“How dare you!” Will Happer “calls methane ‘irrelevant’ to climate”.

Guest eye-rolling by David Middleton

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science of America…

In unpublished paper, former White House climate adviser calls methane ‘irrelevant’ to climate
By Scott Waldman, E&E News Nov. 27, 2019 , 12:35 PM

Originally published by E&E News

A climate skeptic with ties to the White House is back—this time as the co-author of a new paper that could help the Trump administration roll back climate rules.

William Happer, an emeritus Princeton University physics professor, previously worked within the White House to conduct a hostile review of climate science. While that effort didn’t go far, Happer at the same time worked on research into methane, a potent greenhouse gas.


A summary of Happer’s latest research was released by the CO2 Coalition, the group he founded and on whose board he now serves, which claims that the world needs more carbon dioxide emissions to thrive. Happer’s latest research claims that “much of the concern over climate change and greenhouse gases comes from misunderstanding basic physics.” The paper lays out a case as to why methane emissions are not worrisome, and says proposals to regulate emissions therefore are not justified.

“Given the huge benefits of more CO2 to agriculture, to forestry, and to primary photosynthetic productivity in general, more CO2 is almost certainly benefitting the world,” the authors wrote. “And radiative effects of CH4 [methane] and N2O [nitrous oxide], another greenhouse gas produced by human activities, are so small that they are irrelevant to climate.”

Happer’s research was submitted to EPA by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry and the Koch network. In its EPA comments, the foundation argued that methane does not contribute to air pollution that harms public health.

The world’s leading science agencies have found that increased carbon dioxide emissions will reduce crop yields and crop health and increase heavy precipitation events that destroy vegetation, and that worsening droughts—as well as longer periods of more intense heat—will kill plants and threaten humanity.


Science! As in she blinded me with…

As frackingly stupid as this article is, I think this is the stupidest bit:

The world’s leading science agencies have found that increased carbon dioxide emissions will reduce crop yields and crop health and increase heavy precipitation events that destroy vegetation, and that worsening droughts—as well as longer periods of more intense heat—will kill plants and threaten humanity.

I don’t think a more vapid, empty-headed, falsehood-filled paragraph has ever been written by human beings, perhaps with one exception: The 1941 ultimatum delivered by Japanese Ambassador Nomura to Secretary of State Cordell Hull, while the IJN was attacking Pearl Harbor. (Speaking of World War II… Midway – Two Thumbs Up!!)

Getting back to the subject… Dr. Happer is correct. If anything, he gives methane more credit than it deserves by calling it “irrelevant to climate”.

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%.

Science Daily

Let’s just accept these numbers for the purpose of this exercise. CH4 causes 4-9% of the greenhouse effect (GHE).

Without naturally occurring greenhouse gases, Earth’s average temperature would be near 0°F (or -18°C) instead of the much warmer 59°F (15°C).


The general assumption is that the average surface temperature of the Earth would be about 33 °C cooler than it is without the GHE.

Given that CH4 causes 4-9% of the GHE, the average surface temperature of the Earth would be 1-3 °C cooler than it is without CH4. However, the Earth’s atmosphere has always contained at least some CH4.

In the standard run the CH4 release reached the maximum value during the Carboniferous coal swamp era (Figure 6f). Consequently, the atmospheric pCH4 increased to 10 ppmv (Figure 7) during the middle Phanerozoic. The next two peaks were reached in the Cretaceous and Jurassic, with maximum contents of 1.5 ppmv approaching the pCH4 level prevailing in the modern atmosphere.

Bartdorff et al., 2008

Did you catch that? Allow me to repeat it:

The next two peaks were reached in the Cretaceous and Jurassic, with maximum contents of 1.5 ppmv approaching the pCH4 level prevailing in the modern atmosphere.

Cretaceous and Jurassic pCH4 level were lower than today, while the maximum of the Phanerozoic Eon occurred 300 million years ago during the Carboniferous Period.

Phanerozoic pCH4 (Bartdorff et al., 2008)
Phanerozoic pH-corrected temperature (Royer & Berner) and CO2 (Berner). Older is toward the left.

Combined plot…

Phanerozoic pCH4 (Bartdorff et al., 2008), pH-corrected temperature (Royer & Berner) and CO2 (Berner). Older is toward the left.

The highest Phanerozoic pCH4 level coincides with the only period over the past 540 million years when it was as cold as the Quaternary Period. That’s a geological CH4 face plant. I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying.

According to the IPCC, Earth’s average surface temperature would be about 1 °C cooler than it is without our evil GHG emissions.

Modified after IPCC AR4

Take away the CH4 we’ve added to the atmosphere since “The Ice Age Cometh” and Earth’s average surface temperature would be 0.04 to 0.09 °C cooler than it is. I’m already not losing sleep over the ~1 °C … So, 0.04 to 0.09 °C doesn’t even rise up to insignificant.

Even if we accept the IPCC assertion that nearly 30% of the anthropogenic radiative forcing is due to CH4, it still only amounts to 0.29 °C. If I have a choice between eating and a 0.29 °C lower temperature, I’ll take eating. Particularly when CH4 levels 5 times that of today coincided with the Late Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian)-Early Permian ice age.

According to the sacred climate models, if not for The Climate Wrecking Industry, the planet would be colder than The Ice Age Cometh

This proud member of the Climate Wrecking Industry says, “You’re welcome.”

And… No! The Climate Wrecking Industry hasn’t caused the recent rise in atmospheric CH4.

Ruling things out
The post-2007 uptick in global methane levels roughly coincides with the rapid deployment of natural gas “fracking” in the United States, making fugitive emissions a logical suspect. But attempts to verify the connection have produced counter-intuitive results, according to Stefan Schwietzke, a methane expert from the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (a NOAA-University of Colorado Boulder partnership).

Schwietzke’s research suggests that methane emissions from fossil fuels are higher than countries’ self-reported inventories suggest, and they may even be increasing. And yet, he explained via email, methane derived from fossil fuels is enriched with carbon-13—a rare, heavy isotope of carbon—and air samples show that the amount of carbon-13-flavored methane is dropping worldwide.

The drop seems to rule out fossil fuel emissions, wildfires, or biomass cook stoves as the reason for the post-2007 methane surge. All those sources of methane, to a greater or lesser extent, are enriched in carbon-13, not depleted.

It’s a counterintuitive finding: methane from fossil fuels is higher than we thought, but it seems to be making up a smaller share of total global emissions. In his email, Schwietzke wrote, “The decline in the 13-C isotope of methane in the atmosphere indicates that microbial sources must have an increasing share of total methane emissions globally.”

“Methane concentrations (dark lines) and the amount of carbon-13 in the methane (light lines) from 1998-2014 for four latitude zones: Northern and Southern Hemisphere tropics (green and orange) and Northern and Southern high latitudes (blue and gray).  Starting in 2007, methane concentrations in all latitude zones began to rise, but the amount of methane carrying “heavy” carbon-13 started to fall.  NOAA Climate.gov graphic, based on data from Nisbet et al., 2016, provided by Martin Manning.”


“American Association for the Advancement of Science of America” and “Science! As in she blinded me with…” are humorous (at least to me) pop culture references to the movie Dodgeball and Thomas Dolby’s 1982 hit song, She Blinded Me With Science.


Bartdorff, O., Wallmann, K., Latif, M., and Semenov, V. ( 2008), Phanerozoic evolution of atmospheric methane, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 22, GB1008, doi:10.1029/2007GB002985.

Berner, R.A. and Z. Kothavala, 2001. “GEOCARB III: A Revised Model of Atmospheric CO2 over Phanerozoic Time”.  American Journal of Science, v.301, pp.182-204, February 2001.

Royer, D. L., R. A. Berner, I. P. Montanez, N. J. Tabor and D. J. Beerling. “CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate”.  GSA Today, Vol. 14, No. 3. (2004), pp. 4-10


107 thoughts on ““How dare you!” Will Happer “calls methane ‘irrelevant’ to climate”.

    • Bob Tisdale
      December 4, 2019 at 2:13 am

      Yes, I quite agree…very intersting, thanks.

      Dave is there any chance you could do a piece on the Envisat CH4 data and how it relates (not) to global ruminant numbers. Is there any more up to data global methane data than the old Envisat stuff?

      There seems to be a huge north/south divide on global CH4 production…is this real or an artifact?

      • The Envisat analysis might be beyond what I can do in Excel in my spare time. But a comparison of global pCH4 and livestock population might be doable.

        I think the north-south divide is probably real. Most of the methane sources are wetlands and agriculture.

        • David Middleton
          December 4, 2019 at 2:52 pm

          Yes, the north-south divide is dramatic. There was this image from WUWT some years ago that shows the lack of correlation between global CH4 and ruminants:


          from this WUWT post:


          My question I guess is just to know if there has been any recent explanation of the N-S divide ( I assume it’s real?) and to know if there has been any updated global CH4 data since Envisat died around 2005. One doesn’t see much analysis of the Envisat data…or have I just missed it? Are there plans for a new CH4 measuring satellite by NASA or ESA or JAXA or do they consider that the results will be too embarrassing?

          It’s quite interesting and important for us here in NZ as “Farmer Bashing” is in full swing…much easier for the Green urbanites to carry on with their usual consumptive lifestyle if they can just blame the stupid end evil farmers (and their cows). So much research money and time is being wasted her to find new fodder types or supplements for the poor old cows that will reduce their CH4 production. They’re quite happy with the grass they’ve got now!

    • What’s this—“without considering clouds”? It’s clear to me that clouds by far outweigh radiative trace gas effects of any source. The Earth’s water cycle is the reason why we have a warm Earth, not CO2 or methane. Who hasn’t stood in winter under clouds and felt a lot warmer than a under a cloudless sky? Who has experienced miniscule CO2 radiation as nice and toasty? What BS—it makes me sick.

    • First look at the methane graph, the scale is in Parts Per Billion, thus there is virtually nothing in the atmosphere. Therefore following statement is ridiculous based on that alone:

      Methane (CH4) is considered to be a powerful greenhouse gas more potent than CO2. It has been suggested that the rate of global warming can be moderated by restricting human activities known to be sources of methane emission.

      Proportions are so frequent not taken into account, when discussing weather and climate.

    • This little gem was produced by E&E News by Environment & Energy Publishing. It has a standard “environmental” quality.

  1. I start with the GH effect (GHE) definition because it is the basis of the AGW theory.

    The definition of the GH effect, according to AR5 / p. 126 is: “The longwave radiation (LWR, also referred to as infrared radiation) emitted from the Earth’s surface is largely absorbed by certain atmospheric constituents – (greenhouse gases and clouds) – which themselves emit LWR into all directions. The downward directed component of this LWR adds heat to the lower layers of the atmosphere and to the Earth’s surface (greenhouse effect).”

    Hartmann in his book summarizes the final details of the GH effect almost in the same way but there is one essential difference: “Most of this emitted infrared radiation is absorbed by trace gases and clouds in the overlying atmosphere. The atmosphere also emits radiation, primarily at infrared wavelengths, in all directions. Radiation emitted downward from the atmosphere adds to the warming of Earth’s surface by sunlight. This enhanced warming is termed the greenhouse effect.”

    The GH effect definition of Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) is like this (combined from the different parts of the text):

    “Because the Earth’s surface is colder than the Sun, it radiates at wavelengths that are much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed. Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and warms it. The atmosphere also gains heat by sensible and latent heat fluxes from the surface. The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect – will depend on the atmosphere’s temperature and on the concentrations of greenhouse gases that the atmosphere contains. The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere did not radiate.”

    The GH effect calculation basis is different according to different sources. As background information I represent the most important radiation values (W/m^2): SW radiation on the Earth 165, LW radiation on the Earth 346, LW radiation emitted by the Earth 396, LW radiation absorbed by the atmosphere 156, SW radiation absorbed by the atmosphere 75.

    A short summary is that the IPCC says that the LW absorption is the same as the GHE being 156 W/m^2 but the LW radiation on the surface is 346 W/m^2. No explanation for this difference. Hartmann says that the LW radiation emitted by the atmosphere on the surface is the same as the GHE; almost correct. Wikipedia recognizes that sensible and latent heating, as well as the LW ab-sorption, heat up the atmosphere, which emits radiation on the surface creating the GHE. Even better than Hartmann but Wikipedia does not recognize clouds in LW absorption.

    All three definitions have the same error. They do not notice that the LW radiation on the surface includes the absorbed SW radiation by the atmosphere and it is not part of GHE. Therefore, the correct measure of the GHE is 346-75 = 271 W/m^2. This effect is the sum of LW absorption, latent and sensible heating: 156+91+24=271 W/m^2.

    Since the LW absorption CO2 is 20 m^2, its contribution is the GHE is only 7.4 % calculated from 271 W/m^2. Schmidt et al. (2010) have calculated the CO2 contribution according to the IPCC’s definition from 155 W/m^2 to be 19% (Kiehl & Trenberth using the wrong atmosphere 26%). The contributions of other factors are water 33.6%, latent heating 33.6%, clouds 13.3 %, sensible heating 8.9%, ozone 2.6%, methane & nitrogen oxide 0.7%. Water dominates in the form of water vapor, latent heating, and clouds (80.5%).
    Although the impact of clouds is clearly positive in the greenhouse effect, a permanent increase of cloudiness always decreases the surface temperature. Methane and nitrogen oxide have really no role in the GHE effect or in global warming

    I think that the IPCC’s own definition – and this time the IPCC does not refer to any scientific studies – deliberately defines the GHE in a way to show that CO2 is a strong GH gas. But it is not if calculated on the right basis. Normally Wikipedia is in line with the IPCC science but not in this essential issue. Because Wikipedia’s definition is almost correct, even the professors of physics cannot doubt anything to be badly wrong with the GHE definition and CO2 contribution. Could you think, why this exception?

    The correct GFE definition shows that the temperature effect of 400 ppm of CO2 is only 2.5 C. It turns up that the IPCC’s climate model giving the lower TCS value of 1.8 C cannot be fitted in this warming value but the TCS value of 0.6 C fits perfectly. More information: https://www.climatexam.com/copy-of-2018-1

    • I have often wondered why no lifeform has evolved or adapted to harvest this free bounty of energy called back radiation.
      Plants rely on sunlight and don’t get much of it at night, but back radiation is much more round the clock

      maybe nothing harvests it because it isn’t there

      • It’s low energy (doesn’t break chemical bonds – kind of like Jeb) but most creatures do like it warmer.

    • Antero Ollila – Does your “Although the impact of clouds is clearly positive in the greenhouse effect, a permanent increase of cloudiness always decreases the surface temperature.” come from the IPCC? And is there any more that you can tell me about it? For example, do you know what evidence there is for clouds having a positive greenhouse effect, or what the claimed mechanism is, or what assumptions were used and by whom, and do you have evidence that clouds cool? Why is the word “permanent” used – surely if clouds cool, they do so over all timeframes? TIA.

      • I have published several papers on the energy balance and dynamics of the Earth. Here is the link to my web page, where you can find also English material about all important matters of climate change.

        Here I show by very simple terms what are the effects of clouds. The difficulty is that clouds have opposite effects on incoming solar (SW) radiation and on the outgoing LW radiation. I show all the radiation values in the unit of W/m^2. The solar insolation amount into the Earth of clear sky is 287, in the totally cloudy sky conditions it is 221 W/m^2 and in the all-sky conditions 240. The difference between the clear sky and the all-sky is thus 56 caused by clouds.

        The corresponding radiation fluxes to space are clear sky 266, cloudy sky 229 and all-sky 240. The difference between the clear sky and the all-sky is thus 37 caused by clouds. Now we can compare these two effects: cloud reduction of radiation on the SW side is higher (56 W/m^2) than the same on the outgoing LW side (37 W/m^2). In climate science this difference 56-37 = 19 W/m^2 is called “cloud forcing” and it means the cooling effect of clouds.

        • Is there not additional cloud affects?
          The residence time of disparate WL radiation matters. Clouds not only have a net reduction in total W-SQM, but a reduction in SW insolation entering the oceans where the residence time is far longer then LW radiation striking the ocean surface.

    • Excellent summary.
      Assigning CO₂ a percentage of warming misses a substantial piece of physics; that is CO₂ is LW interactive over a miniscule portion of Long Wave spectrum.

      You do mention that

      “Water dominates in the form of water vapor, latent heating, and clouds (80.5%).”

      A statement that fails to note water H₂O is very light frequency spectrum interactive over Longwave, shortwave and visible portions of light frequency spectrum.

      Water’s H₂O atmospheric influences do include the greenhouse effect of convection driving moisture and heat high into the troposphere and low stratosphere and are coupled with evaporation, condensation and freezing. IPCC’s calculation fails to include that H₂O is very light frequency interactive through all three physical states. Stating that constant cloud cover reduces Earth’s temperatures fails to denote that water’s liquid and solid states reflect or refract light, often significantly. Cloud cover intercepts solar radiation, preventing it from warming Earth’s surface; as does snow cover and frequently water surfaces, ocean, lakes and streams.
      H₂O’s physical state changes are significant heat exchange processes untouched and perhaps unrecognized by IPCC.

      What is also missing from the IPCC equations is the true effect of atmospheric GHG is the lapse rate. i.e. Higher GHG levels only slow heat emissions from Earth’s atmosphere.

      IPCC claims: “The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect – will depend on the atmosphere’s temperature and on the concentrations of greenhouse gases that the atmosphere contains. The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth. This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere did not radiate.”

      “This leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere did not radiate”; which implies that daytime heating of the Earth’s surface requires atmosphere to radiate?

      “The atmosphere radiates energy both upwards and downwards; the part radiated downwards is absorbed by the surface of Earth.”; fails to distinguish that downward long wave radiation is a miniscule portion of the daytime solar heating. Nighttime cooling is only delayed by high GHG, mostly H₂O in the atmosphere. Implying that this downward radiation “warms” the Earth is disingenuous.

      “The intensity of the downward radiation – that is, the strength of the greenhouse effect”; a claim that ignores LW’s radiation is intercepted within meters in the atmosphere.
      Leaving the bottom few meters of the atmosphere as the only sources of “downward radiation” impacting Earth.
      i.e. a thin layer of GHG gases emitting downward radiation are very unlikely to significantly energize the rather massive aggregations of heavy complex molecules we lightly call Earth.
      Unless, one follows the IPCC religion that considers CO₂ as a deity molecule capable of holding and/or emitting awesome amounts of energy via a few LW frequencies of very few molecules…

      CO₂ and CH₄ are atmospheric fleas compared to the blue whale of atmospheric water H₂O in all three physical states.

      • Quote: “Assigning CO₂ a percentage of warming misses a substantial piece of physics; that is CO₂ is LW interactive over a miniscule portion of Long Wave spectrum”.

        I have used a spectral analysis application that takes into account the properties of all GH gases in the atmosphere and the water vapor, temperature and pressure profiles. In this way, the real absorption effects of all GH gases have been calculated over the whole wavelength range from 4 to 100 micrometers emitted by the surface. Here you find figures showings the details and these kinds of figures you cannot find anywhere else.

        Quote: “Stating that constant cloud cover reduces Earth’s temperatures fails to denote that water’s liquid and solid states reflect or refract light, often significantly.” See my response to Mike Jonas.

        Otherwise, I do not reply to the comments because they are not according to the common knowledge of radiation physics.

  2. GHE does not refer to the amount of IR a gas molecule radiates/absorbs at any given instant. It is a relative quantity compared to CO2 calculated over a 25-80 year period. It’s a highly contrived number based on numerous assumptions; which means they can tweak it any way they want, which they have done.

    • Oh my bad, I was thinking of GWP (Global Warming Potential), not GHE. Got my acronyms mixed up (hey it’s early…)

  3. Is there any way, apart from blunt trauma, of getting these essays of David Middleton into the climate obsessed heads of BBC journalists and producers?

  4. So according to the literature, what is the sensitivity of the global average temp for doubling methane? (This is a genuine question, not to question your estimates mentioned here)

    What part of the warming of 1950 to 2018 can thus be attributed to increasing CH4?

    ‘And… No! The Climate Wrecking Industry hasn’t caused the recent rise in atmospheric CH4.’

    Umm, I guess you could argue the rise is caused by global greening.

  5. … increased carbon dioxide emissions will reduce crop yields …

    The overwhelming evidence is that increased CO2 increases yields. Greenhouse growers deliberately enhance CO2 levels to increase plant growth.

    Could increased temperatures decrease crop yields? Most of the holocene has been warmer than it is now. The evidence is that crop yields increase in warmer weather.

    The actual historical and proxy evidence shows that crops will be improved in a warmer world. CO2 enhancement will improve things even more.

    People who don’t realize the above are uneducated. They may be trained up to the PhD level, but their education has badly suffered.

    • I don’t know for sure if increases in temp increases or reduces crop yields. But I do know for sure that I can get Mango all year round in the Philippines when I’m here, whereas in my home of Ballarat, Australia I am lucky to get “fresh” mango for three months of the year as we have to ship them in from warmer places.

      Take me to the warmer places with Mango.

    • Just like David, I found that paragraph to be insanely stupid. My head still hurts from the slap I gave it…..

  6. “The world’s leading science agencies have found that increased carbon dioxide emissions will reduce crop yields and crop health and increase heavy precipitation events that destroy vegetation, and that worsening droughts—as well as longer periods of more intense heat—will kill plants and threaten humanity.” – article quote

    Well, then, what this article essentially says is that the “world’s leading science agencies” want to send us into oblivion by returning the planet to the epic Carboniferous epoch, with NO land animals other than bugs and a
    jungle that creates an atmospheric level of O2 that supports massive wildfires. Methane is frequently found in abundance in wet areas like swamps and bogs that are full of decaying plant matter.

    I have read stupid stuff found and posted by WUWT to keep us informed, but that statement is – by GOD!!! – the stupidest thing I have EVER run into . If that came from a biologist, I’d ask to see his creds, but it didn’t. It came from a pack of nitwits who do not know their backsides from a hole in the ground, and whose credentials – IF they have any – are questionable.

    Carry on, WUWT. The more informed you make us, THE BETTER!!

    Geezo Pete, these people are the personification of STUPID!!!!

    • “… and increase heavy precipitation events that destroy vegetation, …”
      Like in the Amazon Basin, which floods annually? A recent TV series, narrated by David Attenborough, claimed (if I remember the numbers right) that jungles account for 3% of the Earth’s landmass, and 50% of the species of life. Heat and precipitation seem to be much more beneficial to life than the Science article claims.

  7. Methane is indeed irrelevant. Happer is spot on. However, Methane does NOT account for 4-9% of the greenhouse effect, but for something a factor 100 smaller. The writer makes the mistake of believing the numbers peddled by IPCC pseudo scientists about the ‘climate forcing’. The concept is fundamentally flawed and Happer clearly knows how. The flaw produces a strong forcing by CO2 AND by Methane AND by other irrelevant trace elements, whereas in reality the forcing is a factor 4 smaller and the others are negligible.

    • According to my spectral analysis calculations and on the right GHE definition, the portion of methane and nitrogen oxide together is only 0.7 %. The reason to calculate the influence of both gases is based on the fact that the absorption peaks of these two gases overlap almost completely.

  8. The sooner people accept reality – that atmospheric temperature (a meteorological parameter) which we experience everyday is related to atmospheric pressure (a meteorological parameter) and not to methane gas (not a meteorological parameter) or to carbon dioxide (not a meteorological parameter) – the sooner people can put to bed the ‘climate con’.

  9. (Speaking of World War II… Midway – Two Thumbs Up!!)

    Interesting. I have given up expecting Hollywood to make a decent WWII movie, so I dismissed this one as not worth seeing. Thanks.

    • It was more about the CV-6 USS Enterprise and its air group from just before Pearl Harbor through Midway. The combat scenes were all CGI, rather than stock footage of the wrong ships and aircraft. They faithfully recreated Yorktown Class carriers (none of which exist since Enterprise was scrapped after WWII) along with SBD Dauntless divebombers and TBD Devastator torpedo bombers.

      • I agree you should see this film while it’s still in theaters. I saw it on Vetrans’ Day. It was good to see Dick Best, Wade McClusky, and Bruno Gaido get their due recognition. I disliked the 1976 version of “Midway” because the scriptwriters felt it necessary to add fictional characters, as if the real guys weren’t heroic enough to merit mention.


        • The 1976 movie was OK. But it would have been much better if it was done like Tora!Tora!Tora!.

          One of my favorite books is The Big E by Thomas Stafford. It’s the combat history of CV-6 USS Enterprise. The movie immediately made me think of it… The dive bombing scenes in the movie were just as Stafford described them.

          My only disappointment was the lack of F4F Wildcats… I don’t recall seeing any US fighters… Although most of the Dauntless and Devastator pilots didn’t see any either.

        • Movie ‘Midway’ triggered my WW2 history interest, now reading ‘And I Was There’ Rear Admiral Layton. Movie CGI better than the real stuff(of 1940’s).

          • Fred
            “Movie CGI better than the real stuff(of 1940’s).”

            That raises an interesting question of how much we can trust documentaries of the future if false histories are presented and it is almost impossible to tell fact from fiction.

            I was personally offended by the liberties taken with history in the Mask of Zorro film starring Antonio Banderas and Anthony Hopkins. Like much of technology, CGI has the potential of being used to rewrite history to advocate a political viewpoint.

          • Hollywood has been dong that for decades… 😉

            One other cool thing about the movie Midway… John Ford was there to film a documentary and this was depicted in the movie. Of course Ford never saw any ships or US carrier aircraft. His documentary covered the IJN attack on Midway Island and he was slightly wounded by shrapnel or flying debris.

  10. Author’s Bio:

    Scott Waldman, E&E News

    Before science reporter Scott Waldman joined ClimateWire in 2016, he covered state energy policy at Politico New York and has worked for the Albany Times Union, Erie Times-News and The Baltimore Sun. His work also has appeared in Scientific American. He won an Associated Press award for his reporting on the Iraq War in 2006. Scott holds a master’s degree in journalism from Syracuse University and a bachelor’s degree from Earlham College.

  11. The world’s surface is 70% ocean at an average depth of 3.6km. North West Europe is warmer than other areas on the same latitude because of the Gulf Stream. In the depths of Winter, when temperatures are below zero from the Himalayas to Texas, the Gulf Stream melts ice around Franz Josef Land which is at a higher latitude than Northern Greenland. All this warming is from the oceans and not the atmosphere or ‘Greenhouse’ gases. In addition, all gases can be warmed and the lion’s share of atmospheric warming is from direct contact with the earth’s surface when it’s hot or warmer than the atmosphere. I may be ignorant of the mechanism, but I’m struggling to understand how the absence of a trace gas will reduce global temperatures by 33C!

    • The answer is really simple. The absorption of the solar insolation by the surface is only 165 W/m^2. Through the atmosphere, the rest of the solar insolation of 75 W/m^2 is emitted by the atmosphere as infrared radiation totally 345 W/m^2. If you subtract this solar radiation from 345 W/m^2, the rest of the infrared radiation on the surface is 271 W/m^2. It is even more than the net solar energy received from the sun, which is 240 W/m^2. This 240 W/m^2 comes on the surface, and the Earth’s atmosphere radiates it back to space.

      The infrared energy of 271 W/m^2 radiates all the time on the surface and it is the real measure of the GH effect. The atmosphere receives energy from four sources: LW absorption by GH gases and clouds 156, SW absorption 75, latent heat 91, and sensible heat 24, a totally 271 W/m^2. And now look, the absorbed energy of different forms has been radiated back on the surface as infrared energy is exactly the same amount 271 W/m^2. The surface receives radiation energy totally 165 + 345 = 511 W/m^2 and it is much more than the net energy received from the sun 240 W/m^2. And that is why the surface is much warmer than the energy flux of 240 W/m^2 would apply.

      The heat energy of the atmosphere is in a trap in the atmosphere. The only way the atmosphere can get rid of this energy (which is huge, compare 240 versus 271) is by radiation. It happens according to Planck’s law to space 240 and to the surface 345 W/m^2.

          • This is an old story again. The solar insolation is 4 x 340 = 1360 W/m^2 on the area which is a flat surface with the diameter of the Earth. The real surface area of the globe is exactly four times that area and therefore the solar insolation must be divided by four to make evenly distributed over the whole globe. The thing is that the Earth’s surface radiates according to its real surface area. That is the trick to make these radiation fluxes equal by dividing the solar insolation by four. At the TOA the solar insolation is therefore 340 W/m^2 and because 100 W/m^2 has been reflected back to space, the net energy received from the sun is 240 W/m^2.

            These are the elementary facts in climate science.

      • This makes no sense. 75 W cannot produce 345 W per your third sentence. And which is it 165 W on the surface per second sentence or 240 W per the last sentence in first paragraph?

        • I did not say that 75 W/m^2 can produce 345 W/m^2 but this 75 W/m^2 is included in this 345 W/m^2. The IPCC’s definition means that the LW absorption in the atmosphere by GH gases and clouds, which is 156 W/m^2, can produce the whole 345 W/m^2 and it is against the basic laws of physics. If you read once again the GHE definition of the IPCC that is the conclusion: they write that the LW absorption is the same as the LW radiation downwards.

          I have shown that it is not possible and the LW radiation downwards is the sum of four different energy sources increasing/maintaining the atmospheric temperature: SW absorption 75, LW absorption 156, latent heating 91 and sensible heating 24; totally 345 W/m^2. When you decrease 75 from 345, you get 271 W/m^2, which the right amount of energy causing the GHE. It means the contribution of CO2 is only 7.4% and not 26% (Kiehl & Trenberth) or 19% (Schmidt et al.) or even 33% (Pierrehumbert)

  12. At 1.8 ppm, 45 ppm Carbon Dioxide equivalent, in the atmosphere Methane is irrelevant.Only the inumerate would fail to see this.

    • Supposedly a 45 ppm equivalent, but that 25x disparity is not based on methane’s absorptive ability. In other words, methane does not absorb IR 25x better than CO2 does. That 25x number is contrived, a calculated effect over a period of 20-100 years, and is referred to as Global Warming Potential (GWP). I have yet to hear how much IR methane absorbs at any point in time compared to CO2.

      • GWP values cannot be used in calculating the warming effects of GH gases. They can give some ideas about the strengths in comparison to each other but they are highly theoretical.

  13. “The world’s leading science agencies have found that increased carbon dioxide emissions will reduce crop yields and crop health…”

    This is the kind of science you get when your world view is that CO2 is pollution. Any nutrition loss from enhanced CO2 growth is made up by a vast increase in crop yield. There is a major net gain from enhanced CO2 growth.

  14. That we can now measure things that man did not even know about 100 years ago does not mean we can actually do anything with or about those measurements anymore than our ancestors could.

    • old white guy: “That we can now measure things that man did not even know about 100 years ago …”

      The theory of greenhouse gas back radiation was established more than a hundred years ago, and yet we are NOT measuring it today.

      Here’s a brief (unordered) list of atmospheric properties that we know about, and/or gizmo’s (often handheld) used to measure and often manipulate them:
      AM radio
      FM radio
      shortwave radio
      cell phones
      broadcast television
      thermal imaging
      Geiger counter
      gamma rays
      cosmic rays
      magnetic fields
      RFID – radio-frequency id
      EZ-Pass toll collectors
      scan option on radio

      Today, there is no handheld gizmo that detects and quantifies atmospheric back radiation that I’m aware of. Measuring back radiation would be a welcome first step into deriving meaningful scientific tools of reason.

      • For your information. The so-called back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface is not a lucky guess or invented by the IPCC scientists. It is based on the real global measurement network observations. The same measurement technology can be applied on the surface which has been applied in the Earth-orbiting satellites measuring the LW radiation emitted by the atmosphere (some part also transmitting through the atmosphere without absorption).

        Here is a link to one paper that I have used in getting data: Zhang Y-C, Rossow WB, Lacis AA. 2004. Calculation of radiative fluxes from the surface to top of atmosphere based on ISCCP and other global data sets: Refinements of the radiative model and the input data. Journal of Geophysical Research 109: 1149-1165.

        • Antero Ollila – Thank you for your response.

          You said: “The same measurement technology can be applied on the surface …”, you seem to affirm that we are not currently measuring atmospheric back radiation.

          How would a satellite measure “back radiation” that is directed from the atmosphere back to the surface?

          If we could measure atmospheric back radiation, then we’d have charts. Charts of measurements showing variances by altitude, by humidity, by atmospheric tides, etc.

          We have no such charts.

          We use Mauna Loa CO2 measurements to establish a trend of global CO2 levels, imagine if we had a “back-radiation” measured value alongside each of those Mauna Loa CO2 readings. Then we could examine the pattern and derive meaningful scientific tools of reason.

          Alas, we have no tools of reason derived from “back radiation” measurements because we’re not measuring back radiation in any meaningful way.

          The scan option on my car radio allows me to search through potential radio frequencies to find specific frequencies with elevated reception. Why don’t we have a similar “scan” gizmo to find and quantify atmospheric back radiation of various frequencies?

          • Okay, maybe there is no idea to continue this kind of conversation. I did not write that satellites are measuring back radiation. I wrote that the same kind of measurement technology has been used. Satellites just carry those measurement equipment designed for LW radiation measurements.

          • Antero Ollila – Thank you again for your replies.

            Why aren’t we using technology that we have available to measure atmospheric back radiation on Earth?

            Either we can measure it but we choose not to, or we can’t measure it. If we can’t measure it, how do we know it exists?

            Atmospheric ‘greenhouse gas’ back radiation is said to keep the Earth 33C (~60F) warmer than it would be without them. That is a tremendous amount of energy and yet we have difficulty measuring it?

          • Huh ? Thomas, a pyrgeometer is a standard device used for such measurements. They aren’t exactly cutting edge, and are even used in orchards and farms to control the amount of irrigation water that has to be purchased.

        • The pyrgeometers are pretty expensive devices and they are not easily automated to be used in the meteorological stations. The global measurement efforts have shown that theoretically calculated back radiation values by the atmosphere are inside the uncertainty values of measurements and that is good enough.

          • Antero Ollila : “The global measurement efforts have shown that theoretically calculated back radiation values by the atmosphere are inside the uncertainty values of measurements and that is good enough.”

            You are confirming that we are not measuring back radiation. That’s not good enough for me.

  15. Science Magazine’s arc of decline ran from Donald Kennedy through Marcia McNutt. The CEO sets the culture.

  16. Just another of those pesky, informative David Middleton articles poking the Green Blob in the eye, hohum. It’s too bad there isn’t a compendium of them that could be used to inform the benighted or at least smack them up side the head to see if one can get the gears to mesh properly. Mayhaps a book of adventures in rock science with a healthy dollop of Climate Reality and a few grenadoes for the Church of Climatastrophe! Love the articles, although they are, sadly, a bit over my head; love the comments even more, especially author’s frequent humorous ripostes.
    I see a movie; the Green Blob is a big computer and our intrepid hero is removing it’s central core! Green Blob: What are you doing, Dave? Original, huh! Thanks for educational entertainment!

  17. From the article: “The decline in the 13-C isotope of methane in the atmosphere indicates that microbial sources must have an increasing share of total methane emissions globally.”

    That makes sense. CO2 is causing increased biological activity, so methane also increases.

    As Hugs says above, It must be “global greening”.

  18. So the CH4 is as irrelevant as the CO2 with respect to climate.

    Quelle surprise !

    PS :
    – I wonder how a theory can hold when it tries to sustain an assumption that is contradicted by data. Indeed, there is no positive correlation between CO2 concentration and global temperatures, as showed by the following cross-correlation diagram (see left part of the diagram) in Prof. Murry Salby’s presentation :


    The left part of the diagram, if anything, shows rather a (weak) negative correlation.
    No positive correlation, so, not even the beginning of the shadow of an assumption, not to mention a theory.

    In the same vein, Pedersen and Lansner 2018 showed that CO2 has no measurable effect on OAS (Ocean Air Sheltered) regions and most of the observed warming during the past century is caused by oceans on OAA (Ocean Air Affected) regions :


    Blog where Frank Lansner explains most of the article (and the difficulty they have had in getting the raw temperature data … encore une surprise !) :

    Conclusion :
    – When a theory is contradicted by the facts, it deserves only to go to the trash and those who continue to push it are charlatans.

    • This level of data is not a piece of evidence that the CO2 concentration increase has no effect on the temperature. There is a real option that we have other factors like the sun and the cosmic radiation which have much higher impact on the temperature. Let us assume that the Sun’s effect since 1750 has been 0.9 C degrees to the year 1960. Then it decreases to 0.6 C and at the same time, the CO2 effect has increased by 0.3 C. Now it looks like CO2 has no impact because the temperature has not increased at all. When we have several variables and effects, the conclusion that temperature depends on CO2 or the Sun is pretty complicated to show during the short period.

      • Instead of being the “control knob” on climate, CO2 is more like one of many fine-tuning dials.

      • “This level of data is not a piece of evidence that the CO2 concentration increase has no effect on the temperature.”

        I presume it is the “global temperatures measured in the lower troposphere”.

        “Let us assume that the Sun’s effect since 1750 has been 0.9 C degrees to the year 1960. Then it decreases to 0.6 C and at the same time, the CO2 effect has increased by 0.3 C …”

        Time series containing several hundreds of measured data are more informative than mere linear trends :
        – the trends may be opposite (due to an overriding cooling factor as in the above example) with positive correlation, or vice versa. The analysis of the detailed data prevails over that of the linear trends.

        In this case, the detailed data show no positive correlation.

        “When we have several variables and effects, the conclusion that temperature depends on CO2 or the Sun is pretty complicated to show during the short period.”

        Cross-correlation is a good way to go with multiple interacting parameters. Obviously, an observed correlation does not mean causation, but no observed correlation its even worse, particularly when the expected delays of one parameter effect on the other are say, an order of magnitude smaller than the duration of the time series (see below).

        The delay between a parameter variation and its effect on another parameter may indeed be an issue, but :

        With respect to the CO2 :
        40 years seems to be largely sufficient to observe any hypothetical radiative effect of CO2 concentrations on the atmospheric temperatures, if any. Indeed, the only possible time delay between CO2 concentration variation and measured temperatures is due to atmospheric circulation (I would say, a few minutes to a few months). The effect of the CO2 on oceans if any, induces no more time delay than its effect on the atmospheric temperatures, because 15 µm photons do not penetrate the water by more than 10 µm (the incoming photon is thus immediately re-emitted or the resulting heat of its absorption – if any – is “immediately” transferred to the atmosphere by conduction from the surface layer of the warmer ocean (some µm) to the atmosphere).

        Pedersen and Lansner 2018 shows that there is no CO2 concentration effect is the regions facing a continental climate (Ocean Air Sheltered) with more than a century of temperature data.

        The conclusion is that with respect to CO2 concentration, no observed positive correlation during 40 years (or more than a century according to Pedersen and Lansner 2018) is a NO GO for any assumption that the CO2 concentration has an effect on global atmospheric temperatures.

        Note : There is another way than radiative transfer for the CO2 to have a possible effect on the atmospheric temperatures :
        – by greening the planet which has indeed been observed during the last 40 years. More vegetation might cause some lower troposphere temperatures variations (in the shade of a tree its cooler :-)), but I suppose that these induced effects (evapo-transpiration, albedo variation) are already included in the 40 years measured data.

        With respect to the Sun :
        – since most of its energy absorbed by the Earth’s surface is absorbed by the oceans (from UV to 1 µm) at depths up to 250 meters, the time delay may be indeed very large (multiple decades to centuries). And indeed, Pedersen and Lansner 2018, for example, shows a quasi linear upward trend of the mean sea surface temperatures during at least the last century. But as stated before, the CO2 cannot warm the oceans so this multidecadal delay do not apply to CO2 concentration effect on atmospheric temperatures.

        • The observation-based evidence about the real influence of CO2 warming is practically impossible because there are so many other variables affecting the temperature. Observations can be used the other way around. According to IPCC science, CO2 is the main cause of the present warming. During the temperature pause from 1997 to 2014, the CO2 emissions increased from 264 GtC to 404 GtC meaning the increase of 49% and meaning that during that period the emissions were 35% of the total emissions since 1750. What was the temperature effect? Zero. Because the IPCC’s science says that about 98% of warming is due to the GH gases, this evidence is good enough to show that the IPCC is wrong.

          But this evidence is not good enough to show what is the real warming effect of CO2 is zero. If you say so, you go into the same trap as the IPCC that only CO2 (or GH gases) have warming effects.

  19. I don’t want to seem like a hedonistic lip-serving jerk-wad but this article makes me want to buy a Lamborghini and fly my private-jet to attend a UN Climate-Cataclysm™ conference, so I feel even more fabulous about my deep commitment to a low-carbon future, while tut-tutting the bitter cold, and taking selfies of my attempts to scoff-down a steak-burger that’s much too big to be eaten.

  20. “which has received funding from the oil and gas industry”

    Funny they always have to add that when speaking of skeptical research, but ignore it when it comes to alarmist research. The CRU received lots of funding from BP and Shell. How many others have as well?

  21. The problem for guys like Dessler is they let their quotes countering Happer’s methane conclusions appear along with the utter stupid lies about “more co2 reducing crop yields” and more rain destroying agriculture nonsense. Andy Dessler obviously must know those statements are garbage claims not supported by science or evidence. So his not pushing back against stupid comments that align with his position from Waldeman (the writer) only puts him in the charlatan carnival barker category.

    As for academic cred on the physics of methane, I’d but my money on the physicist rather than the climatologist anyday about who is liekly more correct and less prone to hyperbole rentseeking behavior.

  22. no insulator has ever added any heat to any system……the greenhouse effect is an insulating effect and by definition cant possible ADD heat to the atmosphere.

    • That is not the definition. If you read the definitions of the IPCC, Hartmann, Wikipedia, and my description, you see in which way the GH effect works. The energy fluxes connected to the GHE are real and measured.

      How do you explain that solar radiation on the Earth is 165 W/m^2 and the infrared radiation from the atmosphere is 346 W/m^2. Where it is coming from? Any energy greater than 240 W/m^2 on the surface is the result of the GHE. It is a fact that any energy source must have an effect on the surface if it has an effect on temperature. The solar insolation of 340 W/m^2 at the TOA does not have real effect on the surface temperature, because it is not absorbed by the surface.

      • How do you reconcile the measured GHE with the ideal gas law. If we double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and plug in the relevant numbers into the molar form of the IGL it seems that pressure has to change a lot to get to the IPCC estimates for the effect on temperatures. Also, in the troposphere, convection matters more than radiation for heat transfer. The other thing I find confusing is that the ocean surface has a hard time losing heat through radiative forces, especially where humidity is high. Evaporation is the key for heat loss. The radiative story seems incomplete, though its easy to see where the numbers you state come from.

        • Nelson. If it is easy to show why the LW radiation downwards is 346 W/m^2, why you do not do it? I have shown the numbers and the final result for the contributions of each factor in the GHE. Here they are: water vapor 33.6%, latent heating 33.6%, clouds 13.3 %, sensible heating 8.9%, carbon dioxide 7.4%, ozone 2.6%, methane & nitrogen oxide 0.7%.

          At least you should be happy that sensible heating is much greater than CO2.

  23. I have read that methane absorbs 20 times as much IR radiation as CO2 at the same concentration, so that 1.8 ppm of methane would be equivalent to 36 ppm of CO2. Since CO2 is about 400 ppm, that would mean that methane absorbs 9% as much IR radiation as CO2, but that does NOT mean that methane represents 9% of “global warming”, which is dominated by water vapor (about 95%).

    If water vapor represented 95% of the 33 C warming attributed to the atmosphere, the remaining 5%, or 1.65 C, would be due to CO2, CH4, and any other trace IR-absorbing gases. If methane represented 9% of this 1.65 C, it would only contribute about 0.15 C of warming. Even if the methane concentration were doubled, it would have a negligible effect on climate.

    Incidentally, since methane absorbs 20 times as much IR radiation per molecule as CO2, burning a mole of methane to one mole of CO2 and two moles of water vapor actually reduces the net effect on the radiation balance, compared to emitting the methane to the atmosphere. Anyone in the oil or natural gas business will attempt to capture as much methane as possible to be sold as natural gas, while methane emissions to the air represent a loss of valuable product. The profit motive for the producers will induce them to minimize methane emissions, while burning their product actually reduces the greenhouse effect, so that the profit motive and protecting the environment work in the same direction!

    Alarmists tend to worry about methane because they believe there are no methane sinks (as green plants represents a CO2 sink), and that any emitted methane will accumulate in the atmosphere. But methane is a much lighter molecule (molecular weight = 16) than the other gases in the atmosphere (N2 = 28, O2 = 32, CO2 = 44), and has a higher molecular speed than the other gases, so it tends to rise into the stratosphere, from which some methane escapes from the Earth’s gravity. While CO2 concentrations have been rising, methane concentrations are relatively stable in recent decades.

  24. The agencies claiming CO2 doesn’t green the Earth is demonstrably false and shows how corrupt and beholden to the deep state they are.

  25. Quote: “If water vapor represented 95% of the 33 C warming”. What is the research study behind this figure? I have found 8 studies but there is no such figure.

    • Really!

      1 part per million increase in 20 years. (yawn)

      Why don’t you guys get excited about the millions starved to death by alarmism annually? BTW, the millions are humans, and not particles.

      Got agenda?

    • Gator December 5, 2019 at 12:33 pm
      1 part per million increase in 20 years. (yawn)

      20% in 30 years is not relatively stable.

      Got agenda?

      No, but you clearly do, always the same old drivel, never once address the science.

      • Wrong again Phail. I addressed the “science”, and pointed out that your 1 ppm in 20 years is a joke. Only in your world would a rise of 1 part in a million constitute a 20% rise overall!

        Got alarmism? LOL

        And yes Phail, I must admit that I have an agenda, and it’s called “saving human lives”, or as you call it, “drivel”.

        No wonder you guys always lose debates!

  26. There are always people who jump into a discussion by claiming that there is no such thing as LW radiation from the atmosphere (called also back radiation) or this radiation has no warming effect on the surface.

    Just one evidence. The Earth emits LW radiation by the surface about 396 W/m^2. It is according to Planck’s law (about 16 C degrees) and it has been confirmed by direct measurements. In addition to this, the Earth’s surface is able to release sensible heating 24 W/m^2 and latent heating 91 W/m^2 by evaporating about 1 meter of water each year. Totally the surface is able to produce energy flux of 396+91+24 = 511 W/m^2. Because there is a clear observation that only 165 W/m^2 of solar energy is absorbed by the surface, where is the rest energy of 346 W/m^2 coming from to close the energy budget? These people stop commenting just right here. No answers.

    • Heat is energy transfer, not partial energy transfer.

      Partial energy transfer does not warm a system, the heat does it (notice the difference?).

      Climastrology is still with the caloric pseudo theory that was falsified a long time ago, they think heat is some sort of a fluid that can be ‘trapped’ and ‘stored’ and that partial amounts of that fluid can ‘heat’ a system. Heat is not a state function of a system and as such, it cannot be stored, trapped… and definitely a part of it cannot warm. In fact, a system can cool drastically even with practical infinite ‘partial heat’.
      Btw, adding and subtracting out infinities is a neat trick in physics, as long as they cancel out…

      Besides that, there is also mechanical work, mass transfer and so on, which adds to complexity and depending on the definition of the pseudo effect which I will call pseudo warming (the climastrological one, as opposed to the physical one), the system can pseudo-cool insanely while receiving a huge amount of heat, or it can pseudo-warm while physically it’s actually cooling drastically.

      How come that can be? Either by ignoring some chemical reaction in the system or something like that… or pseudo scientifically defining your cargo cultist ‘warming’, for example with an anti-physical anti-parameter such as the pseudo-temperature for a system that is not in thermal equilibrium. You can immediately get pseudo warming for a strongly cooling system or pseudo-cooling for a strongly warming system.

      It doesn’t even need to be a complex system like Earth, for example it’s enough of having it half filled with air at normal pressure and temperature and half with molten iron. A gedankenexperiment would reveal to you that partial energy transfer crap (for Nature does not care of your labelling or of your artificial imagined borders) is not that helpful and that indeed, the system can cool while pseudo-warming or warm while pseudo-cooling. But ‘science’ by fairy tales helps a lot brainwashing gullible useful idiots.

      Now, to find out how misleading the notion of temperature can be, even if physical, check out the negative temperature for lasers. The trick? extending the definition for a non-equilibrium system – but be aware that when you don’t have dynamical equilibrium, nobody was able to define it properly and I include here the climastrologers, there is no road for kings like them. That’s how you get negative temperature to be hotter than a positive temperature. As such, cooling is warming and warming is cooling, in an orwellian form, so you have to be very, very careful with the notions.

      Or check out the temperature of black holes, certainly with all that hot matter going, all that radiation… all that energy, they must be really, really hot, isn’t it? Especially the supermassive black holes… climastrology would dictate that by its fairy tale ‘theory’. I would suggest you to look up for it, you might have a surprise.

      Now, those are with a properly defined physical temperature, the matters are way much worse with the anti-physical pseudo temperature used by the climastrology.

  27. This is nothing new!
    On its own, methane is a strong absorbor of thermal radiation, but in the atmosphere its absorption band is the same as one of the more abundant water vapour bands, so is not as significant as often claimed. The methane is chemically reactive so has a short lifetime in the atmosphere. See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/methane-the-irrelevant-greenhouse-gas/ Note: Five years ago!

    There is a more recent and detailed article by two New Zealanders: JOCK ALLISON AND THOMAS P. SHEAHEN, GREENHOUSE GASES – A MORE REALISTIC VIEW, The Journal Sept 2018 v6.pdf

    • This article contains general information about the properties of GH molecules and general information about the absorption bands of GH gases. The real calculations based on the spectral analyses by the researchers are totally missing. The numerical contributions of GH gases in the GH effect are also missing. There is no calculation for supporting the numerical contribution of 90% by water vapor. Researchers seem to have no skills for carrying out these kinds of calculations because otherwise, they would have done so.

  28. Great. Now do Titan. Methane occupies the same roll on Titan that water vapor occupies on Earth…

    Strange methane being such a strong greenhouse gas that there is zero warming effect on Titan.
    The warmers list methane sometimes as 25 times the warming effect of CO2, sometimes 56 times the warming effect. I’ve seen them claim it as 75 times the warming of CO2.

    My favorite thing to say is “Define the warming effect of CO2.” Fact is they don’t define CO2’s heating effect.

    So defining other gases as percentages of CO2 GHG effect is fraud.

    They’ll say anything about methane. The sky is the limit because it’s all a winger.

    • The greenhouse effect doesn’t work very well without enough sunlight to warm the surface of the planet.

  29. Correct me where I’m wrong –

    The highest Phanerozoic CH₄ coincides with the only period over the past 540 million years when it was as cold as the Quaternary Period. That’s a geological CH₄ face plant —> The highest Phanerozoic pCH₄ level coincides with the only period over the past 540 million years when it was as cold as the Quaternary Period. That’s a geological CH₄ fact.

Comments are closed.