Science team points out a new failure of climate models

Carbon soot in from industrial process in the air. Licensed from 123rf.com

From Nature Climate Change:

Ill-sooted models by Baird Langenbrunner 

Atmospheric black carbon (BC) or soot — formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuel and biomass — causes warming by absorbing sunlight and enhancing the direct radiative forcing of the climate. As BC ages, it is coated with material due to gas condensation and collisions with other particles. These processes lead to variation in the composition of BC-containing particles and in the arrangement of their internal components — a mixture of BC and other material — though global climate models do not fully account for these heterogeneities. Instead, BC-containing particles are typically modelled as uniformly coated spheres with identical aerosol composition, and these simplifications lead to overestimated absorption.

Full article here

The PNAS paper has this to say:

Absorption by black carbon strongly affects regional and global climate. Yet, large discrepancies between standard model predictions and regionally specific observations—often with observed absorption lower than expected—raise questions about current understanding of black carbon absorption and its atmospheric impacts. Through a combination of measurement and modeling, our analysis resolves the discrepancy by showing that particular laboratory designs or atmospheric conditions engender distinct compositional heterogeneity among particles containing black carbon. Lower-than-expected absorption results largely from increased heterogeneity, although slightly lowered absorption occurs even in a purely homogeneous system. This work provides a framework that explains globally disparate observations and that can be used to improve estimates of black carbon’s global impact.


In a nutshell, in their zeal to model and prove global warming, climate researchers assumed that all carbon black particles ejected into the atmosphere are created equal, and stay equal. In reality, that’s not the case and it is a huge oversimplification of what actually occurs in nature.

It’s equivalent to saying that every grain of sand on the beach is exactly the same size, shape, and composition, or that snowflakes aren’t unique, but all exactly the same. As even a grade-schooler knows, nature doesn’t work like that.

Once again, “climate science” fails the tenets of basic science.

UPDATE: this books talks about the issue.

173 thoughts on “Science team points out a new failure of climate models

  1. What does average temperature really mean? In California, the daily temperatures can vary 30 or 40 degrees from early am temps to afternoon temps on a cloudless day. Early fog or clouds can vary the range. Temperature variations from the beach to the desert to the mountains can vary 50 degrees at any moment, and they’re only a one-hour drive apart. Golfers can control the temperature at the golf course by 10 to 15 degrees simply by moving from open sun to tree covered shade areas. So, the 64-thousand-dollar question is – What’s the average temperature?

    • You nailed it. Average temperature is meaningless. It tells you nothing. Environmental impacts happen at the edges of the temperature envelope, not at the average. Are minimum temps going up, down, or sideways? Are maximum temps going up, down, or sideways? Or are the averages being affected by a combination of both? You simply can’t tell from an average. An average loses all the data of necessary to understand what is going on.

      I’ve been advocating for changing to using cooling and heating degree day values instead of average temperature. This data tells you far more about what is going on. It is the data used by engineers to size cooling and heating requirements for buildings and such. Basically if maximum temperatures are going up then your cooling requirements (measured by the cooling degree-day value) goes up as well. If maximum temperatures are going down then cooling degree-day values go down. Same for heating degree-days,.

      If you can tell me that the monthly total cooling degree-day values for June will be higher in 2050 than the total for 2020 then I can actually tell you if the climate is warming. An average temperature simply can’t tell you that.

      This won’t happen for two reasons: First, it is more complicated to model this and second it will probably remove the “scare” factor used today for generating research dollars. That also means that this data would be of less use by what passes for journalism today to generate “click bait” to drive their revenues.

      • And even more idiotic is the “anomaly” term, which is nothing more than a difference from an average, but is treated as if it has deeper meaning.

        • Anomalies are an accomplished way for propagandists to frighten the public. Which looks like a greater increase on a graph, 76.0 to 76.8 or 0.2 to 1.0?

          Anomalies also hide data. Supposedly they are a common way to minimize temp differences so “changes” can be focused on. Yet the process is designed so you can’t go backward and determine a local/regional temperature because the “baseline” for each station is incorporated into the global average and is hidden forever.

          I think the global temperature should be abandoned. Regional temp averages should add up to the whole globe and are far more useful for local policy decisions. The added benefit is that for unchanged regions the climate scientists would have to find a region with very high temps to show global warming.

          • Anomalies, yes, and predicted perturbations fraught with exponential functions that require brown matter to remain congruent with observations.

          • I can hear a news anchor now: Global Temperature has increased by a whopping 500% from as low as 0.2 to 1.0!

          • Global everything should be abandoned, really. Global climate, global sea level, global temperatures. These things are statistical fictions whose only use is to terrify people.

            It’s all local.

        • Anomalies are weather and you can’t frighten people with weather across a continent as you simply sound like a weather worrier.-
          https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/drenching-rain-a-welcome-sight-in-south-east-with-possibly-more-on-the-way/ar-BB12eGt1
          Besides if you’re tossing up about when and what crop to plant you’re interested in what the weather’s like in your region and not all around the continent let alone the globe. Good rain in autumn doesn’t mean much for winter and spring rain either.

          PS: I have no idea what the pic of snow in the US is all about but presumably it’s to show we could be cooler at the moment or something like that.

      • As an engineer I also believed that Heating Degree Day would be a better measure, Then i discovered how HDD are calculated.
        “Subtract the average of a day’s high and low temperatures from 65. For example, if the day’s average temperature is 50o F, its HDD is 15. If that day’s average is above 65, the result is set to zero. If every day in a 30-day month had an average temperature of 50o F, the month’s HDD value would be 450 (15 x 30).”
        That appears to be the same phony number as the Average used for CC plotting. From my Math background and calculations pertaining to water flow, etc I believe they should be using the integral of the area under the curve of at least hourly readings.
        Somewhere else I read that the High and Low temperatures are not actually the Highest and Lowest temperatures, they are the High and Low ‘On-the-Hour.” Perhaps Anthony can verify that.

        • Uzurbrain,

          What you are describing is the *old* way of doing this. Back before temperature data could be collected on a 5min, 2min, or even smaller interval throughout the entire day. I believe the USCRN stations collect data every 2 seconds.

          The current method is to calculate the integral (i.e. the area under the temperature curve when the temperature is above/below a cutoff value. As you point out this gives a far better answer. The finer the interval the more accurately that area can be calculated but even with less granularity (e.g. 5min or 10 min) data you can still come up with a far more accurate value than using a daily average.

          My own personal weather station is set to collect data at 5min intervals and store the data in a database. I could set it for 1min or 2min collection but I don’t think that would tell you anything much different. 5min intervals certainly work for me.

          • Tim,

            Apparently my weather app collects some data from the Bureau of Meteorology, it’s a widely used app, but how reliable is it? The rainfall discrepancy is huge, as you would expect. For instance we sometimes don’t get any rain but the official weather station 30 kilometers away says we had 20 mls. Our personal weather station often has discrepancies regarding temperature too, by as much as 4C either way.

            My point is that BOM is averaging ‘official’ weather stations that are sometimes hundreds of kilometers apart across the whole of Australia! Where is the relevance of that? Australia is huge. We have deserts, mountains, rainforests, alpine regions, open plains. How can you lump all that into a set of figures that are supposed to represent the whole of Australia? Obviously even different altitudes change the temperature range. We are a collection of climates, averaging makes no sense.

            Another example of why averaging makes no sense is that, at least for my weather app, they put out average monthly data when much of it isn’t even recorded for our area! There are no maximum or minimum temperatures, or rainfall data from Friday evening till Monday morning, sometimes longer. I guess the data isn’t collected remotely. So they have the weekend off and sometimes longer and simply average what they have collected. That then goes into the meaningless almanac.

            This missing information doesn’t happen in all areas but it does make the figures in our area a waste of time. How much of it goes on? How do they decide which figures show whether or not the ‘world’ is warming? Seems to me it’s all too easy to be selective depending on what results you’re after.

          • Megs,

            There are places that are worse than Australia. Weather stations are sparse in places like Siberia, Peru (which spans a lot of latitude), and Africa. The climate “scientists” just guess at what the average temperature is across wide swaths of the globe. While the satellite data covers more area it is still not comprehensive as far as temperature data. The satellites simply aren’t omnipresent. They calculate an average from the readings they take and if the average is going up then the ASSUMPTION has always been that the Earth is going to turn into a cinder because it must be from maximum temperatures going up!

            Yet that ASSUMPTION is refuted every year by the almost continuous record growth in annual grain harvests and by the fact that the Earth has greened significantly over the past 30 years. Most climate “scientists” don’t know that grains grow even at night and higher minimum temps mean better growth during the season and, therefore, higher harvests!

            Freeman Dyson pointed out long ago that climate studies must be done holistically in order tell exactly what is happening. Depending solely on “average” temperatures simply doesn’t tell the whole story.

          • The increased crop yields are more closely related to the increased use of pesticides, irrigation and fertilizer.
            https://farm1.staticflickr.com/263/31550473923_4d4cc133d0.jpg

            On the earth greening:
            “While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

            The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””
            https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

          • Jack,

            “The increased crop yields are more closely related to the increased use of pesticides, irrigation and fertilizer.”

            The US has seen widewpread use of pesticides, irrigation, and fertilizer since at least the 60’s. Yet the US continues to see record harvests. It’s not just pesticides, irrigation, and fertilizer that is causing that.

            If the climate alarmists were to be believed, increasing maximum temps would be stunting the growth of all kinds of grains, from wheat to corn to milo and insecticides, irrigation, and fertilizer wouldn’t be able to offset the dilatory impacts of the temperature. It doesn’t matter much what you do for most grains if the temperature goes above the mid- 90’s degF on a sustained basis. The plants stop growing and setting on seed. No amount of insecticides, irrigation, or fertilizer will change that.

            So it is something else besides Earth turning into a cinder that is causing the record harvests!

            “The impacts of climate change include global warming,”

            What global warming? The *AVERAGE* temp seems to be going up but is that caused by maximum’s going up or by minimums going up?

            You seem to be totally unable to answer that question! Why is that? Increasing minimums can cause the average to go up AND generate more plant growth at night thus increasing harvests.

            Is the reason you won’t answer because you don’t know the answer? If so then just admit it.

            Is the reason you won’t answer because you *know* it is the minimums increasing? If you know this then why won’t you admit it?

      • Well said – a scientist told me that many scientists don’t know how or when to use averages. This was after I gave the opinion that averages are meaningless, and should be replaced by other metrics, like range.

        He did say that averages can be useful, but you have to actually know what you are doing. Averages may have practical application (increasing S:N is audio and video), but as far as science goes, I really do not like them.

    • The average temperature is about as meaningful as the average phone number in a phone directory.

        • It is my understanding the “Temperatures” used are only the High and Low taken at a specific time of the day. That tells me that the actual high or low my be different. That it would only be “accurate” if the High AND Low actually happened at the “Appointed Time.”

          • Jack,

            Time of Observation can still miss the actual daily high or low. It doesn’t matter *when* the TOB actually takes place as long as it is a single measurement at a fixed time.

            BTW, what does the “mean” temperature tell you? Can you tell from the mean what is happening at the edges of the temperature envelope? Can you tell whether maximum temps are going up. Can you tell if minimum temps are going up? Both or either by itself can raise the “mean”. It matters significantly which it is as far as climate is concerned.

            If I give you a mean of 20C can you tell me what the maximum temperature and minimum temperatures were that created that mean? If you can’t then how can you know what is actually happening to the climate?

          • And they can’t be relied upon to occur as such.

            Where I come from it is not at all uncommon for the daily high temperature to occur at 1 second past midnight, when the temperature is dropping as a cold front rolls in. The morning low can easily be higher than the daytime “high”.

        • So what is the meaning of an average temperature? What does it tell us?

          Which is hotter? A max of 30C and a min of 10C or a max 26C and a min of 18c? Warmists would say the latter.

          • Leit,

            You nailed i! for 30 and 10 you get an average of 20. For 26 and 18 you get an average of 22.

            Obviously the second set of temps means the earth is going to turn into a cinder! (/sarc)

      • “I’ve been advocating for changing to using cooling and heating degree day values instead of average temperature…”

        Apropos, but for some applications, ∜{(∑T⁴)/n} would be aproposer.

        • If you take the high and low value of ∜{(∑T⁴)/n} and create an average, exactly what will that average tell you? Will you be able to determine the high value and the low value from the average?

      • “The average temperature is about as meaningful as the average phone number in a phone directory.”

        Oh dear. In North America the average phone number has been climbing like the blade of a hockey stick ever since digits 2 through 9 were allowed in the 2nd digit of area codes. If this trend continues, by the year 2100 hex digits A through F might not even be enough to prevent catastrophic North American Numbering Plan collapse.

      • It is even more meaningless. At least I can probably figure out the area code from the average phone number (don’t forget to calculate it to 3 decimal places!)
        However, suppose I could calculate the average temperature of my car. Suppose it increased by 0.01C.
        What does this tell me? I’ve blown a cylinder head gasket? The interior temperature is going to rise 15 degrees? I’m leaking coolant? I suppose if you were a Climate “Scientist”, you could claim that it would explain everything that was wrong with it, or anything that goes wrong with it in the future!

          • Yes, all that kinetic energy converted into heat within the brake rotors. And that trend will continue forever and the metal rotors will melt and you will die! We must halt stopping to save the rotors! I digress.

    • Ronald Stein, your question “What’s the average temperature?” gets straight to the heart of the CAGW failure, ie: in the winter a person from, say Chicago, who goes to Florida steps into the plus 75 deg F temperature increase and immediately dies. The reality is they drink a beer while enjoying a round of golf, and adjust as necessary by staying in the sun or pausing in the shade. Crop failure the alarmists shout? Plant earlier and harvest earlier-no pada nada! Stay safe.

    • record the high and low for the date. In year two add the highs and divide by two. Rinse and repeat on that date every year computing the average high and low.

      Note the trickeration when you listen to the local meteorologist broadcast the weather report before you go to bed. If the days high is below the average he will likely report “the high temperature of [the high temp of the day here] is below AVERAGE” However if the days high is above the average he will likely report “The high temperature of [put high temp of the day here] is above NORMAL. There is a big subliminal difference between average and normal. The latter tells us that something is not right.

      In the age of Global Warm…ahh we really meant climate change all along in order for everything to be copacetic, i.e. not climate change the daily number would have to come in the same every year on the same date. Otherwise the climate is changing. Always has, always will

  2. I bailed on “climate science” when they started making claims of “run-away” and “self amplifying”.

    Also the entire claim that air-born soot causes ground-level warming was proven fraudulent by 9am September 12th 2001.

    No soot = +2°F @ ground level.

    • In all fairness, what happened after 911 had little to do with soot. Airplanes were grounded and quit leaving vapor trails and the effect was measurable.

      Contrails are composed primarily of water, in the form of ice crystals. link

      The black carbon referred to in the current story operates by an entirely different mechanism.

  3. causes warming by absorbing sunlight and enhancing the direct radiative forcing of the climate.

    Hang on , causes warming of what by blocking sunlight ? Certainly not warming of the land and sea surface which is the usual metric of “global heating”.

    enhancing the direct radiative forcing of the climate.

    If it has blocked the incoming energy , any “forcing” is only giving back what it has stolen. Half of which gets “forced” back to space without every having hit the ground.

    This sounds like just another excuse for why the modelled degree of warming has not happened.

  4. Seems the article claim warming due BC in the atmosphere. My poorly equipped logic brain, tells me that when opacity increases due to BC, less sunlight reaches ground, thus less heating. Somewhat similar to low hanging water vapor clouds.
    But, there you go, logic doesn’t make it.

    • That’s an overly-simplistic view. You’d have a point if it were primarily reflecting solar radiation like some aerosols, but it’s not…it’s absorbing it and then releasing it as heat. And black carbon doesn’t just sit there in the sky, either. It falls and becomes part of the ground you think it protects. Plus when it falls on snow and ice, it affects albedo (i.e., more sunlight reaches ground, thus more heating) while increasing local melt rates…which in turn affects albedo even more (i.e., a positive feedback).

  5. The first problem of climate models is that they attribute to gases that which is actually geothermal. Therefore nothing useful can come out of them.

    http://phzoe.com/2020/03/13/geothermal-animated/

    http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/

    It’s important to understand that if you have a hot pan emitting 700 W/m^2 into the atmosphere, climate “scientists” will claim that ~535 W/m^2 is due to “downwelling” IR. I’m not kidding. They have everything 100% upside down.

    • Geothermal is highly variable both in space and in time (e.g., volcanic eruptions). Average value estimates changed from 0.07W/m2 30 years ago to 0.1 W/m2 lately. Compared to insolation, it is negligible.

      • Curious George,

        “Average value estimates changed from 0.07W/m2 30 years ago to 0.1 W/m2 lately.”

        I cover the irrelevance of this figure here:

        http://phzoe.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/

        And here (with videos):
        http://phzoe.com/2020/02/20/two-theories-one-ideological-other-verified/

        Dismissing geothermal based on conductive heat flux, which has an inverse depth (length) factor while other fluxes do not is very very fake science. Yet this what climate junk scientists wish to do in order to generate fake concern and alarm.

        • Learn high school physics. Geothermal heat flux originates somewhere very deep, and it is approximately constant (except for volcanic areas) through the top 5, maybe 10 km of crust worldwide. Only a few holes have been drilled to 10 km depth, but they agree with shallower boreholes.

          • That’a great advice: you should learn some physics. The temperature of both your ears are the same, therefore the conductive heat flux through your head is 0 W/m^2. Does that mean your ears can’t warm anything, like an ice cube at 315 W/m^2?

          • Forget discussions with Zoe, Curious…..she/he has gone somewhere beyond real physics. Meta-thermodynamics maybe….and other spoofer sci….

  6. By that account physics fails the tents of basic science.

    “Physicists like to think their job is to uncover truths about nature. It is a profession that thrives on abstract thought and, often, an other-worldly detachment from reality. But with his essay collection Quantum Legacies, David Kaiser reminds us that, up close, the business of doing science is a mess. Physics, like any human activity, is rocked by the waves of history — its busts and booms, fears and fashions.”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00994-6

    • Jack,
      Not physics in general, but the evidence is overwhelming that climate science has failed the tenets of basic science. But then again, climate science stopped being about science upon the iception of the IPCC when the scientific method was replaced with conformance to a political narrative for establishing what is suitable to include, or not, in the IPCC’s reports that define what they want their self serving ‘consensus’ to believe.

      • This is exactly right. The ridiculouslness of Global Warming/ Climate Change is contained in the knowledge of the ocean’s enthalpy. This is the great “flywheel” that the atmosphere is attached to. The idea that we can damage this fantastic amount of heat with our actions id pure political garbage from the Left. These are the people who keep trying to reinvent economics because they can’t do math. They have been corrupting science to support their aims for about 60 years now. The universities are their tools.
        In the aftermath of Covid-19 we can redesign our education structure to include more on-line learning and de-employ thousands of activist/waste of space professors who satisfy theit fragile egos by indoctrinating kids.

    • Repeatable, demonstrable physics is basic science. It is not impaired, until it is bastardized for personal/political purposes. The bastardization usually involves reference to carefully selected bits of physics to bolster ones personal opinions while ignoring opposing evidence, aka Cherry Picking, Lying by Omission, and Man Made Climate Change.

      • The hockey stick has been repeated over 2 dozen times by different research groups using different methodologies and different data sets. The Pages2K has 692 data set fron 648 locations.

        • I made no reference to the ‘Hockey Stick’, in my previous comment?! Odd you brought that up. You seem a bit sensitive about it, even to providing selective bits to bolster your opinion…. Thanks for clearly illustrating my point.

          • You wanted something repeatable – you got it.

            Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.

          • And Jack Dale, that Hockey Stick that was repeated, was equally falsified each time. So, in your world, it’s flat because you can provide historically repeated claims of flatness.

            That’s simply sub par understanding of science. If observation shows the theory to be wrong only once, it’s enough for the theory to fail.

          • Jack,
            I indicated no ‘want’ in my previous communique. You can attempt to bastardize what I said, if you wish, and try once more to bolster your opinion, if you like.

            Personally, I’d like to sincerely thank you for illustrating my point yet again!

        • And Steve McIntyre has proved everyone of those **repetitions** faulty because they were not totally independent but used the same faulty methods each time.
          Some only changed a few proxies and but retained the bad over exaggerated ones and claimed “independent”.

        • So if all these historic tree ring proxy temp values are fit for purpose to accurately track temp anomalies over millenia, how come modern instrument-recorded temps require ‘adjusting’ and ‘homogenizing’ ?

          Why don’t all climate model data sets just keep on using tree ring proxy temps up to the current time?

        • “Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.”

          Couldn’t agree more Jack so when the null hypothesis is the climate is always changing and you come up with a new kid on the block theory I want to see why you should be bothering my grandchildren with it.

          So I live in Adelaide South Australia and should I sojourn to Hallett Cove Conservation Park a southern suburb the geology tells me between 15k and 6-7k years ago SLR was 130M starting from the coast line at the the edge of the Continental Shelf well south of Kangaroo Island. In other words while only aboriginals walked this land St Vincent and Spencer Gulf were large valleys with KI a big series of hills. Now that could be an average SLR of 16.25mm/yr for EIGHT THOUSAND years in case you’re a bit slow with arithmetic vs 0.65mm/yr now at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour or even 0.85mm/yr at Port Arthur in Tasmania between 1847 and 2000 (CSIRO) even if you want to ignore John Daly’s analysis they got that wrong and it’s too high.

          Furthermore should I travel to Fitzgerald Bay just north of Whyalla in Spencer Gulf the rather unique stranded shingle dunes tell me they were deposited there after that when the sea level was at least 3M higher than it is now. What has your revered paleoclimatology and proxies fed into computer models got to say about any of that and why should you be bothering my grandchildren with your doomsday computer printouts when they can’t? Surely you don’t believe that was all down to aboriginal cooking fires and traditional burnoffs to flush out game? Or do you along with all the other weather worriers on the taxpayer dime Eisenhower warned us about?

          • No one denies that natural cycles were in play. Those natural cycles played a role in the release of CO2 from where it had been sequestered. Those cycles are plain to see in the Vostok ice cores.

            We no longer require natural cycles to release that sequestered CO2. We do it all be ourselves by burning fossil fuels. Add to that the release of CFCs and HFCs which really are not natural, compounded by methane releases from natural gas production.

            We have overwhelmed natural cycles. The Holocene Optimum was approximately 6000 years ago and was followed by long term cooling which ended abruptly with the Industrial Revolution. We now have CO2 levels that have not been observed for over 3-5 million years. At the time sea levels were significantly higher and the Arctic had what is now tropical fauna.

            Let us remember Georges Santayana.

        • Jack Dale:
          2 dozen times by different research groups using different methodologies and different data sets.

          ROFLMAO — still defending the hockey stick. Clueless much?

  7. Fossil CO2 Emission Hoax,

    I believe recognize climatologists grossly overstate the impact of fossil CO2 emissions on global temperatures. The world’s fossil CO2 emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017. A plot of global temperatures from 1850, (Little Ice Age) to 2018 shows the temperatures increased between 1920 and 1945, before significant CO2 emissions, at the same rate as from 1970 to 2018. The temperature increased from1970 to 1990 at the same rate as from 1990 to 2018 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions. Clearly global temperatures were not that sensitive to those emissions.

    Also a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere showed CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960, to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as for 1990 to 2014. Again despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions.

    If increasing fossil CO2 emissions didn’t increase atmospheric CO2 PPM they could not be the reason for increasing global temperatures. The only rational explanation was global temperatures, driven by the sun were increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface. That global temperature increases were the cause of increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result.

    I’m a retired Boeing engineer but it shouldn’t take much education to recognize that if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions doesn’t result in a dramatic change in the rate at which global temperatures or atmospheric CO2 levels increase its “unlikely” fossil CO2 emissions are the reason. Yet apparently 96% of scientists don’t recognize that rationale.

    One of the seminal arguments for global temperature sensitivity was an August 2007 Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”. The article claimed to be “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming” based their conclusion on the failure of their computer models of climate temperature with their estimates of “forcing” (influence of) to match measured temperature. The end result was matching their computer model results to measured data required forcing for the fossil CO2 emissions to be 10 times that of the Sun. The fact that the global temperature increase from1990 to 2017 was essentially the same as from 1970 to 1990 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions would “seem” to belie that conclusion.

    The fact that atmospheric CO2 level increase from 1970 to 1990 was also the same as from 1990 to 2017 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions reaffirms the lack of sensitivity. The real correlation is between global temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere. As the letter concludes the likely reason is global temperatures driven by the sun, have increased CO2 out gassing from the ocean surface.

    The conclusion is fossil CO2 emissions are not an existential threat to the planet. Hundreds of billions have been wasted each year attempting to limit fossil CO2 emissions. That all the billions spent attempting to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources have likely had little affect on either global temperature or atmospheric CO2 levels. The sooner the whole world recognizes that the better

      • Jack,

        “… nearly 50% increased in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 18th century. can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.”

        This is good, not bad. Do you realize that the planets rate of sequestering Carbon is greater than it’s release into the atmosphere by means other combusting fossil fuels? Do you also understand that this means that the ultimate destiny of ALL biological life on Earth is to run out of CO2? The planet came dangerously close during the last ice age.

        The evidence is unambiguous that CO2 levels have been consistently dropping for millions of years, at least until mankind reversed this dangerous trend. Why fight against something that’s only good for all life on Earth and this would be true even if the IPCC’s grossly over-estimated climate sensitivity was true. Given that the laws of physics dictate an actual sensitivity less then the IPCC’s presumed lower bound, WTF is wrong with NASA that they can support this alarmist BS?

        • The Vostok Ice core data show a fluctuation between 180 and 300 ppm CO2 for the past 800,000 years. In that atmosphere homo sapiens evolved and their food crops were domesticated. The unverified 150 ppm dangerous level has never been reached in the entire history of the planet.
          At the start of the industrial Revolution CO2 levels were at 285 ppm, near the 800,000 year peak – nowhere near the lowest levels.
          We are not nor were we in a range of dangerous low levels of CO2.
          At 550 ppm food the nutrional value of food crops is compromised
          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3
          Increased CO2 levels result inc rased predation by pests
          https://www.pnas.org/content/105/13/5129
          https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153544
          Higher CO2 levels affect cogntive abilities.
          https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/

          • Jack,

            The DomeC core is better. The CO2 samples in the Vostok core are multi-century averages while those from DomeC are multi-decade averages. BTW, 180 ppm is not much more than 150 ppm and given that 180ppm is a measure of a long term average, the instantaneous levels were necessarily much lower. Why is replacing CO2 lost to permanent sequestration such a bad thing?

            So, if the nutritional content of food is reduced by a fraction of a percent, while the amount of food produced increases by a far larger factor, the total amount of nutrition in food has increased and fewer people will go hungry. Why is this bad?

            Yes, bugs are more active in the summer than in the winter. Unless you suffer from entomophobia, it’s a big so what. Besides, spiders are more active too and they eat the other bugs.

            Higher CO2 levels don’t affect cognitive abilities until 10,000’s of ppm. The ISS Co2 levels are nominally an order of magnitude higher then on Earth, so if this was any kind of concern, NASA wouldn’t let CO2 levels get that high. The worst place to be cognitively impaired is in outer space, moreover; the cognitive abilities of astronauts are continuously being tested. One thing I’ve noticed that does diminishes cognitive abilities is a blind belief in the highly distorted claims coming from the IPCC.

            Try again.

      • Oh dear, the old C12/C13 isotope ratio argument as a fingerprint for AGW was debunked at least 11 years ago.

        “The claim is based on the idea that the normal ratio of heavy to light carbon–that is, the carbon-13 isotope to the lighter carbon-12 isotope, is roughly 1 to 90 in the atmosphere, but in plants there’s a 2 percent lower C13/C12 ratio. So, observing that C13 in the atmosphere has been declining steadily though very slightly since 1850, they claim that this is due to man’s burning of fossil fuels, which are generally believed to be derived from fossilized plant matter.

        On the naïve and scientifically silly assumption that the only way that plant-based carbon can get into the atmosphere is by people burning fuels, they exult that here indeed is the smoking gun: Decreases of C13 in the atmosphere mean that our sinful combustions are clearly identifiable as major contributors to the 100 ppm increase in CO2 since 1850.

        This is misguided, simply because less than a thousandth of the plant-based carbon on earth is bound up in fossil fuel. The rest of the huge remaining tonnages of plant-based carbon are diffused through the oceans, the forests, the grasslands and the soil. In other words, everywhere. Obviously, lots of this C13-deficient carbon has the chance to oxidize into CO2 by paths other than people burning fuel, i.e., the huge amount of plant material that’s naturally eaten or decayed by the biosphere.”

        Nobody talks about it now in the same way nobody talks about DWLR penetrating the ocean skin slowing down heat loss from the oceans to the atmosphere. Stop being a fool, Jack Dale.

        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/the-trouble-with-c12-c13-ratios/

        • An anonymous blogger with a degree i economics versus a PhD geologist. Tough choice.

          I know that is an appeal to authority. I also would give more credibility to Fauci than Trump.

          “Be very careful not to confuse “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).”

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority

          • Jack,

            The extraordinary claim that causes those like me to be skeptical that the IPCC has the legitimacy to decide what is and what is not climate science is that they require the next W/m^2 of solar input (forcing) to increase surface emissions by 4.4 W/m^2 in order to manifest the nominal 0.8C increase they need, while the average W/m^2 contributes only 1.62 W/m^2 to the surface emissions and would otherwise increase the surface temperature by about 0.3C. Their lower bound is 0.4C which is still larger than the 0.3C dictated by critical thinking.

            How can the climate system distinguish the next W/m^2 from the W/m^2 already arriving from the Sun? Obviously, it can’t. Feedback won’t work, as this can’t tell W/m^2 from each other either, although feedback analysis was horribly misapplied by Hansen (and Schlesinger) in order to establish the justification for the formation of the IPCC and climate science has been broken ever since. I kind of doubt that the IPCC will correct an error without which they have no reason to exist, do you?

            When critical thinking reveals that the so called experts are so obviously wrong, how can you not be a skeptic?

          • Not an appeal to authority, Jack, just plain facts. Why is the the C12/C13 isotope ratio argument not used any more? Was it because it was a good argument?

            It’s so long since I read about this garbage that I had to go back 11 years to find out what it was all about.

          • Jack,

            If you would like citations for any of my assertions, I suggest starting here:

            https://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html

            It’s just basic physics, so no specific climate related citation is necessary. If you think different physics applies, you need to explain how it overrides the requiremnts of the SB Law, COE and Kirchoff’s Law. Next, you should read and understand this:

            https://archive.org/details/NetworkAnalysisFeedbackAmplifierDesign

            Pay special attention to the first 2 paragraphs of the main text where he spells out the preconditions for using his analysis. 1) strict linearity and 2) implicit power supply

            Be sure to notice the difference between the feedback fraction and the feedback factor which Schlesinger assumed were the same which is only true when the open loop gain is unity, yet he assumed a non unit open loop gain, G, that turned W/m^2 into degrees. Like Hansen, he also ignored both preconditions. Roe’s more recent paper just repeats Schlesinger’s errors.

          • Jack,

            Here’s an article I wrote explaining the feedback fubar. The references you seek are at the end of the article.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/07/how-climate-feedback-is-fubar/

            In a nutshell,

            1) approximate linearity between W/m^2 and degrees around the mean is insufficient for the strict linearity required to use Bode’s linear feedback amplifier analysis. If your audio amplifier was only linear around the mean signal amplitude, all you would hear is distortion and Bode’s analysis can not quantify the output of the amplifier.

            2) The Sun is the forcing and can not also be the implicit power supply required by Bode. If you connected the audio input of your amplifier and the power cord to the same signal source, do you think it would still amplify the signal?

          • Jack,

            Dr. Singer who just passed away thought global warming was hokum. He wash eminent scientist. Are you going to defer to his judgement?

          • No. He played down the dangers of tobacco as well. No scientific institution on the planet endorses the Heartland funded NIPCC of which he was a part.

          • Jack,

            In my exchanges with Schlesinger, he incorrectly considered approximate linearity around the mean to be sufficient for the linearity precondition and that the average not accounted for by the incremental analysis was the power supply. However; the later assumes non linearity in order to necessitate an incremental analysis in the first place where the next W/m^2 is required to have a much larger impact on the surface emissions than the average W/m^2. Compensating errors don’t make an incorrect analysis correct.

            In my last message to him I pointed out where his derivation conflated the feedback factor with the feedback fraction which are only the same when the open loop gain, G, is a dimensionless 1, which is inconsistent with his other assumption that G is a dimensional translation that amplifies W/m^2 into degrees. What he did in his equations was to undo the G before applying the feedback fraction to the output of the gain block by incorrectly considering the feedback fraction was the feedback factor which is G times the feedback fraction and equivalent only when G=1. In effect, what he called G ended up being irrelevant to the feedback term or the amplified output and was really just an incremental application of the SB Law applied to the output of a unit gain block whose ‘amplified’ output was the simple sum of the forcing W/m^2 and the feedback W/m^2 . Unfortunately, he passed away before he could explain.

        • Kenneth Richard, aka Rick Cina, a puppeteer from Illinois is your authority. Too funny.

          Ever wondered why he puts up images of contextomized reports, rather than the text of the report.

          BTW – undersea volcanoes have nothing to do with oceans warming.

          https://www.wired.com/2011/05/dont-believe-everything-you-read-volcanic-source-of-ocean-warming-and-the-great-rome-earthquake/

          Erik Klemetti is an assistant professor of Geosciences at Denison University. His passion in geology is volcanoes, and he has studied them all over the world.

          • Try reading the articles he links to. And what is too funny is that your “Professor” seems to believe that the ocean can be heated by the atmosphere. Try heating a bucket of water from above with a blowlamp. Report back when you have raised the temperature by any significant amount.

          • Chaswarnertoo, I am not a scientist, but if you fill a kettle with water the ‘element’ heats the water, no one will refute that. Am I wrong to think that large areas of underwater active volcanoes, as in lava erupting will heat the surrounding water in a similar way? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

          • Erik Klemetti is a scientist.

            “First up, I read a post about how humans couldn’t be to blame for the warming of the oceans. The “logic” of the post is this:

            We see water getting warmed by magma at volcanoes worldwide, like Taal and Ruapehu.
            The bottom of the ocean is covered in volcanoes, whether it be seamounts or the mid-ocean ridge system.
            Volcanoes at the bottom of the ocean must heat up the ocean water (like in crater lakes), so humans aren’t to blame.
            There are a number of ways to attack this poor reasoning, but I’ll try to go with the ones I think are most convincing.

            This argument suggests that volcanic activity (not just volcanoes) on the ocean floor must be increasing over the last few hundred years. We see no evidence of this – and the author of the post only uses evidence that we have discovered more volcanoes (up to 3.4 million) on the seafloor.
            The author claims “that 3,477,403 number, coming from two well-respected oceanographers, does reinforce my point rather nicely, namely, that underwater volcanoes are heating the seas.” Sure, there might be a lot of volcanoes but he makes no mention of how many might be active enough to heat the ocean water. We can see at surface volcanoes that not all of them are erupting or puffing away simultaneously – why would undersea volcanoes be different? Additionally, of those 3.4 million ‘volcanoes’ he cites from a 2007 study, how many were considered active?
            Finally, and most damning, you would expect in this situation that ocean water would warm from the bottom (near the volcanoes) upwards, but it is actually the surface waters that are warming, not the deep ocean. This suggests that heating is coming from exchange with the atmosphere, not from some deep source on the ocean floor.
            It is very easy to try to throw around some partially baked ideas about volcanism to try to explain the changing in the ocean temperature worldwide, but they would require extraordinary circumstances where ocean volcanic activity was increasing exactly when human carbon dioxide production was also increasing. Sorry, the subsurface volcanoes are no source for your ocean heating (and if I had the time, I’d calculate how much energy would take to heat all the oceans by 0.5C – it is bound to be more than you can get out of a few hundred thousand Ruapehus).”
            https://www.wired.com/2011/05/dont-believe-everything-you-read-volcanic-source-of-ocean-warming-and-the-great-rome-earthquake/

  8. Take a wild guess, add in some speculation, and mix in a few random numbers you made up to make the answer closer to what you expected – that’s a climate model.

    How can adding in another wild guess (about soot) hurt? It does no good to try and understand carbon soot’s impact to climate any better if you just throw the answer into a made-up climate model.

    They need to start from known basic physics and work their way up to more complex systems if they want their models to represent anything but speculation. It would take years of work, and they eventually will come to areas that simply defy strong physics based modeling and so have to be simulated. This at least would provide them insight as to why a climate cannot be accurately modeled into the future as far out as 100 years. It might also provide them with insight that Carbon dioxide is a player but not the master of climate (the master would be the huge ‘glowie’ thing up in the sky)

      • Throughout the day, throughout the year, and across a 30 year period, the perturbation continue to evolve.

        • Solar activity is declining, temperatures are increasing.

          And there is no coming mini ice age.

          • Who says temperatures are increasing? What temperatures are increasing? Maximum temperatures or minimum temperatures? Of are both increasing?

            How do you tell from an average temperature?

          • Say Jack?

            Who says temperatures are increasing? What temperatures are increasing? Maximum temperatures or minimum temperatures? Of are both increasing?

            How do you tell from an average temperature?

            Did you miss Tim’s query? I know I’m interested to hear your answer?

          • Every global data set shows long term temperature increases.

            But why didn’t you answer the rest of Tim’s questions, Jack?

            “What temperatures are increasing? Maximum temperatures or minimum temperatures? Of are both increasing?

            How do you tell from an average temperature?”

            Could you speak to these intelligently? Thanks!

          • “Every global data set shows long term temperature increases.”

            Every global data set shows AVERAGE long term temperature increasing.

            THE AVERAGE TELLS YOU EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE CLIMATE!

            The impacts on the environments happen at the edges of the temperature envelope. It MATTERS if maximum temperatures are going up or if minimum temperatures are going up.

            Yet you refuse to answer as to what is happening at the edges! Is it because you don’t know or is it because it would undercut your climate alarmist claims.

            Until you can answer about what is happening with the temperature envelope every claim you make is a joke. Just like the so-called climate models. They are a joke because they tell you nothing! It’s why so many climate alarmist predictions over the past 20 years have turned out to be wrong! Food supplies are going up and not down as the climate alarmists predicted and are still predicting. The sea level rise is *not* accelerating as the climate alarmists predicted and are still predicting. More people still die globally from cold weather than from hot weather refuting the climate alarmists predictions on that front. All across the globe the annual number of cooling degree-days over the past three years are either going down or are stagnant – meaning the climate is *not* getting hotter, thus air conditioning requirements are decreasing or remaining the same.

            You are simply repeating religious dogma from the climate alarmists bible.

          • UAH and RSS report monthly means. Most others do as well.

            Jack with all due respect I asked you to speak intelligently to Tim’s query. I’m beginning to think my confidence in you is ill advised . . .

          • Jack,

            “You seem to be trying to make some obtuse point.”

            This is an argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Dismissal. My point is simple and easy to understand. A temperature average is meaningless. Period. Exclamation point.

            “We do know that diurnal temperature range(DTR) has decreased, due to nighttime temperatures which have increased faster than daytime temperatures.”

            Do nighttime temperatures going up predict a climate emergency? Are higher minimum temps going to cause the Earth to turn into a cinder? To cause food supplies to crash? To cause more people to die from heat than cold?

            You also just implied that daytime temperatures are also increasing, just not as fast as nighttime temperatures. Where is your back up for that assertion? Cooling degree-day values around the globe refute that assertion.

            I’m not sure what the link you provided has to do with this at all. From the study: “It does not appear that the homogenization effort described here was completely successful;”

            In essence this study does the same thing as all other data sets so their results can be compared to the satellite data sets – meaning the use of average temperatures. From the study: “making use of day-minus-night series for the precise removal of artifacts associated with solar heating”

            You should be asking yourself why you can’t tell us what maximum and minimum temperatures contribute to an average of 20degC. A little introspection should inform you that averages are meaningless when it is the maximum and minimum temperatures are where environmental impacts actually occur.

      • “Solar variation is insufficient to affect climate change.”

        I just had a déjà vu moment reading that statement –
        it was the live video news piece to camera by Iraqi foreign minister Comical Ali / Baghdad Bob during the Iraq II kerfuffle, saying the US ground forces were being repulsed from Baghdad, while the video showed the US tanks rumbling along the street behind him.

  9. Fossil CO2 Emission Hoax,

    I believe climatologists grossly overstate the impact of fossil CO2 emissions on global temperatures. The world’s fossil CO2 emissions have increased from 22,674 million tons (Mt) in 1990 to 37,077 Mt in 2017. A plot of global temperatures from 1850, (Little Ice Age) to 2018 shows the temperatures increased between 1920 and 1945, before significant CO2 emissions, at the same rate as from 1970 to 2018. The temperature increased from1970 to 1990 at the same rate as from 1990 to 2018 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions. Clearly global temperatures were not that sensitive to those emissions.

    Also a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere showed CO2 increased from 320 parts per million (PPM) in 1960, to 396 PPM in 2014. Yet the rate of change from 1970 to 1990 was essentially the same as for 1990 to 2014. Again despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions.

    If increasing fossil CO2 emissions didn’t increase atmospheric CO2 PPM they could not be the reason for increasing global temperatures. The only rational explanation was global temperatures, driven by the sun were increasing CO2 out gassing from ocean surface. That global temperature increases were the cause of increasing CO2 in atmosphere not the result.

    I’m a retired Boeing engineer but it shouldn’t take much education to recognize that if a 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions doesn’t result in a dramatic change in the rate at which global temperatures or atmospheric CO2 levels increase its “unlikely” fossil CO2 emissions are the reason. Yet apparently 96% of scientists don’t recognize that rationale.

    One of the seminal arguments for global temperature sensitivity was an August 2007 Scientific American article, “The Physical Science behind Climate Change”. The article claimed to be “The Undeniable Case for Global Warming” based their conclusion on the failure of their computer models of climate temperature with their estimates of “forcing” (influence of) to match measured temperature. The end result was matching their computer model results to measured data required forcing for the fossil CO2 emissions to be 10 times that of the Sun. The fact that the global temperature increase from1990 to 2017 was essentially the same as from 1970 to 1990 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions would “seem” to belie that conclusion.

    The fact that atmospheric CO2 level increase from 1970 to 1990 was also the same as from 1990 to 2017 despite the 70% increase in fossil CO2 emissions reaffirms the lack of sensitivity. The real correlation is between global temperatures and CO2 in the atmosphere. As the letter concludes the likely reason is global temperatures driven by the sun, have increased CO2 out gassing from the ocean surface.

    The conclusion is fossil CO2 emissions are not an existential threat to the planet. Hundreds of billions have been wasted each year attempting to limit fossil CO2 emissions. That all the billions spent attempting to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources have likely had little affect on either global temperature or atmospheric CO2 levels. The sooner the whole world recognizes that the better

    • “….. 96% of scientists don’t recognise ….. “.
      I would be interested to know where you get this number from.

        • Re consensus among ‘scientists’ an observation from Galileo: “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.”

  10. I am rather sceptical of many of the claims of climate scientists but I think that in this case Anthony is being rather unfair. Whoever first included the effects of soot in climate models was bound to make some simplifying assumptions; hence the assumption that all soot particles are the same. This new research shows that assumption leads to an overestimation of the amount of absorption of radiation by black carbon and therefore the models need to be refined. That is how science works.

    The kinetic theory of gases was based on assumptions about the behaviour of an “ideal gas.” The theory is slightly inaccurate when applied to real gases. Did that show a failure of “the tenets of basic science”?

  11. OK, so black carbon in the atmosphere is absorbing solar energy rather than the surface below. Sure, black carbon is less reflective, but half of what it absorbs is emitted back into space, thus it’s really a net cooling influence unless black carbon absorbs more than twice what the surface below would absorb.

    It seems that the alarmist brain is stuck on the idea that any Joules absorbed by the atmosphere can only be returned to the surface to warm it more than those Joules could have done otherwise. While latent heat and convection are returned only to the surface, (which isn’t energy absorbed by the atmosphere anyway but like weather are just mechanisms to redistribute existing energy), the Joules of surface or solar emissions absorbed by clouds, GHG’s and aerosols which includes soot, are isotropically radiated away from the absorbing matter.

    • When I imagine this process to try to better understand it, it seems to me that any atmospheric soot only intercepts light energy that would otherwise continue on to be absorbed at a lower level in the atmosphere or by the ground or sea surface. Whatever else this light might have contacted would then absorb it and heat somewhat before re-radiating it at infrared frequencies. How is the light striking carbon any different?

  12. I’ll see your Black Soot marker and raise you an inch of death and destruction. While working in the field in northern Nevada it is common to find a fresh stream bank incised in a field, and near the top there commonly is about an inch of black, gritty ash and carbon, the marker for aerial transport of the Mazama eruption that formed Crater Lake in Oregon, about 6,000 years ago. No one who lives down-wind from Yellowstone should shrug this description off. Stay safe.

    • North Dakota has several feet of bentonite clay(over ten), from my understand that was the ash from Yellowstone, anyone in North Dakota paying attention to what that means, does know.

  13. “Average” temperature is as useless as saying the average human has one breast and one testicle.

    • That is nominal data. C and F temperatures are interval data. K temperatures are ratio data. The mean can be calculated.

    • They really need to specify the range of normal, instead of spreading a social contagion, forcing a progressive corruption of science, and to promote special (e.g. “Green” industry, environmentalism) and peculiar interests.

  14. Yet another study that starts with “since temperatures are rising…” and ends with “even worse than we thought”.
    So, apparently, CO2 is n’t the only warming game in town, even though we’ve laregley been told that for 10 years. 50 years before that, we were told the world was going to end within 10 years, and all through the 80s, we were still taught that “the world will end before 2000”.
    The modelling, the predictions of a dire future, the lobbying and political posturing/shaming of the issues has done nothing to show that these predictions are worth the trees cut down to publish them. We’ve seen it, heard it, and lived our lives constantly being warned about an apocalypse that just isn’t coming, anybody over 40 can recognize the pattern, and is not ready to run over the cliff just because a fancy graph and a “scientist” says so.

    This is largely the reason many won’t believe the scary models of CoVid-19. Their dire predictions are not coming to pass. and unfortunately for the modellers, they can’t make them far enough in the future to keep from damaging their reputations, the first law of Armageddon Modelling.

  15. It was a question about soot or black carbon (BC) particles in the atmosphere. The question is what the surface temperature effect of the increased amount of BC particles in the atmosphere is. I have the following points here to consider:

    1. The volcanos inject huge amounts of ash particles into the atmosphere and even into the stratosphere. They are not exactly similar to BC particles. The volcano eruptions have always negative impacts on the surface temperature, like in the case of Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991.
    2. I have produced the energy balances of the Earth for clear, cloudy and all-sky conditions. Here are the shortwave fluxes absorbed by the atmosphere and the surface: clear sky 287 W/m2, cloudy 221 W/m2 and all-sky 240 W/m2.

    My conclusion is that any elements causing more absorption in the atmosphere – clouds, ash particles or BC particles – decrease the amount of the total shortwave radiation on the Earth and it means the decrease of the surface temperature.

    Do you know what is the RF magnitude of cloud adjustments due to aerosols including organic and black carbon in the simple climate model of the IPCC? According to AR5, it was -0.55 W/m2. The IPCC has another term called “Aerosols and precursors” including again black carbon, and the value of this term is -0.27 W/m2. Totally these terms make -0.82 W/m2. This a way to keep the RF value of GH gases as high as 3.18 W/m2 and in this way to show how dangerous GH gases are.

    In the SMP of AR5, the IPCC writes like this: “The RF of the total aerosol effect in the atmosphere, which includes cloud adjustments due to aerosols, is –0.9 ( not exactly -0.82, which is a typical inaccuracy of the IPCC reports), and results from a negative forcing from most aerosols and a positive contribution from black carbon absorption of solar radiation. There is high confidence that aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases.” It is amazing how well the IPCC knows even the aerosols and BC amounts in the atmosphere of 1750.

    In the nutshell: according to the IPCC, the BC has a positive surface temperature impact. I think that more BC means lower surface temperature.

  16. A Polish friend recently spoke about the expected change in pollution in Poland because of the lockdown. It was thought that with a massive reduction in cars on the roads there would be a significant reduction. On the contrary – it was discovered that the pollution was caused by all the fires in residents’ back yards.

    How many scientists would have guessed this?

  17. The mechanism was characterized or theorized in isolation with evolutionary effect in the real world.

  18. Modeling black soot? How about modeling dust particles while you are at it. Anything to keep the scam going, rrrrriiight.

    • My [limited] understanding is that English is the only language when a double positive – “Yeahh! Rrrriiiggghht!” – is actually a negative.
      Happy to learn of other languages which have this – apparently – unusual feature.

      Auto

  19. In a nutshell, in their zeal to model and prove global warming, climate researchers assumed that all carbon black particles ejected into the atmosphere are created equal, and stay equal. In reality, that’s not the case and it is a huge oversimplification of what actually occurs in nature.

    It confirms what many surmised from the very beginning – that, for a variety of different reasons, activists are deciding what outcome they expect OR WANT, and are then constructing a narrative that ‘proves’ it.

  20. How do we know that all snowflakes are unique? Even if most of them are different, there might be a few that are the same.

  21. I have a thought regarding a potential climate concept I call Temperature Volume.
    Too often (every day) all we are given in the weather is daily minimum and maximum. We are not told how long the maximum held for. Temperature volume takes the temperature at every minute of the day – giving a 2 dimensional graph, the third dimension is location. A grid of 1km with measurement at each grid point then gives a 3d heat volume map for an area for a day. this can then be used to compare ares instead of just saying it was 2 degrees hotter today than the same day last year.

    • Temperature and heat are two different things. To calculate enthalpy you also need to how much water vapor is in the air at each station. Temperature was chosen as a proxy for heat content, but it is not a very good one because of the variability of humidity.

    • We have technology which allows us to record temperature every minut. That is a new capability; historically, the best we could do was to use a min-max thermometer to record a minimum and maximum temperature through the readout period – usually a day.

      If you want to disregard historical data, do it at your own peril.

    • Corey, were you an ex Australian Liberal Party politician? I was going to post a comment (supportive) to you but it’s irrelevant if you’re not that person.

    • Good to see you on this site Corey, there is much to be learnt here. If you follow it regularly you’ll see that there are many Aussie contributors. Shame you’ve left politics, but then the Australian Liberal party is not the conservative party it once was, the party has been infiltrated by greens on every level. Scott Morrison does realise that his ‘quiet Australians’ are against wind and solar renewables right? He does realise that he was voted in because the majority of Australians don’t believe in AGW? Sadly that’s pretty much most of what we are being fed. The ABC is purely a propaganda machine, most of the other commercial stations are pretty much the same.

      Aussies come to this site to have a voice, apart from the Aust ‘Sky Channels’ and the Telegraph newspaper, we have little opportunity to express right wing views anywhere. If you try to reach an MP the gatekeepers don’t pass the correspondence on. Very frustrating.

      There are a lot of scientists on the site, likely it was mostly scientists to begin with. I’m sure there are some who wish it was still that way. We non scientists can at least put up a more educated argument against the ‘warmists’ from what we have learned here and from the many available links. The political discussions are interesting too, and sometimes it’s just funny. The site is a free speech site, so you will get comments that refute the post. Some of these people are regulars and really persistent, which is a good thing as it gets a scientific discussion going. Reminds us that the science is never really settled.

      I know that we have a few politicians speaking out against AGW, such as Craig Kelly and Malcolm Roberts. They are held in high regard on this site for their views on climate change, too few politicians have the courage to speak out against AGW, their YouTube videos have popped up here too. If your name is unfamiliar to the site, people are a little suspicious for a while, once you’ve posted enough comments to get your views out there you will be accepted, and mostly your questions will be answered. Though their are a couple of prickly ones out there.

      Of course, this comment will only be relevant to you if you are Corey Bernardi, ex Australian Liberal Party politician, if you’re not, nothing lost.

  22. From the Guardian, 2009:

    Those conversations led Gore to politically inconvenient conclusions in this new book. In his conversations with Schmidt and other colleagues at the beginning of the year, Gore explored new studies – published only last week – that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming.
    Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate

Comments are closed.