Guest essay by Eric Worrall
And both increased and decreased cloud cover is bad.
Global heating warming up ‘nights faster than days’
Effect seen across much of world will have profound consequences, warn scientists
Damian Carrington
Environment editorThe climate crisis is heating up nights faster than days in many parts of the world, according to the first worldwide assessment of how global heating is differently affecting days and nights.
The findings have “profound consequences” for wildlife and their ability to adapt to the climate emergency, the researchers said, and for the ability of people to cool off at night during dangerous heatwaves.
The scientists compared the rises in daytime and night-time temperatures over the 35 years up to 2017. Global heating is increasing both, but they found that over more than half of the world’s land there was a difference of at least 0.25C between the day and night rises.
…
The changes are the result of global heating causing changes to clouds. Where cloud cover increases, sunlight is blocked during the day but the clouds retain more heat and humidity at night, like a blanket.
This leads to nights getting increasingly hotter compared with days. Where cloud cover is decreasing, mostly in regions that are already dry, there is more sunlight during the day, which pushes temperatures up more rapidly.
..,.
Cox’s team also looked at vegetation growth and found that it was reduced where nights were getting warmer faster than days, probably because the increased cloud cover blocks the sun.
However, plant growth was also reduced in places where the days warmed more, as there were fewer clouds and less rainfall. Both effects are likely to cut crop yields and, for example, reduce nectar and pollen production that many insects rely on.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/01/global-heating-warming-up-nights-faster-than-days
The study is available here.
Trying to claim that any change is bad is where in my opinion climate science really jumps the shark.
There have to be winners from any shift in global climate, up or down. There are many places in the world where temperature and climatic conditions are suboptimal, and a little warming or cooling would improve quality of life and growing conditions.
No, nothing to do with UHI. Nahh. Must be CO2. Send more money and implement world socialism and we might stand a chance, but hurry!
Eric is right. The absurdity of warmer is bad cooler is bad and whatever changes in whatever way, it’s bad and it’s OUR FAULT, is hard to understate.
The Vatican must wonder how they can enforce their IP claims on ownership of guilt.
I”d like to have warmer nights in the fall and winter. Where do I apply for them? IS there a price list available, and do they come with a warranty?
N.B.: if anyone takes what I posted above seriously, you need some serious help.
Overnight, in my AO, it was 35F, which is unusual at the very least for this area at this time of year. I do NOT expect it to get warmer until/unless that gynormous loop in the jet stream pulls up, but it’s giving us more lawn and garden water, so that saves me a few on the water bill. It all equals itself out, you know. Frankly, the Old Farmer’s Almanac and the Farmer’s Almanac are nearly eye-to-eye this time over how fall and winter will proceed where I am and so far, they are better forecasters than these so-called “researchers”, who (somehow) seem to have Doomsday embedded in their brains.
That’s really sad: when the OFA and FA are more eye-to-eye than the grants grubbers, it means that real weather doesn’t matter to the grants seekers, and reality is not something they endorse.
I think you and I are in roughly the same area and I agree on the warmer nights during fall and winter–I’ll split the cost with you if you want to go in on it with me. 50/50 sound good?
Absolutely, and I’ll throw in a campfire and a few chairs, and have a cookout.
“No, nothing to do with UHI. Nahh. Must be CO2. Send more money and implement world socialism and we might stand a chance, but hurry!”
Yes WR2, urban heat island (UHI) is exactly what popped into my head when I started reading this posting too. If the authors are indeed familiar with the UHI concept, this is yet another example of the level of deceit in which the alarmist readily engage. The average Guardian reader is likely unfamiliar with UHI, so it makes this conclusions of this “study” an easy sell.
Milk the climate alarmist narrative for every grant dollar, pound or euro you can get on the road to Marxism…
Lenin:
“..From the foregoing, it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society into socialist society and wholly and exclusively from the economic law of the development of contemporary society…”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/granat/ch04.htm
No better way to do it than with the climate alarmist narrative. Lenin might have been enamored by the idea of using CAGW to sell Marxism to the masses, but others are already doing it for him.
My thoughts exactly. How do they distinguish between the effects of UHI and global warming?
They ignore UHI.
It was a trick question.
Look at deserts vs their neighbouring tropical zones. Same insolation at TOA, vastly different temperatures at the surface. GH gasses reduce Tmax, increase Tmin a lot, and Tavg a bit.
Actually I did..
Look at deserts vs their neighbouring tropical zones. Or at least ones on the same latitude.
To my surprise, the deserts were almost the same in terms of average temperature, but they were massively hotter by day and chillier by night.
I don’t understand that, either.
Water vapor regulates…. blocks energy both ways.
Tropical deserts lack water vapor, so incoming energy is slowed during the day, just as outgoing energy is slowed during the night.
CO2 has absolutely no effect.
Yes. Water in the atmosphere has a massive effect on temperature. Temperature has a huge effect on water in the atmosphere. These are massive complicated influences that exist in equilibrium. How it all works is poorly understood but it must be stable else the earth’s climate would already have gone wild before. CO2 has a tiny effect by comparison with H2O. If the balance between water and temperature is indeed stable then the effect of CO2 on this balance is going to be negligable.
oops.. been working too hard today.. wrong way around…
Tropical wet areas have lots of water vapor, so incoming energy is slowed during the day, just as outgoing energy is slowed during the night.
Tropical deserts lack water vapor, so energy can reach and escape from the surface much easier.
It’s actually clouds that block radiative cooling at night and radiate much more IR back to the surface, not the gas phase. The gas phase inherently radiates/absorbs very little light at all. This can be directly observed and is well known in meteorology as a temperature inversion.
https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/winds/nighttime_influences/Nighttime_Influences.htm
CLOUDS control the average temperature of the planet.
published peer reviewed paper with many references HERE:
https://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf
As I have said before this is due to the enthalpy of the air.
100% humid air at 75F has twice as much energy in kilojoules per kilogram as 0% humid air at 100F
Put another way 100% humid air has a high enthalpy and requires more heat to raise the temperature of a volume of air by one degree F than a similar volume of air at 0% humidity.
Desert air with low humidity will therefore change temperature with little heat exchange while Jungle air with high humidity will not change temperature without a lot of heat being exchanged.
So at night if the heat radiates away at a constant rate:
* The desert air will rapidly change to a lower temperature as it has low enthalpy (less Kj/Kg)
and
* The jungle humid air will slowly change to a lower temperature as it has a higher enthalpy (more Kj/Kg).
The terms hotter/cooler should not be used as they are ambiguous and colloquial. Instead use the term energy content and use the metric kilojoules per kilogram after all that is what the concern is about trapped heat.
With the extremely small ‘temperature anomalies’ it is possible that the entire claimed global’warming’ is in fact due to a reduction in average humidity while the heat content in Kj/Kg has remained static. It is even possible that the heat content is lower in Kj/Kg and the temperature has risen due to the lower enthalpy of dry air.
It is really important to use the right metric.
This is NOTHING to do with a “greenhouse effect”.
Yep, like it too. The air plain has a higher Specific Heat Capacity when it is wet.
But, WV does absorb and emit as a GH gas too.
Leo,
“To my surprise, the deserts were almost the same in terms of average temperature, but they were massively hotter by day and chillier by night.”
This is why the “AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE” is so useless and so meaningless. Climate is determined by the temperature profile and not by the average temperature. What we should be looking at is the cooling and heating degree-days – which are the integral of the temperature curve above and below a threshold temperature. This will actually tell you what is happening with the climate. Deserts will have a much higher cooling and heating degree-day value than a temperate location. A tropical location may have a higher cooling degree-day value but a far lower heating degree-day value.
Fred is correct about clouds being a regulating effect.
Simply that WV dampens energy flow, in and out. Reduces Tmax, increase Tmin. THats what WV does, it doesnt warm it dampens. CO2 does warm though, its absorption frequencies are not active in the solar frequencies.
MS.
Elementary spelling. It is “gases”, not “gasses”. Everywhere and forever.
Geoff S
Everywhere and forever except perhaps in the dictionary where gasses can be found as an alternative plural form.
Some dictionaries also have “nucyuler” as alternate forms.
Short search says either is correct.
Either is acceptable in British English, though the former is more common in modern usage.
I’m opening a combination gas station and restaurant, where people can eat and get gas.
Sell fishing supplies too, they can eat and get gas and worms.
“Elementary spelling. It is “gases”, not “gasses”. Everywhere and forever.”
I use your usage, but it’s not “everywhere and forever.” This is the kind of critique I would expect from a middle aged bachelor mailman who lives with his mother, in a Boston bar….
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gasses
It’s “everywhere and forever”, irregardless of what you say.
I am English, we do gasses. 🙂
I do prefer your ‘center’ though.
There is also the latent heat that evaporation removes from the surface in the tropical zones. That slows the rate of warming during the day. As that vapor condenses back into liquid at cooler altitude, the heat is released, and this slows the rate of cooling at night. Totally independent of its properties as a GHG, the heat transfer of evaporation at the surface and condensation at altitude cools the surface during the day, and slows the cooling at night. THe GHG effect primarily acts to slow the cooling at night, but does not have as great an effect during the day. For comparison, take the Amazon vs the Sahara. Both at similar latitudes, both with the same insolation, both with the same amount of CO2 in the air.
Yep. Thats another method where water controls temperature extremes.
“The climate crisis is…”
Whenever I see an article start with those words, I tune out.
When a study starts to say that any change up or down in a climate variable will lead universally to only negative effects on the environment everywhere, it is clearly so unsustainable a concept that it is not coming from a serious science study but just a piece of political propaganda in favour of the CO2 Alarmist Fear Attack. It is just a development of the original idea that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere will have only negative effects on the environment, clearly ignoring benefits to plant growth and agriculture.
If any change in any direction is bad, wouldn’t that mean that going back to pre-industrial climate (what they seem to want) would be bad, since it’s a change?
Sweden is , as always , different: Less clouds and more sun hours, 20% more than 1983:
Lasse,
Grammar check. Should be “fewer clouds” or “less cloud”.
Use “fewer” for items you can count, “less” for quantities or amounts.
This is meant to help. English might not be your first language.
Small errors can make readers irritated. Geoff S
Don’t be a pedant. Less clouds sounds fine.
Mr Sherrington is clearly not interested in the subject matter. He is only interested in telling everyone how good his English is and in doing so, to embarrass the writer. I understood quite well what Lasse was saying. We should not allow people to ridicule bloggers in front of thousands of readers: it is wrong and lacking in common decncy
George Lawson,
“clearly not interested in the subject matter”
George, you must be new here. Over the last 12 years I have written lead articles for WUWT now and then and given frequent scientific comments. Therefore, a question if I may? By what logical reasoning did you chose to use the word “clearly” when the evidence shows that the matter was not clear to you?
Where is your focus here Geoff?
On the issue of number versus amount or the issue of singular item (s) versus plural group (s)?
More or less.
That works fine.
Now try and find the antonym for Fewer.
Mucher?
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fewer?s=t
Really?
BTW When you weigh something you are counting it – ask the Chemists.
More and many…
PM,My focus is on the deliberate, destructive, derogatory dismantling of quality and excellence in the use of the written word.
Some type of peak was reached the other day when I read this of degraded, depressing outcome with 10 yo children singing rap that was hard core porn.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2020/10/endorsing-the-slut-industrial-complex/
“Don’t be a pedant. Less clouds sounds fine.”
Perhaps to someone who doesn’t care, but it’s still incorrect.
Geoff is correct, incorrect use of less and fewer irritates the hell out of my wife. I tell she has to accept that the English Language is no longer owned by the English, That annoys her even more. She also gets irritated by current (UK at least) mispronunciation of “The” as thee and “a” as ay at an incorrect point, she says the and thee, and a and ay have specific uses.
Absolute bullshit. Who cares about your wife,
Going by numbers, I’d say it was owned by the Indians.
“Climate crisis”, “climate emergency” and “global heating”. This could only come from the Guardian.
or the BBC
So this is news? Tracings of individually averaged daily highs and daily lows have revealed this global average warming largely resided in the nightly lows and mostly in higher northern hemisphere latitudes for a long time now. But the averaging of all those daily highs and lows together to produce daily and longer term averages have hidden this truth about their primary components from view, enabling the uncorrected hysterical implication of a crisis of warming of the daytime highs themselves that would toast us good and proper any time now. This world is becoming a whirlwind of forced multiple dunderhead vain passions sweeping all before them; or was it ever thus and we’ve just been kidding ourselves that modern scientific inquiry had curtailed those former fevers?
+1!
Even a 6th grader learns that averages hide the max and min of the data set. But our so-called “climate scientists” apparently never learned 6th grade math!
Yes, this isn’t really news. However, it argues against the concern for heat waves or everything being killed by high temperatures just because the average is increasing.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
The fact that the warming from CO2 is mostly at night, in the winter, in the desert, and primarily in combinations thereof is a top scientific takeaway everyone should know about. I saw the headline and I said “duh”. That the warming occurs mostly when it is cold should be trumpeted. This is supposed to be bad? No. Warming when it is cold is good. That reduces an extreme. Less crop freezes! Less ice on roadways! The benefits are amazing! But the media and the fake scientists shout about how bad it is. What a crock.
Isn’t the “night effect” a result of the increasing number of weather stations located in urban heat islands?
The night temperatures stay higher in urban regions, than in the surrounding countryside.
More clouds ,less clouds,more rain less rain more droughts ,more flooding .
These so called scientists should get out of their offices into the out doors and spend weeks out side .
Cloudy nights in the winter are always warmer than clear nights .
On clear nights the warmth rises and ends up in space ,nothing to do with CO2 and frosts are the result .
Cloudy nights in the winter trap the rising warmth like a blanket does on your bed .
If CO2 was to blame it would be warmer on clear nights as it is supposed to stop heat from rising to space .
Clouds and water vapour have much more effect on world climate than CO2.
There is no proof that CO2 is the control knob of the climate and the very small time since the 1970s is just a blip in time .
The theory of global warming is that rising CO2 triggers a positive water vapour feed back by some how producing more water vapour that manifests as clouds .
This is not been proven at this time as increasing cloud cover blocks the sun and cools the earth below .
More clouds mean more precipitation and rain and snow cools the atmosphere and the land that it falls
upon.
Have these people never been to tropical islands where the suns heat evaporates sea water and clouds rapidly
build up and most afternoons tropical downpours cool the islands .
“Trying to claim that any change is bad is where in my opinion climate science really jumps the shark.”
Voltaire has written Candide about the climate ‘science’. It describes so well the climastrological ‘best of all possible worlds’.
Of course they were born in the best of all possible climates! How dare you question that? 🙂
The Goldilocks Climate is apparently over.
Killed by man’s CO2. RIP.
And so…
The Climate Hustle is now over. You may continue about your activities as normal.
Frack, baby, frack.
Drill, baby, drill.
It’s been known for years that the main contributor to increasing average temperature has been the rise in minimum temperature – i.e. warmer nights. I recall ‘the chiefio’ blog showing lots of examples, for example. it’s old news.
“And both increased and decreased cloud cover is bad.”
Heraclitus pointed out that ‘πάντα ῥεῖ’ around 500 BC. He pointed out that all is change – “You cannot step into the same river twice”. In this sublunary sphere, if you need to keep publishing in order to justify your grant, picking ANY natural phenomenon and holding your hands up in horror when you detect any alteration would seem to be a winning formula…
“picking ANY natural phenomenon and holding your hands up in horror when you detect any alteration would seem to be a winning formula…”
It’s not even an alteration. It’s just something that wasn’t scrutinized very much.
A slight increase in cloud cover easily accounts for divergence between day/night temps.
I doubt co2 is doing it as claimed.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/jcli/article/5/3/260/35277/Historical-Records-of-Cloudiness-and-Sunshine-in
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/1097-0088%28200008%2920%3A10%3C1097%3A%3AAID-JOC541%3E3.0.CO%3B2-5
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004GL020067
English Summer: clouds equals cool day, no clouds hot day.
English Winter : clouds equals no frost, no clouds frost
Static high pressure in summer long hot summer (1976)
Static high pressure in winter long cold winter (1962/63 and 2017/2018)
For that piece of empirical research I request the sum of £1000000 please to pay for my research grant.
Remind that CO2 has risen from just under three to just over four molecules per ten thousand in 170 years. We are really gonna die
Everyone who has eaten a potato is going to die. Ban potatoes. Can I get a grant?
From the introduction in the paper–
“Anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases have resulted in a strong global trend of increasing maximum and minimum temperatures (IPCC, 2013), …”
Quoting as a starting point a position taken by a political body on a matter of science?–dead stop. Strange world we live in; a lot of people doing a lot of baseless work because they have both a dream, and nothing else to do.
This reminds me of a gold property I was investigating in the north Cascades of Washington state around 1980; when mapping the area I found an adit driven into shale, 180′ long and 7′ high, 6′ wide–and nowhere near where the gold was, that was in an obvious shear-zone related set of quartz veins up the valley. In the back was a stack of hand moils and sledge hammers; no tracks had ever been put in, the muck would have been taken out by wheelbarrow. 280 cubic yards of it–hand driven, hand mucked.
I searched that adit inch by inch, and on surface anything it could be leading to for a long time, and found….nothing; it was baffling that someone would go to that much work with there being no physical reason evident for doing so. I finally had to conclude that this was driven during the 1930’s depression (age appeared to be right), by someone who had a dream that he’d find gold in there somewhere by doing it. And with nothing better to do–or maybe that they got paid just to produce an adit? The assessment work principle?
Just like this study concluding that we’re all bad no matter which way the climate changes. There are so many scientists now with nothing better to do that we have reports like this one being regularly produced. By now I’ve concluded that within my lifetime someone will write a report claiming that climate is not changing after all–and man by his actions is what’s preventing it from changing.
Someday people will look back and shake their heads like I did that day in 1980.
Notice the ‘global heating’. Next they will talk about the ‘global inferno’.
Global HEATING???
I try to follow this stuff as best I can, which may be poorly, but I have never heard this particular bon mot before. Global warming, climate change, the Venus Effect, Thermageddon, Hotpocalypse, raining cats and dogs, the End of Life As We Know It, bad moon rising, etc etc. But not “global heating”.
Do these twits run this junk out there to see if it flies like a pig? Are they just too too clever? Or is this New New Age lingo bingo?
You all have probably seen it before. I’m tragically slow on the uptake. I’ll crawl back into my bomb shelter now and await the Heat of Doom. Luckily (if you call it luck) my subterranean safe cave is well stocked with adult beverages.
I’ve seen it a few times in the last year or so. “Warming” is too mild a word, so some say “heating”. Get your hot dogs and marshmallows out!
This has been known since like forever.
For example Clive Best in 2017:
Nights warm faster
“A reduction in Tmax-Tmin of about 0.1C is observed since 1950. Minimum temperatures always occur at night over land areas. This means that nights have been warming faster than days since 1950. The effect is actually much larger than 0.1C because nearly 70% of the earth’s surface is ocean with just single monthly average ‘anomalies’. So nights over land areas have on average warmed ~ 0.3C more than daytime temperatures.
If we assume that average land temperatures have risen by ~1C since 1900, then maximum temperatures have really risen only by 0.85C while minimum temperatures have risen by 1.15C.”
Javier October … at 2:48 am
This has been known since like forever.
It’s probably in all the IPCC reports, here’s the quote I usually use for pointing out that the warming is at night, in winter and in the higher latitudes; day time, summer time and the tropics, not so much.
From the IPCC’s AR4 Chapter Ten Page 750:
“warming is at night, in winter and in the higher latitudes”
Steve,
That is because the atmosphere is a mass transport energy delivery system that dumps energy to space at night, in the winter, and at high latitudes.
This is the fundamental premise at the root of the DAET climate model that Stephen Wilde and I have created.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Dynamic-Atmosphere-Energy-Transport-Climate-Model
Yeah, but this is the first to “prove” it with this methodology:
…over the 35 years up to 2017…
From the link to the study above:
That means 46% didn’t and wow! A whole ¼ of a degree.
well at least we know now the number of station in or near urban areas, 54%
Because we can now record and see things that were not seen in the past does not mean that we can change anything or that it will in any way alter anything. Change has been happening for millions of years and will continue long after we are gone.
“Cox’s team also looked at vegetation growth and found that it was reduced where nights were getting warmer faster than days, probably because the increased cloud cover blocks the sun. ”
What in Pete’s name did they look at? Food grains continue to grow at night WITH NO SUN and the warmer it is the more they grow! This is one factor that has contributed to continues record grain harvests over the past 15 years! We had one of the coolest summers on record here in KS with only a couple of days hitting 95degF, primarily because of cloud cover. Yet we are, once again, looking at record corn and soybean harvests.
I can also show them my dandelions after I have mowed them during the day. THEY GROW BACK AT NIGHT WITH NO SUN!
Words fail me in describing the dismay I have any more in the knowledge base our supposed climate scientists show.
Plants do photosynthesis during the day to make sugars. They do respiration at night using the sugars made during the day and create growth cells. Probably too simplistic an explanation, but basically that is what happens.
I have the solution! Or rather the Flat Earthers have the solution–it’s the MOON. Because the moon emits cold light!
Yep, you heard that right folks, the Flat Earthers have discovered the solution to the alarmists worst fears—they have “proven” the moon emits cold light! Right in their backyards too! Isn’t that amazing? It could be the best solution ever!!! (/sarc)
We really should get these two groups together, they have so much in common don’t you think?
That reminds me that one of the objectives of the Climate Crusades is to misinform the marchers along the way. The scourge of fact checking and science process questioning must be monitored and minimized in the herd.
The climate may be getting less cold. Is that a bad thing?
no
They left off the end of this sentence” Where cloud cover is decreasing, mostly in regions that are already dry, there is more sunlight during the day, which pushes temperatures up more rapidly.”and more rapidly cools at night. We have been experiencing 50° swings for the past couple of weeks, where 30-35° is the norm in west central Colorado.
And if the daytime temperatures refuse to reach inferno-like levels (Ed Z, hadn´t you commented like that, I would have, we know “our” Guardian too well… How silly can it become…?) …. You can always send in our latest
climate activists : Swedish Cows! I kid you not! 2020, Sept 15 was a very warm day in the south of Sweden around 25C in a couple of places IIRC but in the outskirts of Växjö the SMHI weather station showed 28,6C (!)
So SMHI got suspicious and went out and checked: The curious cows had forced themselves into the closure of the weather station … and thereby destroying the radiation protection, more or less…
This story was on the SMHI blog, albeit with no headline of its own but second part of the recently acknowledged NH cold record of 69,6C Dec 22 1991… It took WHO 29 years…. Mitribah +54,0C took 3 years It took me 3 seconds to dismiss it…. THE UNIVERSE IS A CONSPIRACY PERIOD 🙂
It’s very, very sad that this kind of tripe gets to the media who dutifully report it without a whimper.
I long for the days of real journalism when things got scrutinized at some level, some of the time. Where it wasn’t career ending heresy to question something.
From the above article’s boxed excerpts: “The findings have ‘profound consequences’ for wildlife and their ability to adapt to the climate emergency . . .”—Damian Carrington, environment editor for The Guardian.
“Climate emergency”, what climate emergency? Has anyone called 9-1-1? How much time do we have to react? What triage is needed? Who you gonna call (with apologies to the movie “Ghostbusters”)?
I nearly stopped reading the rest of the article right then and there, but I needed a good laugh today.
First, from the above article’s boxed excerpts of The Guardian article: “The climate crisis is heating up nights faster than days in many parts of the world.” Such stupidity . . . the “climate crisis” is nothing other than one conclusion drawn from observations by certain humans. The “climate crisis” is not a forcing function, physical property or parameter, or objective entity capable of heating anything.
Next, from the above article’s boxed excerpts of The Guardian article: “Global heating is increasing both, but they found that over more than half of the world’s land there was a difference of at least 0.25C between the day and night rises.”
Hmmmm . . . why no mention of the day/night differences over the world’s oceans, seas and lakes, which . . . wait a minute, let me check . . . yeah, comprise 71% of Earth’s surface area. Why is that globally-more-significant comparison not mentioned?
And, as other’s have pointed out, there has to be consideration that the reported change in day/night temperature differences over land is due to nothing more than urban heat island (UHI) contamination of the data over the 35 years leading up to 2017, said effect not being corrected in the data studied.
As to the sophomoric logic employed: “Where cloud cover increases, sunlight is blocked during the day but the clouds retain more heat and humidity at night, like a blanket.” This is a ridiculously simplistic statement on its face. Where cloud cover increases, clouds also absorb more (essentially all) of the sunlight energy that is not reflected from cloud tops (i.e., increase in albedo), and this results in warmer clouds radiating more energy directly to space and to Earth’s surface during BOTH day and night, beyond just the fact that clouds reduce sunlight that actually reaches Earth’s surface (both land and sea). Perhaps most significantly, increasing cloud cover causes additional blocking of LWIR radiation from Earth’s surface (both land and water) and near-surface atmosphere that would otherwise escape directly to space during BOTH day and night.
The balance of all these competing factors is not easily obtained, nor is the conclusion to be drawn from such.
Oh, really? I thought global cloud cover was declining? Which then would offset some of the “dangerous” CO2 warming?! And now the opposite is true for… convenience? Give me a break!
Here is some real science on clouds:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/09/11/austrian-analyst-things-with-greenhouse-effect-ghe-arent-adding-up-something-totally-wrong/
UHI anyone? I guess that was written for the happily uninformed lot.
“ There have to be winners from any shift in global climate, up or down…”
Isn’t it unusual that some countries (such as Canada) will benefit tremendously from nights warming slightly, but their leaders are the most vocal to prevent global warming. I can understand why Maldives is concerned about global warming, but Canada !?!
Hi, I’m a PhD Environmental Science, MS/BS Chemist, expert in drugs/medicines and chemical toxicity. We scientists of research, especially those outside the climate change agenda, are asking technical questions about these studies. For example, no one knows what is the “perfect” environmental set up for human life and the rest of the animal and flora diversity to thrive, there are doubts about the data collection technique, the accuracy of computer models, how advanced is the statistical analyses, the method to reach conclusions, margins of errors, and even thermodynamics. As a chemist and college organic chemistry professor, I have questioned the ability of CO2 to actually create the doomsday scenario that they depict for a molecule that is in an amount of PPb’s and below (less than 0.001% of the atmospheric gases). As a comparison to hormones (steroids), which are needed in very minuscule amounts (nanograms) to cause a huge biological change, do have a more complex molecular structure of fused benzene rings with delocalized pi-electrons in circular motions creating an enhanced electromagnetic character; in addition, steroids have distinct groups attached to greatly change their function. The molecule of CO2 does not have such a structural ability. Another comparison like to heavy metal/metalloids such as Arsenic, which is also needed in minuscule ppb amounts to cause a huge toxic damage/death, has a biological function of disrupting the system by substituting phosphorus like in DNA and ATP. So, by thought experiments of analogies of chemical structure, minuscule amounts, function, and destruction, I don’t see how CO2 can do what they pretend us to believe as in capable of changing such an extensive thermo property as temperature, without going back and double check the claims with sound thermodynamics. A science that refuses to re-search/revise/ confirm an issue, is really pseudo science. I wrote a longer post here: https://www.facebook.com/1910619765873958/posts/2732938876975372/?extid=0&d=n
Thanks. Dr. Vigo
Jvigo@elp.rr.com
Dr. Vigo, you posted: “As a chemist and college organic chemistry professor, I have questioned the ability of CO2 to actually create the doomsday scenario that they depict for a molecule that is in an amount of PPb’s and below (less than 0.001% of the atmospheric gases).”
Actually, atmospheric CO2 at the present level of about 413 ppmv is equivalent to a concentration of 0.041% in Earth’s atmosphere of mixed gases in the troposphere; specifically, it is NOT less than 0.001%.