replenished by radiation from a little further up, etc. The fact that they show one flux doesn’t mean that a photon had a clear path.

And that is another way of seeing the GHG effect. When there is more of it, DWLWIR comes from lower, warmer levels.

It’s just not true that convection is king, else hang-gliders would be soaring everywhere. The air at normal lapse rate is convectively stable.

Don132
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2018 6:31 am

Nick Stokes: what emissivity would we expect from CO2 at TOA 20km up at Barrow, Alaska, which, since the troposphere is much shallower there, would put the emissions elevation well into the stratosphere? I wonder if we’re making assumptions about what those graphs are telling us?

beng135
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 25, 2018 6:44 am

Thanks Nick, for once. A useful reply. I really don’t get all the arguments about the radiational mechanism of greenhouse gases — as an engineer myself, it’s not particularly difficult. My arguments are that alittle warming is good, and CO2 as plant food is particularly good. The truly bad thing about this is how it is being politicized, money squandered and the mass of people hoodwinked.

Sam C Cogar
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 24, 2018 9:48 am

So askith does: Gary Pearse

Fine Robert and Alan T, but how would YOU describe to a lay audience what CO2 does that delays exit of LWIR to space?

Gary Pearse, as they say, ……… a picture is worth a thousand words ….. and iffen you want an effective way of explaining to most any layperson how IR energy is conducted, convected and/or radiated from/to the surface of the earth, …. from/to the gas molecules (CO2) “delayment” in the air, …..and then eventually to outer space, …….. tell them to go to an Amusement Park or a Shopping Center and put a quarter in a Pin Ball Machine ……… and “shoot” [LWIR energy] all 5 of the steel “ball bearings” out of the “slot” [earth’s surface] onto the playing “surface” [earth’s atmosphere] ….. and to pay close attention to why those “ball bearings” don’t immediately roll down the playing “surface” [earth’s atmosphere] into the dark “return” slot [outer space.]

Put more quarters “in” and repeat the “play” and you will get different results every time. Just like when LWIR transfers through earth’s atmosphere.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
June 24, 2018 10:36 am

>>
NOTHING “absorbs” heat.
<<

The first law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. “Absorb” may not be 100% correct, but you can add heat to a system.

Jim

Smart Rock
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 1:40 pm

He’s a good speaker, no question. He puts ideas simply and in a sequence that the listener can easily follow, but oh, my, the errors in fact and argument are almost too many to list.

To this observer, the biggie is when he talks about temperature increase at the end of a glacial period preceding the rise in atmospheric CO2. He says that a change in solar input causes a bit of warming and icecap melting (correctly, or maybe it’s a drop in albedo caused by dust on the ice – thanks Javier), and then says (correctly) that warmer oceans discharge CO2, and then he goes on to describe a classic runaway spiral “more CO2 => more warming => more CO2 => more warming => more CO2 …….. ad infinitum”

Carefully omitting to note that the increase in atmospheric CO2 and increase in global temperature both stop, quite suddenly when deglaciation is complete. What is supposed to have caused that sudden halt in an unstoppable death spiral?

In my opinion, that is the Achilles heel of the whole alarmist movement: the assertion that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are both a response to warming and a cause of warming. I first saw this assertion clearly articulated in exactly those words by Steven Mosher in a comment here at WUWT, and it hit me that he was describing an inherently unstable situation. A world in which there could never be even the possibility of a stable climate.

If it were true, the “stable” climate that Hansen wants to preserve is no more stable than a pencil standing in its point. Because of the huge heat capacity of the oceans, the analogy is more like a pencil standing on its point in a bowl of molasses. It must fall over in time, and nothing can stop it.

Perhaps climate science will come up with a counter-argument to this objection. They did that when they finally had no choice but to acknowledge that there is natural climate variation, and they brought it into their world view. They even use it to explain why warming projected by models is less than observed (“it’s a period of natural cooling, and guess what? -we predicted it”).

The alarmist movement is entirely based on the theory that increased CO2 causes global warming, whose effects will be catastrophic. But it’s not a real theory because it changes every time it encounters evidence it can’t explain. It’s more like a very good, fast-talking confidence trickster than a scientific theory. Or a virus that mutates when its victims start to build up resistance. Because it’s infected so many, you could say it’s a….

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Smart Rock
June 24, 2018 9:01 am

There is an even greater problem than the CO2-second problem. It is that the putative warming is largely supposed to be from a water vapour positive feedback. While the argument of ‘warming followed by CO2 followed by more warming’ is plausible (causing some to believe), they perhaps forget that the major warming is supposed to come from water vapour increases forced by CO2-heating initiated by solar or dust warming. That water vapour forcing doesn’t exist. In fact, it is pretty obvious from measurements that the atmosphere dries out when CO2 rises, preserving the optical thickness at a stable 1.8.

Quite how this happens is still open to speculation but the fact of it is sure. There is obviously FAR too much out-of-ice-age-warming to be explained by CO2 alone, and the water vapour feedback is very low, perhaps even negative. Taking the supposed heating power of a doubling and re-doubling of CO2, there is not nearly enough forcing to drive the temperature up 12 C and lift the planet out of an ice age. In short, the theory is fabulous in the classic sense. It is a fable. The math is wrong. If CO2 going from 200 ppm to 290 (less than +50%) can raise the temperature 12 degrees, why doesn’t 290-410 (+40%) raise it 1 C? Hansen’s hypothesis is flawed.

RickWill
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 8:33 pm

The comments on this video on YouTube are roughly split 50/50 between lets worry and Hansen is a failure. It is now 5 years old and his sea ice data was 4 years old then.

Felix
Reply to  RickWill
June 23, 2018 8:51 pm

Arctic sea ice has been growing since 2012.

zazove
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 12:37 am

comment image

Felix
Reply to  zazove
June 24, 2018 12:48 am

Why are you showing the trend since 1979, when I spoke of since 2012. In fact, it’s flat since 2007 and rising since 2012. From 1979 to 2012, a new low was made within every five year period. But that has not been the case since 2012. Arctic sea ice extent has stopped going down, and is going up.

RAH
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 6:18 am

I don’t know why so many people are concerned about a metric who’s value is in the short term determined a great deal by which way and how much the wind blows and wave action. The period of the most precipitous drop in the 2012 extent coincided exactly with a powerful Arctic storm which hit August 4 to 8 during the annual melt.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  RAH
June 24, 2018 8:10 am

For the same reason that estimated global atmospheric temperature is used as the climatology gold standard instead of a combination of heat capacity and mean sea level surface pressure — climatology is an immature science with a bunch of c-rate charlatans running the show.

Felix
Reply to  RAH
June 24, 2018 3:29 pm

The 2007 low was also due to an August cyclone.

MarkW
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 11:42 am

Because like all trolls, he specializes in cherry picking data.
1979 was the end of one of the coldest periods in the last 100 years.
Of course ice has decreased since then. But it has nothing to do with CO2.

Felix
Reply to  MarkW
June 24, 2018 3:33 pm

Zazove apparently doesn’t realize that when one trend ends and another starts, it takes time for the longer prior trend to change as a result of the switch.

The long term trend, 1979-2045 could remain slightly down even if, as seems likely, the period 2013 to 2045 were to be up.

zazove
Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 4:40 am

“if” my auntie was a man she’d be my uncle.

MarkW
Reply to  zazove
June 25, 2018 9:58 am

Translation: I can’t refute what you have written, so I’ll pretend I don’t have to.

zazove
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 4:39 am

I was tacitly pointing out Felix’s 7 year cherry-pick. Troll.

Paulclim
Reply to  zazove
June 25, 2018 6:31 am

The reconstruction of arctic ice extent over 100 years does not show any significant difference between modern ice conditions and those from 80 years ago. Doesn’t seem that we have an unprecedented decline there. Even if we did, why shoud we worry in the first place?

The claim of a 40 year decline in ice extent due to CO2 and the fear mongering about it is even worse than cherry picking. There is no proof whatsoever for this hypothesis. This is just belief that if there were no other reasons it could be CO2 and if it turns out very bad it could be bad for some polar bears. How did you say? If my auntie was a man she’d be my uncle, right?

MarkW
Reply to  zazove
June 25, 2018 10:00 am

He’s pointing out a now 5 year (and continuing trend) that lies in direct opposition of the claims of the alarmists, that arctic ice is in an unstoppable death spiral.

Philip Schaeffer
Reply to  Felix
June 26, 2018 10:27 pm

The sea ice extent went up from one year to the next 16 times!

Overall trend still obviously down.

richard verney
Reply to  zazove
June 25, 2018 5:31 am

Even on your plot, Arctic Sea Ice today, is greater than it was in 2007/8 and in 2012.

Your plot seems to support what Felix said.

Of course, sea ice may have declined somewhat since 1979, but 1979 was a peak as Vinnikov (the lead author of the IPCC AR1) showed when setting out 20th century Arctic Sea Ice.

More significantly, it you wish to put something in its proper perspective, for over 90% of the Holocene the amount of Arctic Sea Ice has been considerably less than it is today. Sea Ice has undoubtedly been growing since the Holocene Optimum, and according to the IPCC CO2 has remained approximately constant throughout the Holocene, save since the end of the 19th century/early 20th century.

CO2 does not explain the Arctic Sea Ice as seen throughout the Holocene.

2hotel9
June 23, 2018 9:31 am

Ya know, if it wasn’t for baseless misinformation they would have no information at all. It is sad that these people are so desperate for calamity and misery to be visited upon people that they are absolutely blind to reality. The planet Earth is such a wondrous miracle, and all they can do is doomcry and attempt to terrify children and the easily duped with their apocalyptic stupidity, all the while living lives of luxury consuming as much energy, in all its forms, as they can. Hypocrites.

william matlack
Reply to  2hotel9
June 23, 2018 2:00 pm

But the doomsday talks pay real well, science be dammed

J Mac
Reply to  2hotel9
June 24, 2018 3:06 pm

30 years and the arctic sea ice is getting thicker, the planet hasn’t melted, crop yields continue to increase, and the planet is getting greener, thanks to atmospheric CO2 enrichment! It’s all good… and getting better!

2hotel9
Reply to  J Mac
June 24, 2018 6:50 pm

Co2 is plant food. More plant food means more plants. Leftards hate that tiny fact.

michael hart
June 23, 2018 9:36 am

One of Tony’s most entertaining recent youtube videos is “How Did We Survive The 1970s?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qxQ7Bw7wbw
By the end, and the last “But they were just getting started…”, I was almost in tears of laughter.

Latitude
Reply to  michael hart
June 23, 2018 10:39 am

Nick’s going to come along in a minute…and tell everyone that Hansen’s predictions were right…
….without realizing how that’s impossible

comment image

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 4:00 pm

So the big feature is that the red is 0.2°C lower than the black? Without noticing, of course, that they are on different anomaly bases.

Felix
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 4:12 pm

If the 1950-80 basis is only 0.2 degrees C lower than the 1980-2010 baseline, then Earth is warming at only 0.67 degrees C per century.

That implies a low climate sensitivity.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 23, 2018 4:47 pm

Neither is 1980-2010. The red is the standard 1951-80 base. The black isn’t anything standard. Folks who love digging up old graphs don’t seem to have any curiosity about what they really represent. Hansen in 1981 appreciated well that in averaging readings should be combined using anomalies. But he doesn’t seem to appreciate that they should have the same anomaly base. So he mixed the cells relative to their own averages relative to what readings they had. The bad thing about that is that it affects the trend, usually reducing. That’s why by 1987 he was using a standard period, even though it is a difficulty when stations don’t have data in that period.

Of course, there are other issues in the comparison, which folks like Heller ignore. The black is derived from what was available at the time – a few hunderd land stations, mostly NH. The red is combined land/ocean, and with much better coverage on land.

Felix
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 4:53 pm

Combining the ocean just offers a huge new playing field for crooked book cookers.

It’s also methodological madness, even without all the opportunities to make things up.

Ocean T is measured beneath the surface, land stations above.

If you want oceanic coverage, the only apples to apples comparison is with stations on land surrounded by water. Or at least coastal.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 23, 2018 5:10 pm

“If you want oceanic coverage, the only apples to apples comparison is with stations on land surrounded by water.”
OK, that was GISS Ts.

Felix
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:14 pm

Assuming no other unwarranted “adjustments”, homogenizing and interpolation, ie making Scheiss up, I should have added.

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:00 pm

Nick, that’s not Heller’s graph….

comment image

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 5:11 pm

So why are you so cagey about the author? Who was it?

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:17 pm

I’m just googling “GISS temperature adjustments” and posting what I find…images …..you can right click and get the address

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 5:58 pm

I have it on the authority of the internet …

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 6:12 pm

LOL….oh come on…you can do better than that
Obviously they are accurate and right….you didn’t post anything showing they are not
BTW NASA/GISS/Hansen are all on the internet too

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 8:53 pm

Putting two curves of different anomaly base on a graph is obviously not right. Trying to make a point of the the discrepancy is, well, careless.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 8:20 am

You can forget about the anomaly base period being an issue when you are comparing two individual years to each other. As the anomaly base changes over time, those two years should only change relative to the “average” but not change relative to each other. The only way to do that is to adjust the data and that was the point of the figure above.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 9:43 am

“Hansen in 1981 appreciated well that in averaging readings should be combined using anomalies”

Hansen in 1981 also produced the temperature chart showing the MWP that the IPCC used in their first assessment report. IS it no a surprise that Hansen did not object to M Mann’s publication of a temperature chart in MBH98 that overturned all the work of previous investigators, claiming to show there was no MWP?

Hansen is quite a character. I do appreciate however his signal contribution to the discussion by publishing that iconic chart that is used by skeptics as an easy rebuttal of Mann’s hockey stick. Without Hansen’s reconstruction (based on decent proxies and measurements) it might be harder, and take longer, to show that MBH98 was primarily a series of mathematical errors and cherry-picked, inappropriately weighted proxies.

For those interested in Hansen’s “other life” see his (first?) 1969 paper announcing the catastrophic end of civilisation caused by the coming, inevitable, man-caused global cooling. (Remember “global dimming”?)

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
June 24, 2018 6:44 pm

“Hansen in 1981 also produced the temperature chart showing the MWP that the IPCC used in their first assessment report.”
There is just endless nonsense here. Hansen only had 1 paper in 1981, and it didn’t have anything like that. I don’t believe Hansen has ever published a paleo study of his own.

“For those interested in Hansen’s “other life” see his (first?) 1969 paper announcing the catastrophic end of civilisation caused by the coming, inevitable, man-caused global cooling.”
I don’t believe he published any such paper in 1969 either. Or at any time.

richard verney
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 1:54 am

Nick is probably right that these plots are based upon different base periods. Whether that is material will depend upon the anomaly for each base period.

Herein lies one of the problems with anomalies. It renders meaningful comparisons very difficult since one needs to convert all the data back to absolute temperatures so that like with like can be compared.

What all of this clearly demonstrates is that we need to reassess by remeasurement what is going on, so that we can produce a data set that is fit for scientific purpose and so that like for like can be directly compared.

I frequently point out that we should select the best say 200 sited stations where there have been no significant environmental changes since the 1930s and which are preferably located well away from reservoirs, lakes, oceans etc which might attenuate results.

We then retrofit these prime stations with precisely the same LIG thermometers (calibrated in the same manner as was done, at that station, in the past) in the same type of enclosure (volume, paint etc) as used by each station (on a station by station basis), and then measure temperature using precisely the same practice and procedures (eg., TOB) as was used at the station in the question in the 1930s.

We will then obtain modern day RAW data that can be directly compared with the station’s own historic RAW data for the 1930s/1940s without the need for any adjustment whatsoever.

No fancy statistically models will be used, there will be no attempt to compile a global or hemispherical wide construct, no spatial adjustments made. We will simply draw up a list of the 200 stations and note the temperature change at each station, one by one.

In that manner we will be able to make a meaningful like for like comparison and we will readily see whether there has generally been warming since the highs of the 1930s/1940s and if so by what sort of order.

RAH
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 7:10 am

Can’t help but observe that Nick never goes to Tony’s blog to directly challenge his representation of the facts but has always been content with sniping from here. Tony has posted the graph in question many times over the years.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  RAH
June 24, 2018 4:30 pm

Can’t help noticing that people are happy to post Tony’s stuff here, but when challenged, can only say, well I don’t know about that, you’ll have to take it up with Tony.

But Lat insists that this is not a TH graph anyway. He got it from the internet. So I have to take it up with them.

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 4:31 pm

Nick, they are both GISS temp…GISS says the temp history that Hansen used to program his computer models was wrong…..GISS changed it to the correct temp history after Hansen made his prediction
You have 2 choices…
1. Hansen was right….and GISS was wrong to adjust the temps
2. GISS is right…and Hansen’s predictions are garbage

GISS says if Hansen had used the correct adjusted temp history….Hansen would be off the chart warmer

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 4:48 pm

Either way……take it up with GISS…they are the ones that changed it

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 4:49 pm

They are not both Gistemp. The 1981 plot is just an early publication by Hansen, using a few hundred land stations.

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:06 pm

GISS says they had 1000 stations in 1981

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 5:18 pm

No, Hansen didn’t use the MCDW data. Remember, in 1981 you don’t just download from the internet. MCDW had 1000 stations written on paper, probably somewhere in Europe.

comment image

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:19 pm

oh, ok, so he was really off the mark

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:24 pm

This is what NASA says….
“The simple procedure used in 1981 was refined as documented in Hansen and Lebedeff (1987), using 8000 grid boxes to allow mapping and analysis of regional patterns.”
so by 1988, when he testified, Hansens computer model was the official GISS temp

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/history/

…and now GISS says the temp history that Hansen used to program his computer model…was wrong
Which makes debating about how accurate his prediction was….stupid

richard verney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 2:04 am

Both Hansen and Phil Jones note the problem with the SH. There is simply not sufficient spatial coverage and not sufficient historic data. As you know Phil Jones quite candidly stated in the Climategate emails that much of the SH data (ie., outside the tropics and Antarctica) is simply made up. Obviously that was an unguarded comment but it is essentially correct. But of course there is little Antarctic data and a wide discrepancy between the western edge over the volcanoes. People are living in a fantasy world if they consider that anything meaningful from the SH can be extracted and used.

That means that no meaningful global construct can be derived. Using the SH corrupts rather than assists.

We only have worthwhile data on the NH, and we should only consider what is happening in the NH. Given that CO2 is a well mixed gas (at any rate at high altitude) it is sufficient work with the NH to test the radiant GHE.

Felix
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 6:21 pm

Gavin says you can reliably, precisely and accurately take Earth’s temperature with 50 stations. But if one every 1200 km be sufficient, as GISS also argues, then 113 would be required.

So let’s find the best 100 stations and see what they say.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 23, 2018 9:00 pm

“So let’s find the best 100 stations and see what they say.”
I’ve done that, in many different ways. The latest is
here.

Felix
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 9:31 pm

Thanks. Please post your reconstructed global temperature as a graph against time.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 23, 2018 9:56 pm

Here is a plot from this 2011 post is the plot using 60 stations. I compare with GISS land/ocean and CRUTEM 3; the idea is to see if the end result (using land stations weighted globally)

comment image

Here is a plot of part a view of the Earth and how the area weighting is done. More details at the lin k.

comment image

richard verney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 2:28 am

The problem is that one is still not making like for like comparisons, and there should be no attempt to construct some global construct.

We need like for like measurements and that requires retrofitting the stations with exactly the same type of LIG thermometers, the same type of enclosures and painted with the same type of paint as used by each of the selected stations back in the 1930s.

The change of paint can lead to over 0.1 degC warming (I think that Anthomy once ran an article of that), and the change of enclosure and change from LIG themometer can lead to over 0.2 degC of warming,

I recall seeing a German study where several stations ran side by side with the old LIG thermometer for around 5 years showing over 0.3 deg C warming, for this factor alone.

We need a quality controlled scientific approach taken to remeasurements.

PS. You have probably seen the RUTI (rural unadjusted temperature index) reconstruction which has done something similar to you (but using far more stations) and this shows far less warming.

See:
http://hidethedecline.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/fig1-1.jpg

This shows a warming of about 0.2 degC above the 1940 warm period (which is largely the product of the 2010 strong El Nino) .

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 5:24 am

Your charts above show 1940 as about 0.8C cooler than 1998. Hansen showed in 1999 that 1934 was 0.5C hotter than 1998. So your charts show a drop of 1.3C from 1934 to 1940. Something seems to be off a little bit with your charts.

At least the charts got 1998 right.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 24, 2018 12:19 pm

The usual muddle that can’t distinguish between temperature history of ConUS and global.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 4:06 pm

This “global” chart (GISS 1980) shows the 1930’s/40’s heat “blip”. It also shows how NASA cooled it over a period of years.

comment image

Felix
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 7:16 pm

Thanks!

How did you do the weighting?

Do the stations reflect average global altitude and distance from oceans? How about latitude bands in both (or all four) hemispheres? What’s the urban-rural mix, and how has it changed over time?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 8:01 pm

Felix,
I take it that is for me? The weighting is as shown on the sphere pic; according to the areas marked. The points are connected by a triangle mesh (convex hull), and basically weighted by the areas they are connected to.

Anomalies are used, so altitude and latitude don’t have to be representative. Because the number of stations is whittled down to just 60 or so, it is possible to favour various characteristics. Here I chose area representativeness, long term, and rural. I make a combined score, and can weight as preferred. In an earlier version I required rural and 90 years of record, but didn’t insist on spacing in the same way. It still did a reasonable job.

I may revisit this. My more recent efforts have been trying to use this weighted culling to pin down the question of coverage uncertainty. How much different would the average have been if you chose different stations. Then the fact that you can get a good result with a subset of a few hundred, and it doesn’t matter much (can be quantified) which you choose, is of interest.

Felix
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 8:09 pm

Nick,

Yes, in response to your reply to me. Still getting used to new threading. My bad.

Thanks.

Revisiting is IMO warranted.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 12:28 am

As soon as I saw sea surface temp I stopped reading because isnt that the water temperature ? Any data set that combines air temperature with water temperature is useless.

richard verney
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 2:07 am

I often suggest taking the best 200, and these will probably be in the NH since there is very little historic SH data going back to the 1930s.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 3:24 am

“these will probably be in the NH since there is very little historic SH data going back to the 1930s”
Well, you need SH stations if you are going to get a global result. But there are quite a lot at this level of sparseness. Here is another view of the 60 stations, from 1939 onward. Obviously Antarctic stations would be missing quite a lot of data in that range, and would be worse if you go further back. But in temperate SH there is still a lot of data.

comment image

richard verney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 10:10 pm

Nick

I do not want a global construct, nor a hemisphere construct.

I just want to compare like for like pin point location data with the very same pin point. I want to see how the temperature at A compares with the temperature at A over time. I want to separately consider how the temperature at B compares with B over time. I want to separately consider how the temperature at C compares with C over time.

I want to retrofit A so that it is fitted with the same type of LIG thermometer, the same enclosure, using the same paint etc as was used at A in the 1930s/1940s, and then i want today meausre temperature using the same practice and procedures as A used in the 1930s/1940s.

No fancy statistics or tools, no krigging, homenisation, spatial coverage adjustments etc. Just wholly undadjusted RAW data being compared with the stations own undajusted historic RAW data. Simply each station being compared with itself.

If there are some good stations in the SH these can form part of the 200 best stations.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 11:23 pm

Richard,
This isn’t going to happen, so there is no use going on about it. I don’t think it would help anyway. We have to learn what we can from the data we have.

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:10 pm

…do we know those exact same few hundred land stations now, to compare like for like?

Latitude
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 23, 2018 5:50 pm

Nick >”They are not both Gistemp. The 1981 plot is just an early publication by Hansen, using a few hundred land stations.”

yes, and that’s the plot that Hansen used to program his computer model, and the program he used when he testified in 1988. He adjusted it down only 2 years later.

Hansen voided his own model…when he adjusted the past down…to show a higher rate of warming
What he programmed into his computer showed a slower rate of warming. So his A B and C all show a slower rate of warming.

If Hansen had programmed his new and improved faster rate of warming into that model….his results would be off the chart

Latitude
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 6:31 pm

Bottom line…
Hansen knew that his computer model was wrong when he testified before Congress…..Hansen had started working on his new an improved temp history 2 years prior to that. The new one that would show a faster rate of warming.
..and yet, he testified that his model at that time was right

There’s a word for when you testify something is correct…and you know it’s not.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 9:18 pm

“Hansen knew that his computer model was wrong when he testified before Congress…..Hansen had started working on his new an improved temp history 2 years prior to that. “
Just a total muddle. The model has nothing to do with the temperature history, except insofar as you might want to compare them. And vice versa.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 12:33 am

The model should have the temp history in it especially in those days because the coding was elementary compared to now. Who knows what Hansen had programmed into his computer? But Latitude you should explain the complete logic of what you are asserting?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 3:13 am

“Who knows what Hansen had programmed into his computer?”
GISS Model E code is available, and has been for years, so I’m sure you can get back copies. I have a 2011 version. But you don’t need to know the code to know that he didn’t use temp history. You just need to know something about how GCMs work. There is no place in them for a temp history.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 10:08 am

What does the Model E code have to do with Hansen’s code in 1988?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 12:17 pm

“What does the Model E code have to do with Hansen’s code in 1988?”
Model E was created by combining an ocean model with Hansen’s original Model II, which he developed around 1983 and used in 1988. But I see that you can also download
code for Model II, as used in 1983. That link is to a page which also has historic and descriptive material, and links to advice on compiling and running it. There is even a page offering a user-friendly interface. Now there is an opportunity for folks here. You can run it on a PC.

Louis Hooffstetter
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 9:29 pm

Fraud?
Just guessing…

Chris
Reply to  Louis Hooffstetter
June 24, 2018 12:13 am

Emphasis on guessing. Hey, I don’t have any evidence, but I’m just going to throw out accusations.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
June 24, 2018 11:45 am

In other words, he’s no better than your average climate “scientist”.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 4:11 pm

Latitude: checkout the pattern for Capetown South Africa, Canada, Greenland, Europe, Siberia, Paraguay, Ecuador… Raw Ts are the same pattern and in my engineering mind these corroborate the legitimate use of these un-jiggered records for investigating climate change. State records in the US for T high remain as july 1937. At Sweetgrass, Saskatchewan, the record was and still is 47C for that date

Surely Greenland’s temps can be considered pristine
Even Iceland’s with fewer than half a million citizens can be accepted as legitimate. Errors can be assumed to cancel out. Ive read and heard the rationales for adjustments and superficially TOBS and some other adjustments seem reasonable. But look what happens to these records once dishonest rent seekers use this rationale to get a free pass to fiddle the records.

Its not widely known or remembered that in1998, the big El Nino did not break the late 30s record. Hansen adjusted all this grossly only in 2007 when he realized it may be cooling and he so desperately needed a new world high after his prognostication failures. He pushed the dustbowl highs down IIRC~ 0.5C to get rid of a high that couldnt be from CO2 and a 40yr cooling period to the late 70s that ran counter to a rising CO2 narrative. This cunningly maintained the 0.8C rise since 1980 but shifted the heating rise to 2000. We couldnt have a 0.8C rise in the much shorter period 1880 to 1940 with no help from CO2.

Latitude
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 23, 2018 5:07 pm

bingo…..

Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 24, 2018 1:21 am

It’s a moving wave… it will always be the warmest year no matter what.
AGW should have died a long time ago. It should have died when it was obvious that there was a ‘pause ‘ in temperature, despite ever increasing amounts of anthro co2 being produced. Which when AGW couldn’t find a reasonable explanation, the ‘pause’ never happened.

Reply to  Latitude
June 24, 2018 10:23 am

It is not a coincidence that the graph has become more linear. That is the only way they can make a model that states Temperature is a function of CO2 work. They have to make temperatures more linear. Problem is they are modeling CO2 and temperature when they should be modeling energy absorbed by CO2 and temperature. Energy absorbed shows a log decay, so by making temperatures more linear, they are ruling our CO2 as the cause.

Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2018 9:38 am

Hansen sez “I don’t want to be right”.

comment image

June 23, 2018 9:40 am

“The right way to call somebody an asshole is behind their back.”

Jerry Seinfeld

Latitude
Reply to  Stephen Heins
June 23, 2018 12:42 pm

After this much time…it’s impossible that Hansen doesn’t know
…yet, he’s doubled down on it

fit’s my definition to a T

Steven MIller
June 23, 2018 9:47 am

How is it possible that Hansen just keeps getting better looking every day?

michael hart
Reply to  Steven MIller
June 23, 2018 10:01 am

As well as supporting nuclear power, I’ve always said that Hansen does at least sport a good looking hat.

So he’s only about 97% wrong.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Steven MIller
June 23, 2018 10:50 am

It’s that Amish attire with Homer Simpson outlook and wit. He should ditch the watch, however.

Editor
June 23, 2018 9:53 am

Tony Heller has been all over Dr. James Hansen in the last week, with SIX blog posts, showing in various ways the many prediction failures Dr. Hansen made.

Latitude
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 23, 2018 10:36 am

I can’t open Tony’s blog any more….for some reason, when he posts his pictures…they lock up my computer…..so I had to stop reading it

Terrence22
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 4:12 pm

his blog really slows down on my PC, too – especially the pictures; so I have stopped reading it too.

Editor
Reply to  Latitude
June 23, 2018 9:32 pm

For a short time I too was having problems getting his blog online, but now that has vanished. I get on in a couple seconds every time now.

Try again.

richard verney
Reply to  Latitude
June 24, 2018 2:44 am

I too have noticed the loading time.

I consider that he should put his pictures on a separate page with the main page simply linking to the page which contains his photos.

I think that would overcome the loading issue and people who are interested in his photos (which are nice; it is always nice to see nature in its full splendour) can look at them, and those that are primarily interested in the scientific articles can concentrate on the scientific articles.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 5:32 am

Tony takes some fantastic nature photos. He has a real talent for it.

Ktm
Reply to  Sunsettommy
June 23, 2018 12:34 pm

Tony is a national treasure.

Editor
Reply to  Ktm
June 23, 2018 9:29 pm

Not really. WUWT was better off after he left. Don’t get me started on CO2 frost in Antarctica!

KTM
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 23, 2018 11:54 pm

Tony Heller Derangement Syndrome. I bet you lay awake at night feverishly thinking about CO2 and partial pressures.

Editor
Reply to  KTM
June 24, 2018 9:59 am

I don’t, but Heller might. https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/30/reading-comprehension/#comment-380502

He doesn’t seem to have forgiven me yet!

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 23, 2018 11:54 pm

His “finds” in old newspapers and magazines are informative. Who else does such work?

He does get a bit frosty at times. An endearing characteristic.

His photos are fantastic, so I click to open, and then read something else while they do. Well worth it.
I think he is still using a Nikon P900, with a 16 MP sensor with significant zoom.

richard verney
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 24, 2018 2:47 am

Tony is not always right, no one is. One should always approach everything (that is both sides) with equal sceptism.

But Tony has made real progress with US temperatures, adjustments to temperature data sets, and his historic newspaper references are a real treasure trove. These place matters in a better perspective.

His short video presentations (usually around 5 mins in length) are pithy and well worth viewing. They will soon build into a useful library. People should really check them out.

MarkW
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 11:47 am

“Tony is not always right, no one is.”
My ex-wife begs to differ.

Hugs
Reply to  Ric Werme
June 24, 2018 5:44 am

He likes Russia so much that I started wondering if they paid his camera. He does take good photos, but his uncritical approach to Putin’s Russia is chilling me. He’d make a wonderful Russian agent, even if he weren’t one.

Be no fool, Russia does have its agents working right here. And Heller’s blog. This is because Russia sees climate contrarianism as a tool to break EU, and to break interatlantic connections. Trump, while I think is refreshing, is not actually helping West in being strong together.

(And I’m pretty sure people affected by the Russian influence will now attack me.)

bonbon
Reply to  Hugs
June 24, 2018 11:24 am

The Brits have backed off on Russiagate – caught red-handed in a USA regime change. What hubris!

MarkW
Reply to  bonbon
June 24, 2018 11:47 am

It really is fascinating how you can’t tell the difference between left wing propaganda and reality.

Hugs
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 6:41 am

Well, I do know Russian aeroplanes in our airspace.

That is, it might be easy to be naive there.

Hugs
Reply to  bonbon
June 25, 2018 7:07 am

What’s that to do with Russian presence in climate blogs?

You guys don’t seem to be able to accept, that even when I like Trump and see Russian collusion as fake news, there is a real Russian collusion. By Dims. And Putin is doing dirty work all the time. He is my neighbor I do not like.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Hugs
June 24, 2018 12:24 pm

Tony Heller may be a lot of things, but a Russia stooge he is not.

June 23, 2018 9:57 am

Just finished a post on this topic:
It is Hard To Overstate Just How Wrong Jim Hansen’s Predictions Have Been
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/06/23/it-is-hard-to-overstate-just-how-wrong-jim-hansens-predictions-have-been/

Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 10:16 am

https://ourfiniteworld.com/

All of the temperature increase in the last 68 years can be explained by the increase in population of 2.5 billion in 1950 to 7.6 billion today.
Everyone has to cook and everybody in northern climates has to heat their homes in winter. Plus there is more air travel more transportation of every kind more burning of forests more of everything. Since 1950 world energy use is now 5 times what it was . All of that energy except solar, geothermal, nuclear, wind and hydro has been because of burning things. Of the total energy use ; 80% of it is because of fossil fuels which have to be burnt to create energy with most of the energy being lost as heat. That heat has to show up in the thermometer measurements. It just doesnt magically disappear into space immediately. I am astonished that no one else has put forward this explanation.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 10:25 am

No. The only thing it can do is skew temperature records, along with UHI. Man’s puny additions of heat are miniscule, compared to the sun and oceans.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2018 10:53 am

Yes, only the records are impacted significantly via localized heating and UHI.

richard verney
Reply to  R. Shearer
June 24, 2018 2:52 am

Exactly and we are therefore concentrating on manmade impact.

We should only look at the oceans, but the problem is that there is no historic data,

Perhaps after 100 years of ARGO we will have some insight.

MarkW
Reply to  richard verney
June 24, 2018 11:48 am

100 years yes, but even ARGO is inadequate by at least an order of magnitude.

gammacrux
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 10:46 am

I am astonished that no one else has put forward this explanation.

Don’t be astonished, it’s simply because your “explanation” is plain wrong.
Do the maths, it’s simple enough to find out why. The result is short of a factor 100 or so.
Does contribute to urban heat island effect, though, i.e. changes climate locally in densely inhabited cities or regions but no sizable effect on global temperature.

richard verney
Reply to  gammacrux
June 24, 2018 2:57 am

But the temperature data is made up of a majority of stations that have been impacted by UHI. Over time there has been a drop out of rural stations in favour of heavily UHI impacted stations, and there has been a drop out of high latitude stations.

The number of airport stations has more than doubled since the 1930s and airports in the 1930s/1940s are not the same as today. Indeed, many were air fields, ie grass runways and had but 1 small passenger terminal not the vast hangers seen today.

This has really corrupted the data set.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 10:55 am

By your logic, the Laurentide Ice Sheet melted 10,000-20,000 year ago because cave men burned wood?
Questions: 1) Was it a bad thing that the Laurentide Ice Sheet melted? 2) Did mankind have anything to do with its melting? My answers would be: 1) No, it’s hard to barbecue in your Chicago backyard under a mile of ice. 2) No, it melted on its own; even the 13,000 feet of ice over what is now the Quebec, Canada area melted all on its own. from where did the heat that melted all that ice come. We didn’t produce it. Maybe Fred and Wilma had too many children.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
June 23, 2018 11:20 am

A Neanderthal named Grunk may have predicted it.

Clay Sanborn
Reply to  R. Shearer
June 23, 2018 11:53 am

Al Grunk. You’re killing me! 🙂

R. Shearer
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
June 23, 2018 2:13 pm

You gave away the happy ending.

Felix
Reply to  Clay Sanborn
June 24, 2018 2:43 pm

Neanderthals are supposed to have died out more than 20 Ka, but Al Gorp might force me to reconsider.

commieBob
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 12:14 pm

We need to know two things:
1 – How much solar energy arrives?
2 – How much energy do humans consume?

First we calculate the area of a disk the size of the Earth. The radius is approximately 10,000 km. The disk’s area is approximately pi x 10000^2 = 3e8 square km. This is 3e14 square meters.

The energy flux hitting our disk would be around 1000 watts per square meter. Thus the energy flux hitting a disk the size of the Earth would be 3e17 watts.

The total energy hitting the Earth in a year would be 365 x 24 x 3e17 = 2.6e21 watt hours per year.

According to Wikipedia the world’s energy consumption in 2015 was 168,519 Terawatt hours. Tera means trillion, ie. 1e12. That’s 1.7e17 watt hours.

The ratio of anthropogenic to solar energy is 1.7e12 / 2.6e21 = 1/15000

In other words, the human consumption of energy isn’t even a rounding error in the total budget.

Editor
Reply to  commieBob
June 23, 2018 9:41 pm

BTW, based on my estimate of the 650 GW to melt the basalt that fissure 18 is emitting on Kilauea, that’s some 5,650 TWh per year. That’s a lot less than people use, and lots less than what the Sun delivers.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 2:38 pm

Everybody is misinterpreting me. The temperature increase is actually illusory. That increase of 0.7C from the land records is due to the urban heat island effect. The UHI is caused by us using 5 times the energy that we used to use in 1950. If the satellite records pan out eventually to an increase then we are back to the argument of how much natural and how much CO2. Since O2 and N2 are the real greenhouse gases (4000 times the heat capacity of CO2) then I say CO2 has very very little to do with it.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 3:47 pm

Glaciers world wide are retreating. That’s all being caused by UHI?
The amount of energy being used by man is so small compared to solar input that it’s orders of magnitude less than the rounding error.
O2 and N2 aren’t greenhouse gases.

Felix
Reply to  MarkW
June 23, 2018 3:53 pm

Not worldwide. Some glaciers on every continent are advancing, some retreating and some staying the same. They haven’t all been surveyed, but probably about half are retreating, as has been the case since c. AD 1690.

Simon
Reply to  Felix
June 23, 2018 10:32 pm

Half… really? Reference please?

Urederra
Reply to  Simon
June 24, 2018 1:29 pm

Why people are giving down votes to someone who asks for references?

Chris
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 4:38 am

No, it’s not only half that are retreating, it’s far more than that. The World Glacier Monitoring Services has been tracking glaciers for more than 30 years. The larger survey of 141 glaciers shows only 15/141, or 11%, that are growing in mass. 89% are in decline.
https://wgms.ch/latest-glacier-mass-balance-data/

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
June 24, 2018 11:50 am

Of course you still haven’t proven that the warming is being caused by CO2.
For that matter, nobody can explain the other times in the last 10,000 years when the temperatures were even warmer than today, and no CO2 was involved.

Felix
Reply to  Chris
June 24, 2018 12:04 pm

Cherry picked out of the world’s ~300,000 glaciers. No one seems to have counted all of them. Here is reality:

https://iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

On every continent, glaciers are growing as well as retreating and staying put. Hence, CO2 can’t be the cause. Most glacial retreat happened before CO2 took off, ie from c. AD 1850, the end of the LIA, to 1950.

Those growing tend to be among the largest, so it’s possible that in terms of area and mass, ice is actually gaining at the moment.

Since the East Antarctic Ice Sheet holds the vast majority of the world’s fresh water and its ice, all the mountain glaciers in the world aren’t a pimple on its posterior. And its gigantic glaciers are growing.

Antarctica is where CO2 should have the greatest effect, but the continent’s climate is stable or cooling.

Glaciers and ice fields, as on Kilimanjaro, are affected by many factors, such as wind and water, besides local temperature, which in any case hasn’t changed much in the tropics. The ice field there shrank from downslope deforestation, but has stabilized since cutting has slowed or stopped.

Chris
Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 11:47 pm

Hahahaha – Felix’s “survey” consists of him Googling for stories about growing glaciers. Most of the stories are from the 2003 to 2008 period. Does his “survey” consist of annual measurements at each of the glaciers mentioned in his link? Nope. Any kind of graph showing historical versus present day mass? Nope. Just a link to an article that mentions that at that prior point in time, when a snapshot measurement was taken, the glacier had shown growth year to year.

So let’s look at several of Felix’s growing glaciers. Near the top of his link is mention of Helm and Place Glaciers in Canada. Let’s see if Felix’s growth story holds up under scrutiny. Detailed data for the last 30 years for these 2 glaciers plus a number of others in North America is shown here:
https://blogs.agu.org/fromaglaciersperspective/2009/12/19/helm-glacier-melting-away/

Helm has lost 30% of it’s mass in the last 25 years. Place has lost 27% of its mass in the last 25 years. They show more mass loss than any of the other glaciers being tracked. Those are Felix’s “growing” glaciers.

Simon
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 11:55 am

Felix…no reference? So it is a Trump fact then.

Felix
Reply to  Simon
June 24, 2018 12:13 pm

No, it’s my own survey, more scientific than the bogus link cited. I provided a reference to growing glaciers.

It shows that the reference finding 89% retreating was cherry-picked.

The share depends upon selection. No one has a representative sample, let alone all the world’s glaciers. But 141 carefully selected instances means nothing. I could add 111 growing glaciers to that sample to get only half retreating.

Felix
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 12:59 pm

For instance, Antarctica’s Lambert-Fisher Glacier, largest in the world, is growing, as are most if not all of the other gigantic glaciers streaming from the vast EAIS.

These ice streams contain more ice than all the mountain glaciers in the world outside the poles.

To illustrate that air temp is not the control knob on glacial advance or retreat, consider two side by side, tidewater glaciers in Greenland:

https://www.inverse.com/article/46347-nasa-discovered-why-greenland-glaciers-melt-differently

Felix
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 1:39 pm

But what of the world’s mountain glaciers, outside of polar regions, you might well ask. While containing much less ice than the Antarctic and Greenland sheets, they’re worth a look.

As I said, they present a mixed picture. Here are the largest, by some metrics, ten mountain glaciers:

https://www.wondersify.com/largest-glaciers/

10. Gangotri, India: Retreating since records began in 1780 and apparently continuing.
9. Biafo, Pakistan: Expanding, as are other Himalayan glaciers.
8. Perito Moreno, Argentina: Growing, as is its neighbor Pio XI in Chile.
7. Margerie, Alaska: Stable, with its neighbor John Hopkins advancing.
6. Pasterze, Austria: Shrinking. Other alpine glaciers are growing.
5. Furtwaengler, Tanzania: Shrank previously, but possibly stable now.
4. Fox and Franz Josef, New Zealand: Fox grew until 2009; FJ is still advancing.
3. Jostedalsbreen, Norway: Largest in Europe. Stable, but one of its arms retreated in 2012.
2. Siachen Glacier, India and Pakistan: Fought over. Retreating, but has suffered recent losses from blasting to make camps.
1. Fedchenko, Tajikistan: Largest outside the Poles. Advanced 1913-28, retreated until 1960, but now advancing or stable.

Hence, we get four probably retreating, three probably stable and three or more expanding in mass, length or both.

As I said, maybe half retreating (but probably not), and half stable or advancing. But advancing East Antarctic ice puts them all in the shade.

Felix
Reply to  Felix
June 24, 2018 2:02 pm

if you go by length alone, the list looks a bit different.

This is Pio XI referred to above. Longest in the SH outside of Antarctica, it’s advancing rapidly:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCggen_Glacier

In the northern hemisphere, Tajikistan’s Fedchenko Glacier is 77 km long. In the Karakoram Mountains, Siachen Glacier is 76 km long, Biafo Glacier is 67 km long, Baltoro is 63 km long, and Baltura is 57 km long. Kyrgyzstan’s South Inylchek (Enylchek) Glacier is 60.5 km in length. None in the southern hemisphere outside of Antarctica and Bruggen (Pio XI) Glacier approach this length.

Measurements are from recent imagery, generally also with Russian 1:200,000 scale topographic mapping for reference as well as the 1990 Orographic Sketch Map: Karakoram: Sheets 1 and 2, Swiss Foundation for Alpine Research, Zurich.

So lengths possibly outdated.

MarkW
Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 10:03 am

Felix, you aren’t a certified climate “scientist”, therefore any work you do is by definition invalid.
If you want to have an opinion on the subject, the certified climate “scientists” will assign you one.

Felix
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 1:52 pm

My bad. Practicing ‘climate science” without a license. Professional standards seem a little lax, however, since an Australian cartoonist and American historian qualify.

Air T must have some effect on glaciers, since they generally advanced in the LIA. Some retreat in the Alps could be from UHI effects. Rising sea level could affect tidewater glaciers.

Wind, water and other factors remain important. They too could be altered by “climate change”, but the effect of CO2 appears negligible, at best.

On the scale of millennia, the mountains themselves move.

Chris
Reply to  Felix
June 25, 2018 11:21 pm

Felix, what is your evidence that your list is more representative, and that the list of 141 is cherry picked?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 4:32 pm

No Alan, O2 and N2 are NOT greenhouse gases. They are transparent to LWIR. Water vapour IS the main greenhouse gas. CO2, methane (at less than 2ppm) NO2, ozone are the main ones. All absorb and re-emit various LWIR wave lengths. They all, like O2 and N2 also have a heat capacity, but heat capacity has nothing to do with greenhouse effect. A little research on LWIR’s role in climate science is your friend. Hey Im recognized as a sceptic here, but I must admit a fair amount of my effort is to keep sceptics real.

Editor
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 9:57 pm

N2 is a significant greenhouse gas in the very high atmosphere, above the stratosphere where temperatures are very hot.

This paper claims that N2 ad O2 are significant at ground level. Well, perhaps, but the paper reports their impact to be less than the effect CH4 has, i.e. insignificant.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 23, 2018 10:51 pm

“I am astonished that no one else has put forward this explanation.”
Because people who make the effort can add up. Humans use about 3 kW/head, so about 20 TW. Earth is 5e14 m² , so that is 0.04 W/m2. That is about 2% of the GHG forcing, and a tiny fraction of the average 240 W/m² solar.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  Nick Stokes
June 24, 2018 12:19 am

The whole heat island effect could be explained by the 5 fold increase in energy use since 1950. That might be the only permanent warming that has occurred.

richard verney
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 3:07 am

The UHI is mainly change in albedo and heat retention of concrete and tarmac which act as storage heaters like the oceans (but of course on a much small scale).

The issue with UHI is how the data sets have over time used more and more stations that have been impacted by UHI, withn rural and high latitude stations dropping out of the data base, and the adjustment for UHI is insufficient.

Even the BBC (which is very warmist and which will not allow AGW to be debated on its channels) a few days ago noted that after sunset, London was 5 deg C warmer than its nearby surrounds.

We are not seeing a significant increase in daytime highs, but (it appears that) we are seeing slighter warmer night time lows, which very probably is a product of UHI (which has not been properly accounted for).

All of this has corrupted the data sets that are being used to convey the impression that there has been some warming since the highs of the 1930s/1940s.

Urederra
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
June 24, 2018 1:21 pm

And I guess that the sea level rise is because all that pee produced by the extra 5.2 billion people that goes directly to the ocean.

🙂

Felix
Reply to  Urederra
June 24, 2018 1:47 pm

MSL has been rising at about the same rate for 300 years.

MarkW
Reply to  Urederra
June 24, 2018 7:35 pm

Before a person can pee, they first have to drink. No net change there.
The warming is coming partly from the oceans warming up from the depths of the little ice age, partly from some glaciers melting and partly from aquifers being emptied.

Urederra
Reply to  MarkW
June 25, 2018 1:33 am

Mark, I was being sarcastic. 😉

Of course there are many other factors quantitatively more important for rising sea levels than peeing in the ocean.

MarkW
Reply to  Urederra
June 25, 2018 10:04 am

I would have thought that merely responding to a comment on pee’ing into the ocean in a semi-serious matter would have screamed sarcasm.

June 23, 2018 10:37 am

Thanks for sharing that interesting video!

Gary Pearse
June 23, 2018 11:19 am

Doubling down is exactly what these characters do. “Alinsky’s Rules” is on every neomarxbrother’s bookshelf.

https://www.steelonsteel.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals/
Scroll down for the rules. You will recognize pretty well all the tactics you see from trolls, clisci types, lefty elites…

Bruce Cobb
June 23, 2018 11:26 am

James Hansen is a good example of a scientist who has gone wrong, climbing aboard a bandwagon and abandoning all scientific principles. Normally, the scientific process would have quickly weeded him out, but by then (1988) politics were in full play. In the annals of science, and of history, his name will go down as one who trashed science for personal gain (fame, glory, and a career). He, along with others, such as Mann, will be vilified as those who chose personal glory and career over science and truth, to the great detriment of humanity.

Phillip Bratby
June 23, 2018 12:00 pm

A truly evil person.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
June 23, 2018 12:08 pm

Indeed. And as all evil-doers do, pretending to only be doing good for humanity. “Think of the children” (or grandchildren) is their refrain. If only they were.

Duncan
June 23, 2018 12:49 pm

I like the screenshot from the NY Times – the other top story was about how immigration laws were failing to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from Mexico.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Duncan
June 23, 2018 1:43 pm

I noticed that also. No one really has any intention of fixing it.

Frank Kotler
June 23, 2018 12:53 pm

I don’t live in Washington D.C. but I just checked the Washington Post for the local weather. 78F right now. Record high in 1988 – 98F. Tornado outbreak in 1944 – 150 fatalities. Climate changes. Weather changes a lot!

arationofreason
June 23, 2018 1:09 pm

Greenhouse warming does not add energy to the earth system. Therefore there is no additional energy to power increased storm number or intensity. The radiation ‘blanket’ would simply try to reduce radiation power to space. Increase in temperature will restore the radiation power to space via increased radiation by the water molecules in the atmosphere. Total radiation is a constant value so far as a CO2 blanket is concerned. Any increase in power received must come from the sun, not from any increase in a greenhouse blanket.