Climate ‘Weeds’ versus ‘High Altitude’ Survey

Guest post by Rud Istvan,

I got to thinking (always dangerous) about a couple of my last guest posts here concerning ‘Sentinel 6 SLR precision’ and CFTC ‘climate extremes endanger the financial system’. Both were ‘in the weeds’ juxtaposed against the big skeptical picture.  Perhaps we need to remember in more simple sound bites the big climate picture, rather than to continue playing whack-a-mole on (admittedly important) climate weed details (pun intended, thanks to Jim Steele) like invasive cheat grass ‘grassoline’ and proper forest management concerning California fires. After all, we confront a climate change religion-like belief, aka ‘warmunism’[1], that is apparently immune to contra-factual details.

The Green House Effect

Of course it exists. But is often misunderstood even amongst skeptics, because does not work like a real greenhouse (inhibiting convection), so is weaker. It works by inhibiting radiative cooling to space. So is not a direct warming, is actually just an absence of sufficient IR cooling (only some of which is ‘downwelling warming’, itself a skeptical misconception resulting in endlessly ‘wrong’ SST downwelling IR debates) to balance incoming insolation.

This is caused by molecular infrared absorption by ‘green house’ gasses, and then their omnidirectional rescattering, which inhibits it all going back to very cool space. In sum, any GHE is just an indirect warming via an absence of sufficient radiative infrared cooling. A simple physics idea, which fully suffices here.

Water vapor has a much bigger ‘insufficient radiative cooling’ effect than CO2.  There are two basic inescapable physics reasons worth noting.

  • First, CO2 is a linear molecule, while H2O is ‘Mickey Mouse’ hat shaped. That means H2O has much more (rotational vibration rather than ‘stretching’) ‘vibrational’ sensitivity to photon absorption. This is why all microwave ovens operate at 2.4GHz on lots of water, and not on a little bit of carbon CO2 ‘stretching’.
  • Second, CO2 absorption spectra overlap water spectra to a significant degree except on their absorption ‘shoulders’, so infrared water absorption always predominates. Earth is a Blue Planet whose atmosphere is dominated by water vapor, not by an invisible trace CO2 gas necessary for photosynthesis. (The AGW control knob fallacy thus simply restated.)

GHE CO2 will never saturate in effect but WILL always decline logarithmically with concentration. That is because as CO2 concentration rises, the effective radiative atmospheric threshold (ERL) also rises. An atmospheric ERL tropospheric rise means colder ERL radiation, which also means less energetic. Basic physics 101 explains the logarithmic decrease in increased CO2 concentration warming efficacy. Known since steam engineer Guy Calendar in 1938. And his ECS was about 1.7-1.8 way back then. Since proven elsewise.

GHE feedback amplification

The accepted values of temperature increase for a simple doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 1.1C (AR4) to 1.2C (Lindzen). Using Monckton’s ‘irreducibly simple’ newer equation, plus his proposed inputs, it is rather precisely 1.16C.

Now there are two main feedback sources, with all else about a wash (AR4). Mainly, positive water vapor feedback (WVF), and secondarily cloud feedback (CF)–supposed positive but intrinsically uncertain (AR5).

We know three observational ways that climate model WVF is too high:

  • There is no observed tropical troposphere hotspot as almost all climate models produce (see John Christy’s Congressional testimony on same). Too much WVF in the models, especially in the tropics. WE’s ‘Tstorm’ and Lindzen’s ‘adaptive infrared iris’ explain why.
  • Climate models produce about half the observed tropical rainfall. So insufficient model humidity washout via mechanisms like the Eschenbach tropical Tstorm thermoregulator hypothesis, explained many previous times here.
  • Energy budget models (like Lewis and Curry, first and second papers) provide an observational ECS about half of AR5, and less than half of ‘emerging’ AR6. Its tough when observational and theoretical model methods diverge by ~2x.

As posted here and at Climate Etc. several times before, there is a theoretical/ observational reconciliation. Again just using Monckton’s previously posted equations. The WVF is about half modeled, because of observationally double rainfall. The CF is about zero, as Dessler (2010b) actually showed but did not claim. So IPCC Bode f=~0.65 comprising 0 feedback CO2, WVF ~0.5 feedback, plus ~0.15 positive cloud feedback (both inferred from AR4), is actually about `0.25-0.3’ (1/2 of 0.5 WVF plus ~0 CF) and an ECS equivalent to `1.7’ about equal to energy budget methods, derived just using the ‘simple’ Monckton equations equaling about 1.7C per doubling. All just simple arithmetic using available observations..

Harm Thresholds 

These have variously been  invented at 2C over ~1880, or more newly 1.5C over whatever, like by Alarmist Schnelnhuber of the Potsdam Institute.

These are completely arbitrary thresholds, admitted by their inventors. In the last Eemian glacial highstand (about 125kya), the global temperature was about 2C higher (and on Greenland as much as 8C higher) and sea level was about 6 meters higher—not once, but almost twice, each highstand taking about 3000 years to reach. So about 2.2mm/year of annual sea level rise, the same as now. So we can cancel their SLR tipping point panic based on observational history. The single published Australian alternative is clearly academic misconduct (irrefutable evidence provided in essay One if by Sea… in Blowing Smoke.)

More recently, we know that during the Medieval Warm Period (nothing to do with CO2) Vikings farmed SW Greenland (barley for beer, grass for sheep and cattle), and buried their dead in cemeteries whose remains are now encased in permafrost.

Still more recently, we know the Little Ice Age caused the Thames to freeze over enabling Ice Fairs, the last of which was in 1818.

So we know that climate varies centennially independent of the supposed ‘CO2’ control knob. Just not in IPCC sponsored climate models.

The claimed since 1988 increasing harms from approaching these supposed climate tipping point thresholds do not exist. Harms supposedly include more extreme weather (not happening), droughts/floods (choose which, but neither happening), climate refugees (none), crop failures (nope), polar bear extinctions (nope) and many more—(like ski resorts closing from lack of snow–nope).


We do know via satellites that Earth is benefitting from rising fossil fuel freed CO2 (doubters,check the delta 13C/12C isotope ratios and their meaning). Earth is Greening. This is especially true in semiarid regions ( like the Sahel), and amongst C3 food crops (wheat, soy, rice, trees, fruits, and vegetables). The reason is simple. C3 plants (earlier evolved under higher CO2 concentrations) need to open their leaf stomata less to take in sufficient CO2 for photosynthesis under increased CO2. C4 less so. That means C4 plants evolved to lose less water thru those same stomata under equivalent CO2. C3 are now more thriving under more, so C3 plants grow better under more arid but higher CO2 conditions. Sahel greening is proof beyond any dispute.


Climate concerned have many times proposed ‘global warming solutions’. These have always failed, from Kyoto to Paris. Solutions fall into two main categories: developed nations must forsake fossil fuels in favor of renewables while developed nations don’t, and developed nations must fork over many reparation/mitigation dollars to developing nations who have not consumed as much past fossil fuels.

Lets take those ‘solutions’ in reverse order.

The ‘reparations/mitigation’ political nonsense was fully exposed by UN detail in my essay ‘Caribbean Water’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.

The renewables developed nation solution is always unworkable both economically and technically.

 Economically, renewable investments always fall to near zero absent big subsidies—even ignoring grid externalities. They are not economically competitive, period. Hence the “Green” efforts to create ‘carbon costs’ despite there being none in reality.

Technically, renewables (other than hydro) suffer two other BIG problems.

The wind does not always blow, and the sun does not shine (not only at night). So they are intermittent, and the grid cost of this intermittency is excluded from renewable costs. See essay True cost of Wind at Judith’s for an approximation of both using the ERCOT grid for reality.

First, they are intermittent. So for grid reliability, they require by definition underutilized backup conventional generation. This has driven Germany’s variable conventional CCGT into bankruptcy despite its ability to offload excess generation to Scandinavian hydro cheap, then buy that capacity back expensive, thus more than doubling German retail utility rates (industry is somewhat more government protected to preserve jobs).

Second, they provide no grid inertia (kinetic energy of rotating generation mass providing frequency stability). So as their penetration approaches conventional rotating standby capacity, the grid becomes inherently frequency unstable independent of demand/supply balance.

So neither ‘green’ solution technically works even on the margin. As California’s new rolling blackouts demonstrate.


Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) was suspect from its 1988 beginning. Its ‘Catastrophic’ more alarming version (CAGW) was even more suspect. We now have over 30 years of failed climate alarm predictions proving both ‘suspect’ statements false. The dreaded climate problems do NOT exist. The proffered mitigation solutions do NOT work.

There is not much left to say, except in endless fact rebuttals of already failed assertions by a warmunist ‘religion’ that fades but never goes away.

[1] See fn 24 to essay ‘Climatastrosophistry’ for a precise derivation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 13, 2020 6:11 am

“the sun does not shine (not only at night). ”
But the sun does shine at night in the world of Climate Science.

Martin Pinder
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 13, 2020 1:36 pm

The ‘sun’ does shine at night in Spain! There, the subsidies for solar power were so great that it paid the producers to buy diesel generators to power floodlights which they shone on to their solar panels at night!
See Ian Plimer’s book ‘Not for Greens’.

Reply to  Martin Pinder
October 13, 2020 3:43 pm

Quite frankly I don’t know why they bothered with the flood lights, a direct hookup to the generators would have been much more efficient and profitable.

Eric Vieira
Reply to  Martin Pinder
October 15, 2020 3:13 am

That’s hard to believe: If one considers the efficiencies of the Diesel motor, the generator, the floodlights (probably not LEDs but incandescent lights), cable losses, and the solar panel conversion efficiency there’s almost nothing left … You would have to be able to sell your “solar electricity” at at least ten times the “normal-tariff” rates. OK, Spain has a left socialist Government, so I suppose this “miracle can happen” … but who pays the bill?

Reply to  Eric Vieira
October 15, 2020 5:39 am

Here you are from 15 April 2010:
La Junta no descarta fraudes en los huertos solares

Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 13, 2020 3:37 pm

“Climate models produce about half the observed tropical rainfall.”
“Its tough when observational and theoretical model methods diverge by ~2x.”

Oh dear, there’s that pesky factor of 2 issue again. Well what do you expect will happen if you wrongly dilute solar irradiance by a factor of 4 (whole globe emission area) instead of by a factor of 2 (illuminated hemisphere collection area)?

Steve Case
October 13, 2020 6:36 am

Too many undefined acronyms to fully understand everything, but yes, the Acid Rain, Ozone Hole, Global Cooling, Nuclear Winter, Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Crisis, Climate Emergency crusades have been going on for decades, and in my 76 years, there’s not a lot of change. Summer afternoons seem to be a bit cooler, winters warmer, and the history books tell me about the Dust Bowl.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Steve Case
October 13, 2020 1:30 pm

Needs to be broken up and fleshed out for reading comprehension.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Walter Sobchak
October 13, 2020 3:03 pm

Nope. Was intended for ‘inside baseball’ long time WUWT readers. Not for others. Everything I covered here was previously covered in gory detail as you wish several years ago. Click on the leftmost two related posts below the guest post that Charles so kindly added, for proofs. Both are from me, 2015 and 2016.

John W. Garrett
October 13, 2020 6:51 am

It’s not easy being rational in a world full of irrational people.

It’s not easy being honest in a world full of dishonest people.

Reply to  John W. Garrett
October 13, 2020 7:00 am

How far that little candle throws its beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world.

William Shakespeare

Lance Wallace
October 13, 2020 6:53 am

“Solutions fall into two main categories: developed nations must forsake fossil fuels in favor of renewables while developed nations don’t”–second “developed” should be “developing”

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Lance Wallace
October 13, 2020 8:29 am

Yup. My bad.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 14, 2020 12:04 am

Rud, if Australia follows through with it’s renewables commitments and beyond, we will successfully revert back to being a ‘developing’ nation.

All for naught. Or a massive net loss to be precise.

October 13, 2020 6:56 am

This is the best summary of the technical issues I have ever read.

You said “[The greenhouse effect] is often misunderstood even amongst skeptics, because does not work like a real greenhouse (inhibiting convection), so is weaker.”

If surface warming is increased by CO2, would that not enhance convection – warm air rises, warmer air rises faster? If, as you say later, CO2 enhances tropical rainfall, would that not make for higher tropical humidity and still more convection – warm air rises, wet warm air rises faster still.

If I understand these issues correctly, are they significant and if so, considered by climate models or elsewhere?

Reply to  DHR
October 13, 2020 7:48 am

CO2 warms at all altitudes. So there is no increased instability from that.
To the extent that extra warming at the surface promotes extra evaporation, that would increase instability.

Reply to  DHR
October 13, 2020 8:42 am

If surface warming is increased by CO2, would that not enhance convection …

Absolutely. Also, if extra water is evaporated by increased CO2, that also enhances convection because, as everyone knows, water vapor is lighter than air.

Convection is really important because it speeds up the removal of heat from the surface. In fact, the first approximation too a planet’s surface temperature is that at which convection starts. link

If there is a control knob that controls Earth’s surface temperature, it is convection.

Reply to  commieBob
October 13, 2020 9:16 am

too … it’s a typo … groan

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  DHR
October 13, 2020 9:12 am

Any increase in energy input in a Hydro System results in an increase in evaporation which occurs at constant temperature and therefore has a Plank Sensitivity Coefficient of zero. This mops up the energy increase and converts it to Latent Heat as carried in the Vapor(gas). Since Vapor is lighter than dry air it has buoyancy and rises irrespective of temperature differentials as in convection carrying with it the Latent Heat up through the atmosphere for dissipation in the clouds and space beyond.
Surprisingly I find that articles and reports on the climate, whether sceptical or alarmist always conflate this vapor buoyancy with convection although the two are very different, indicating that what is described above is being treated as insignificant.
This process provides a strong NEGATIVE feedback to the GHE far greater than the radiative positive feedback claimed by the IPCC and the models; the Latent Heat being some 694 Watthrs/Kg of water evaporated.

To me this is a major flaw in the IPCC logic.

Reply to  Alasdair Fairbairn
October 13, 2020 11:44 am

“always conflate this vapor buoyancy with convection although the two are very different,”
You make a very good point. However if you look at the canonical Fig. 7 diagram in Kiehl and Trenberth (1997) they clearly show Thermals and Evapo-transpiration as separate processes, with Latent Heat as being the dominant carrier.

Charles Higley
Reply to  DHR
October 13, 2020 9:18 am

The climate science, aka global warming, maintains that the upper tropical troposphere is the source of downwelling IR radiation that heats Earth’s surface and causes global warming. It matters not what the gases are in the atmosphere, no gas at any concentration at -17 deg C can warm the surface at 15 deg C. It simply cannot happen. In addition, this reputed upper-region “hotspot” has never been found, but NASA has reported this region to have been cooling gently for many decades.

And, CO2 has only three IR absorption/emission bands, equivalent to temperatures of 800, 400, and -80 deg C. During the day 3000 deg C solar input can activate all these bands, but as the emissions are in all directions and not just downward, much of these emissions are lost to space. Thus, CO2 and its buddy water vapor actually serve to intercept solar energy on the way to the surface, and decrease solar input and cooling the input.

However, at night both gases, properly called “radiative gases,” convert energy in the atmosphere to IR, which is lost to space, which BTW has no temperature and a perfect heat sink.

As CO2 at atmospheric temperatures would only be able to radiate IR equivalent to -80 deg C, it serves a constant role of trying to cool the planet, because everything on the surface is above -80 deg C and thus this radiation would be reflected back up to space and lost.

They are only now really recognizing that CO2 is pretty much the world’s best coolant/refrigerant and should be used in all A/C and cooling applications, as in new Mercedes Benz autos and new skating rinks. Nonflammable, nontoxic, and plant food, it’s a win-win with CO2.

And, no, the water cycle global heat engine is largely or completely ignored in climate models. 85+% of the solar input daily is carried to altitude, away from the surface by convection of warm, moist air. Since climate models ignore this effect, alarmists claim to be missing 85+% of the energy budget (a la Trenberth) and posit fantasies that the missing energy is “hiding” in the ocean depths and going to jump out as us at a future time, ignoring the fact that there is nothing to support these fantasies.

Better yet, warming of the atmosphere would ramp up this heat engine as a global, powerful, negative feedback loop. That is why tipping points claimed by alarmists really do not exist. If they did, we would have already tipped, as the climate was much warmer than now during the Holocene Optimum and other warm periods since then, including the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods.

Rick C PE
Reply to  DHR
October 13, 2020 9:28 am

I have to take issue with the statement that the greenhouse effect is due to blocking convection. If that were true every closed building would act like a greenhouse. The green house effect is due to the use of glass roofs/walls which transmits a large portion of incoming high energy short wave radiation. But the glass is opaque to long wave IR radiation emitted by warm surfaces and objects inside the greenhouse. This means that the glass itself absorbs outgoing energy and gets warmer and that slows the rate of heat loss. That’s why a closed car gets so hot inside when it sits in the sun. Modern technology has even improved the efficiency of the greenhouse glass by coating its interior surface with an invisible layer of IR reflecting metal (aluminum or stainless steel typically). Low-E glass is now common in buildings and depending on orientation and use of double of triple glazing is able to improve heating efficiency as well as reducing heat gain and lowering cooling costs. Look up “spectrally selective glazing” if your interested.

Reply to  Rick C PE
October 13, 2020 11:13 pm

Glass is only mildly opaque to IR – but highly reflective. Those two terms need to be distinguished properly. (Plexiglass or other plastic sheeting is also reflective, but more opaque; a pane of plexiglass will get warmer in the sun than a glass pane. The difference in maintaining internal temperature is small, however, which is why a majority of greenhouses now use the far less fragile Plexiglass.)

Modern multi-story buildings are designed to minimize convection between floors. Otherwise those top floors would be stifling while the bottom ones would be freezing (in the winter). Look at many homes built along the northern tier of States here in the US – two stories. You have the bedrooms on the top floors in the winter, and the bottom floors in the summer (or on screened porches in the warmer parts of the country – and in safer times.) When you remodel such homes to be more energy efficient, the first thing you do, if nothing else, is to seal and insulate the attic spaces, where convection steals away the major part of the heat.

October 13, 2020 7:05 am


As always, another excellent essay.

Dodgy Geezer
October 13, 2020 7:09 am

There is no point in ‘rebutting’ Climate Change dogma with science. It is not based on science.

And there is no point trying to convince politicians, either. They are no longer in charge. And this is not even a political issue.

Power now rests extensively with the bureaucracy and the ‘establishment’, acting in concert. Bureaucrats move seamlessly between senior positions of power in both Government and Quangos . and they can arrange for things to happen whether the politicians wish them or not.

We now seem to be in the latter stages of a complete takeover of power by bureaucratic fiat. Democratic bodies havebeen sidelined, and exacutive politicians across most of the West ‘follow the science’ – which means that directives are created by bureaucrats and signed off by tame politicians.

The job of a politician has been demoted to that of a front man – to announce policies and to take the blame when the policy goes wrong. There is no point complaining about Trump/Biden or Johnson/Starmer. The people you need to complain about are the anonymous bureaucrats and their anonymous friends in the media, business and academia who are providing the pressure behind this appalling exercise. And good luck with even finding out who they are, let alone influencing them…..

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 13, 2020 8:14 am

It is the exact scenario Ike warned us of in his Farewell Address. The Scientific-Technological Elites (S-TEs) have a closed loop of funding “the science” that returns the results the funder desires.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 13, 2020 8:24 am

Nobody in authority cares.

Chief Scientific Officer Sir Patrick Vallance has £600,000 of shares in vaccine maker contracted to make UK’s coronavirus jabs

That’s why we have lockdowns ad nauseam.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 13, 2020 8:35 am

“And this is not even a political issue.”

It has become a quasi religious issue, with academia and the media being the enforcers. Perhaps the bureaucrats, media and academics could all be interchangeable. All have the power of a new modern inquisition that can just cancel certain ideas, people and even trying to be rid of whole sectors as we see in the fossil fuel industries. Or wholesale support the expansion of the renewable solar/wind industries. All for a false profit, so now we see the fossil fuel industries hedging their bets by major investments in the renewable sector. It works for them either way, as they harvest subsidies, or they claim the losses against other income. Or both in the end when the scam fails, as it will when it reaches saturation. The consumer end user, either other business and industry, or the individual home owner, pays the price increase for everything.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 13, 2020 8:42 am

Firstly thanks to Rud Istvan.

Dodgy, I believe your are right.

The thing is though that I am optimistic there going to be resistance.
Look at the demonstrations taking place in many western countries fighting on opposite fronts.
Look at the comment on videos just escaping cancellation by YT. These comments are by far mostly objecting to the globalist idea and express wish for freedom and rationality.
Look at Washington state utility’s wish for wind turbines being a historic flop (the post before this one).
Look at personalities like Michael more, Shellenberger, Patric Moore, etc. who all used to be the darlings of the Green movement. The more these kind of people “defect” the more difficult it is going to be to censor out the freedom fighters.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 13, 2020 3:57 pm

“There is no point in ‘rebutting’ Climate Change dogma with science”
I believe that humour works well in these situations.

October 13, 2020 7:38 am

So, the solution to AGW is to do nothing. That would save the world trillions of dollars.

Reply to  Pathway
October 13, 2020 7:52 am

And where is the profit in that?

Reply to  Pathway
October 13, 2020 9:55 pm

Since AGW IS actually nothing, then yes the advisable solution to it is obviously to do nothing. The “theory” of AGW has already cost the world trillions of dollars with absolutely zero effect on the “perceived” problem so to spend trillions more is just plain stupid given the simple fact that there is not a single piece of empirical evidence that proves AGW. And before someone starts spouting that there is, answer the question WHY are they still then having to constantly refer back to “THE CONSENSUS” which by definition IS only an opinion REQUIRED when there is no concrete evidence. And then maybe ask yourself why nobody has mentioned the fact that there is four times more dissolved CO2 in the oceans today than could be produced by burning ALL the fossil fuels found on earth at once. How about the fact that the oceans have already absorbed over 99.9% of all carbon on earth and locked it away in trillions of tons of carbonaceous rock. Quite simply fossil fuels are in fact a “product” of climate change, NOT a cause.

October 13, 2020 7:58 am

An atmospheric ERL tropospheric rise means colder ERL radiation, which also means less energetic.

Why does this matter?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  EdB
October 14, 2020 3:34 pm

Only because it is the root cause of the logarithmic CO2 curve, which says eachndoublingnof CO2 has the same effect as the lesser doubling before.

October 13, 2020 8:11 am

Perhaps we need to remember in more simple sound bites the big climate picture…

It’s cold and it’s raining – again, yet we were told we are running out of water…

England could run short of water within 25 years

Exclusive: Environment Agency chief calls for use to be cut by a third

The country is facing the ‘‘jaws of death”, Sir James Bevan said, at the point where water demand from the country’s rising population surpasses the falling supply resulting from climate change.

We’ve had more ran than we know what to do with this year. Another Met Office BBQ Summer.

At less than halfway through June, some parts of the UK have already had more rain than during the entire three months of spring. Parts of North East England in particular have seen most rain so far this month, with Durham already having reached its average rainfall total for June.

Why is this?

Spring 2020 was the sunniest spring on record and fifth driest for the UK overall. This was a result of the jet stream lodging itself to the north of the UK throughout much of spring, allowing high pressure and settled weather to dominate for most of the season. Many parts of the UK had less than 50% of their average spring rainfall and England had its driest May since records began.

However, from early June this ‘blocking high’ gradually broke down, allowing Atlantic weather systems to once again bring unsettled weather across the UK. Since then low pressure has prevailed, with spells of heavy rain and heavy showers for many, triggering a Met Office rain warning in places.

Maybe 50 years, maybe 100 years, probably never.

Peta of Newark
October 13, 2020 8:19 am

1) What goes on in a microwave oven is ‘Dielectric Heating’

It works because water is a polar molecule (negatively charged at one end, positive at the other)
Basically the microwave vigorously shakes the water to create a temp rise – exactly as Joule did when he investigated energy
The effect disappears at ~30GHZ a very *very* long way short (in frequency terms) of where the GHGE is supposed to occur.
CO2 works at a wavelength of 15um, I make that to be 20,000GHZ

NO AMOUNT of CO2 in a microwave oven will *ever* get warm – it is NOT a polar molecule.

2) If CO2 re-emits in all directions, why do absorption graphs (as per Tyndall) show something like 100% absorption?
If what is asserted is true, the absorption graph would never be higher that 50%

3) Read/understand what Jozef Stefan wrote:
“An object radiates energy according to its own temperature and emissivity.
It matters NOT what other objects are near or far, what they are made of or what temperature they have”

4) *Seriously* think about what would happen if energy radiated by cold objects was absorbed by warmer ones.
Things in this universe cool down. Energy ALWAYS flows DOWN whatever Thermal Gradient there is.
It is the epitome of childish thinking to say that “The energy is replacing what was previously emitted”
Its a very sweet and lovely notion but utter garbage.
Once any energy leaves the surface it is falling down the thermal gradient and cannot return.
The atmosphere has average temp of minus 15 Celsius, the surface has plus 15 Celsius. The atmosphere can NOT radiate energy into the surface – it would be going UP the Thermal Gradient = Not Allowed

5) Clouds *may* cause warming in a situation where (say) half the sky is clear and the other part is cloudy.
An observer under the clouds may see the solar energy being reflected down to him from said clouds AFTER it was reflected from the surface where it was not cloudy. Imagine a big zig-zag
Apart from that the notion of warming clouds is junk. Clouds MUST obey they strictures of the Lapse Rate which says that they cool between 6 and 10 deg C for every 1000 metres high they are.
Clouds are thus cold and thus cannot radiate anything into the ground.

6) Yes there are Greenhouse Gases that trap heat.
They are Oxygen and Nitrogen.
Water absorbs all the “Mickey Mouse” radiation coming from anywhere below it in the atmosphere and promptly divvies it up between 25 to 250 O2 and N2 molecules
Water renders the atmosphere (at wavelengths of around 10um) quite utterly opaque
They have vanishingly small emissivity (between 0.03 and 0.01) and so, put very simply, trap the heat because they don’t radiate very strongly. hardly at all in fact.

7) Because water and CO2 are Good Absorbers, they are by definition (what else do they do with all that energy they’re trapping?) = Good Emitters.
So water and CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the emissivity of same by an utterly tiny amount

Where emissivity *does* matter is in the Stratosphere.
This is where earth loses its incoming solar heat energy but you say, how can it do that. It is entirely oxygen/nitrogen.
That’s the point, there is no water there so the stratosphere becomes transparent to the wavelength os the thermal energy coming up.
So it radiates from its volume – NOT from its surface as simple minded folk will assert.

So, what is the test of all this?
Simple, because CO2 gets into the stratosphere and water does not. Thsi will raise its emissivity and so cause it to cool.
EXACTLY what is observed.
Yet Muppet Climate Scientists assert that this is because The Heat is trapped in the troposphere – entirely avoiding basic thermodynamics -which state that energy flow rises according the steepness of the thermal gradient.
They actually say that less heat will flow down a steeper gradient. They’re insane!

Now one might say that Earht is in trouble if the stratosphere is cooling.
Yes and no.
No, mostly as the stratosphere will behave as an Ideal gas and will shrink if/as it cools. Because it radiates from its volume it will radiate less and so counteract the cooling.

But would the same not occur the other way round? If earth and thus the stratosphere warmed, it would expand, radiate more and counter=balance the warming.

Simple innit – if you ACTUALLY READ & grasp what Stefan said – instead of blindly rushing off and using radiated energy as a measure for temperature – and vice-versa.

It gets even worse in that CO2 absorbs/emits at particular wavelengths = it has colour.
So why isn’t colour important for calculating earth’s temperature.

Even even worse is NASA and their OCO2 Sputniks

WHY don’t they tell us that OCO2 uses wavelengths.#, absorbed by CO2, from the solar spectrum corresponding to 400 Celsius and also 800 Celsius AFTER those energies have done a round trip down and up to the Sputnik

IOW: CO2 stops solar energy that would have a potent heating effect from ever reaching the ground.

What A Complete Train Wreck this thing is

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 13, 2020 9:19 am

“… Once any energy leaves the surface it is falling down the thermal gradient and cannot return. …”

Agree from my knowledge of thermal resistance in connection with electronic circuits.

So let’s say you have a blanket of insulating CO2. The thermal gradient will be less steep because the temperature difference between the CO2 carper and the ground is diminished.

I am sure though that this is common knowledge, and that reality is way more complicated and the reason why atmospheric physic is so enormously complicated, only to be fully understood by Al Gore et al.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
October 13, 2020 10:36 am

I can take a red laser fire it thru a red ballon and pop the blue ballon inside it … work out the thermal transfer by what you just described 🙂

RIP classical physics … photons and thermal transfer don’t give 1 hoot about your rules.

Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 13, 2020 10:32 am

Unfortunately it’s classical garbage, Quantum mechanics does know what a Thermal Gradient is or even what temprature is they a stupid human observation concepts. First calculated in the 1980’s that it was rubbish and demonstrated with experiments from 2015 on ever increasingly scale QM can reverse any thermal gradient a simple search of “Reversing the direction of heat flow using quantum correlations” would have given you countless lab experiment results if you need proof.

The experiments violate classical physics 2nd law but they do not in QM because the way is law is stated in classical physics is wrong. So be aware you can no use or rely on classical junk physics when dealing with radiative transfer it would only be an approximation in stupidly simple situations and certainly not in Earth Atmospherics.

Ed Bo
Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 13, 2020 5:24 pm


Please, please, please take some basic thermodynamics and heat transfer classes! You are embarrassing yourself and this website with your nonsense!

To cover each of each of your points:

1) The molecular bonds in H2O and CO2 are polar covalent bonds, so act as dipoles that can absorb radiation. This absorption excites vibration modes measured in Teraherz, matching infrared frequencies. CO2’s primary vibration mode is at 20 THz (or 20,000 GHz) as you put it, and this IR frequency is emitted substantially at earth ambient temperatures.

Your point about H2O being a polar molecule with a full-molecule rotation mode measured in the low GHz range, while true, is totally irrelevant.

2) The absorption graphs you refer to show the percentage of SURFACE radiation absorbed at different frequencies before getting to space. And to your point 6), an atmosphere of only O2 and N2 would permit virtually 100% of surface radiation at all frequencies to get to space without any atmospheric absorption.

3) Your Stefan quote is true and accurate, but undermines your next argument.

4) Thinking “seriously” about what would happen if energy radiated by cold objects was absorbed by warmer ones — I would simply get the case explained in every single heat transfer text I have ever seen. Here’s a good one free online, from MIT:

All these texts start by explaining the concept of “radiative exchange” — two bodies radiating towards each other. As your Stefan quote indicates, each body radiates without knowing what it is radiating towards. But similarly, each body has no knowledge of what is radiating towards it, or the temperature of that object.

The hotter body will always transfer more radiative power to the colder body than the colder body does to the hotter body, but it is indeed a two-way process.

A simple example from your argument: You are outside in the woods on a -15C winter day and starting to feel chilled despite your metabolic power generation. You come across my cabin in the woods and I invite you to come inside to warm up. But the inside of my cabin is only at +15C, colder than your body temperature of about 37C. By your logic, there would be no point in coming in because the cabin could not transfer any energy UP the temperature gradient to your body.

Similarly, being surrounded by the -15C of the upper atmosphere results in higher surface temperatures than being directly exposed to the -270C of space, which would be the case with a fully transparent atmosphere.

Oh, and CO2 has virtually no absorption of incoming shortwave solar radiation, especially compared to its absorption of outgoing longwave terrestrial radiation.

After a couple of years of intensive study, you might be able to contribute constructively here. But as of now, sorry, no!

Reply to  Peta of Newark
October 13, 2020 10:56 pm

Gah. @Peta – absolutely wrong. The warmer object does absorb energy from the colder one. HOWEVER – the warmer object EMITS more energy to the colder than it ABSORBS from it. The “thermal gradient” is the NET effect of a two way flow, not a one way path.

Andy Pattullo
October 13, 2020 8:26 am

An excellent summary that explains why CAGW has to be a religion. With no scientific foundation, only religious belief can keep it alive and the money flowing. Problem is that the resulting policies damage the lives of people in countries where voters can still fire the policy makers. There is very little cost in changing your religious beliefs but high cost in adhering to beliefs that result in your impoverishment, starvation and early death. A reckoning is coming.

Reply to  Andy Pattullo
October 13, 2020 10:13 am

Andy Pattullo: “An excellent summary that explains why CAGW has to be a religion.”

Another explanation:
Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Working Group III Co-chair, said “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection…One must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

October 13, 2020 8:36 am

A sun that doesn’t shine. A wind that blows out of range. An investment in niche solutions, forced onto a grid for intermittent consumption, and at inflated prices redistributed to obfuscate effect.

Ancient Wrench
October 13, 2020 9:27 am

Rather than get into the weeds on the knock-on costs of “cheap” wind power, look at from a system-wide high altitude.

Assume a fossil fuel/nuclear power grid that fully meets demand. Add a unicorn intermittently providing 20% to 100% of demand for free with semi-predicable outages of minutes, hours, or days. What happens to costs? In the real world, all the existing equipment is still needed to cover unicorn shortfall/outages. Capital, operating, and maintenance costs remain the same or increase due to cycling. Only fuel costs are reduced. Thus, the value of non-dispatchable power is at most the avoided fuel cost for the back-up systems.

Paul C
October 13, 2020 9:47 am

As expected from the scaremongers at the environment agency it’s worse than we thought yet again.
For those living in the real world, it’s a bit chilly outside.

October 13, 2020 9:55 am

‘Too much WVF in the models, especially in the tropics.’ ‘insufficient model humidity washout via mechanisms like the Eschenbach tropical Tstorm thermoregulator hypothesis’

Water Vapor Feedback (WVF) is neither constant nor linear.

– As you say ‘GHE CO2 will never saturate in effect but WILL always decline logarithmically with concentration.’ I expect that the same will happen with H2O.
– Convective mass transfer to the atmosphere, i.e. ‘humidity washout’ increases exponentially with temperature. As Eschenbach shows, it is not possible to get tropical SSTs above about 29 C, because of this effect.

Thus WVF goes from being positive at low temperatures to being highly negative at SSTs above about 27C, thus putting an upper limit on the earth’s temperature.

October 13, 2020 9:57 am

Reparations/payoffs for alleged “climate refugees. About a year ago, the Alaskan Yup’ik people’s village of Newtok began a total move to a site on higher ground mere miles away at an eventual cost of about $130 million, or about $350,000 per person. The subsistence Yup’ik villagers, who probably never had $350,000 among them, did it with other people’s money, in a widely heralded move (NPR and NatGeo stories) claiming the villagers were “climate refugees.”

Historically, the Yup’ik people lived as nomadic hunters and fishermen, following their food supply. Their homes had to be mobile, easy to set up, and easy to disassemble. They constructed tent-like structures of sealskin mats over a light, wooden frame. Then they contacted the outside world and began to adopt its ways. They unwisely chose a poor site for their town of Newtok in the late 1950s, sitting just above sea level (tidally influenced) on the cut bank of a meandering river. The permafrost underfoot was immediately vulnerable to melting due to permanent village infrastructure and concentrated activity. Within 30 years, prior to alleged significant human influence on climate, the primitive village was predictably in trouble, with an eroding riverbank, melting permafrost, and differentially settling, rotting, moldy homes. After 30 more years of planning and wrangling for funds, the move finally began.

Out marched the warmunists, ignoring the facts of the situation and trumpeting that the move was due to climate change, making these people “climate refugees,” even though they had never lived so long in one place throughout their 2,000 year history. Now the team who engineered the move are on the greenies speaking circuit, claiming the people are climate refugees, much to the approving nods of likeminded warmunists. What a crock!

Gary Pearse
October 13, 2020 10:27 am

” GHE is just an indirect warming via an absence of sufficient radiative infrared cooling.”

Perhaps a clearer way to get this across is to include the mechanism: Without GHG, radiative cooling proceeds at ~ the speed of light to space. GHGs absorb and re-emit long wave IR thereby delaying this energy exit to space causing warming.

The reason I suggest this is there is a number of sceptics here that think it is related to specific heat of CO2 and they then show that the effect is vanishingly small.

“These have variously been invented at 2C over ~1880, or more newly 1.5C over whatever, like by Alarmist Schnelnhuber of the Potsdam Institute.”

It’s more egregious than this. The effect of added CO2 was opined to have been negligible up until 1950. When the ‘projections’ of anthropo caused temperature proved to average about 300% too warm by the new millennium relative to independent observations and it was clear we were in a two decade “hiatus”, they had to come up with a goalpost move or accept falsification.

The 2C°/1.5C° by 2100 relative to 1950 was pushed back to an 1850 datum (!!) so they could bankroll the 0.6C already in the bag to 1950 and make an additional 0.9°C by 2100 the danger threshold. In other words, they simply projected the climb out of the LIA rate another 100yrs. Going gangbusters on renewables and destroying economies, the 1.5°C that we appear headed for anyway by 2100 could be chalked up as a win by climateer тоталiтагуаиs.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 13, 2020 12:25 pm

Yes Gary some of us skeptics think that specific heat plays a part. If you change the composition of air by adding CO2 and decreasing say oxygen then you have changed the amount of energy required to change temperature.

Thermodynamics says the energy can be in “any form”. Well if true then the IR warming effect of CO2 is already accounted for and the forcing equation is double entry.

The warming effect is not mentioned in any specific heat tables, the Shomate equation, nor the NIST data sheet for CO2.

If I have 1 kg of CO2 I will get X for a temperature increase with Y energy input. With 2 kg of CO2 I get X/2 for a temperature increase for Y input. I doubled the number of CO2 molecules but got half the temperature increase.

Anthony’s CO2 jar experiment demonstrated no temperature increase with an increase in CO2.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  mkelly
October 13, 2020 11:26 pm

mkelly You do know that quite separate from specific heat which all gases, liquids and solids have, a few gases absorb long wave IR as well. This is a separate matter. Ok hold that thought.

Let’s see if a very imperfect analogy will underscore that I’m trying to get something different across. A stick of wood has a certain modest specific heat, but if you ignite it you have a separate thermal dimension to this wood.

Now the heat involved with CO2 (and other similarly behaving gases) absorbing IR doesn’t simply heat up the very small amount of CO2. The main mechanism of heating of the atmosphere through multiple absorptions of photons of IR from earth’s surface by each GHG molecule and its re-emission in all directions (because the molecules are randomly oriented) ~1/2 back toward the ground at one angle and another, is the DELAYING of emissions of heat to outer space.

That is, you have incident sunlight that arrives at near the speed of light essentially continuously and it warms the surface. This warmth heads upward toward space and in a world with no atmosphere or one with, say, inert Nitrogen, the IR from the surface exits directly to space unimpeded at the speed of light. So, anything that holds up the exit of IR causes an addition to the equilibrium temperature of the atmosphere, particularly near surface.

Now water vapor is the king of the GHG. Why are deserts so hot in midday and yet remarkably at night can be near freezing? Clear skys give full force to the sun that heats the unshaded dry ground mercilessly. But at night the heat, in the absence of the main GHG, water vapor escapes rapidly to space.

Now, you won’t find many stronger skeptics of global warming hype (and most other things for that matter) than I am. And I see CO2 as a strongly beneficial thing to be adding to the atmosphere creating a Garden of Eden Earth with bumper crops and no sign yet that it causes harm. The desert example shows CO2 to be at best a minor GHG and the idea of feedbacks creating more warming through increasing water vapor has been satisfactorily falsified. But my strength in dissent comes from giving Caesar his due. Its proved itself puny as a global warmer but CO2 is an absorber and re-emitter of LWIR.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 13, 2020 3:41 pm


We’ve been down this road before. A “delayed” exit of radiation does not mean there is any net warming. If I cover the distance from A to B at 25mph or 50mph I *still* get there. The issue is whether or not the night is long enough that I would lose the same amount of energy with or without any GHG’s. If the same amount of energy is lost then it doesn’t matter if it happens 10usec after the sun goes down or if it happens 7 hours after the sun goes down.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 13, 2020 11:57 pm

Sorry, if you delay exit of the energy by any means whatsoever, the equilibrium temperature increases.
A blanket on your bed delays the loss of heat from your body. A humid evening in the tropics keeps the night uncomfortably warm because of the main GHG. A night on the dry Sahara can kill you with hypothermia because there is no delaying the exit of IR. You can argue about a little bit for CO2 but not that it doesn’t happen.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 14, 2020 4:08 pm

A blanket doesn’t impact radiation. You are trying to use apples to explain tomatoes.

I’ve told you before to look at the decay of temperature at night. It is not a step function either in the desert or in the tropics when the sun goes down, therefore it is not a speed of light issue. It is an exponential decay in both cases. It is *not* always humid in the tropics and it is not always dry in the desert. Yet at night the temperature falls following an exponential decay curve in all cases. Speed of light has nothing to do with it. The coefficient of decay will determine where the derivative of the curve approaches zero.

Thomas Gasloli
October 13, 2020 10:28 am

Since the 3 glacial-interglacial periods in the Antarctic ice core data show that temperature change precedes CO2 change, why is there any reason to believe CO2 has any warming effect? I realize some people are having lots of fun on other people’s money doing “science” with this, but, if we don’t need to waste the money on this it can go for something actually useful.

I’m beginning to think America has too many scientists and to much funding for “science”, how else to explain the misapplication of resources to “Climate Science”?

October 13, 2020 10:51 am

In the ’70s, degrees in zoology required botany classes. I took them but never heard of C3 or C4 plants until Rud Istvan today. Laugh at my revelation if you all wish–that like animals, plants evolving in different climates retain relevant characteristics and respond to climate changes appropriately.

Sometimes even with the best of intentions, our educational and work experience narrows our thoughts.

October 13, 2020 11:11 am

But but but that’s not fair. You are using Perfectly Logical Explanations (PLEs):

October 13, 2020 11:26 am

We do know via satellites that Earth is benefitting from rising fossil fuel freed CO2 (doubters,check the delta 13C/12C isotope ratios and their meaning). Earth is Greening.

There is no doubt the Earth is greening from all sources of CO2, however the proportion of CO2 owed to MME is small, as the ML CO2 annual cycle and trend is governed by the warm ocean area >=25.6°C, not MME. The 12mΔ in ML CO2 lags the 12mΔ in the ocean area >=25.6°C by 5 months.

comment image

The authors of Atmospheric Temperature and CO2: Hen-or-Egg Causality? concluded similarly, from their abstract:

…the results of our study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2. Changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale…

Jim Ross
October 13, 2020 12:28 pm


An excellent ‘big picture’ view of the greenhouse effect and related issues. I appreciate that you were intentionally avoiding getting bogged down in the details (weeds), but I do have a question about the 13C/12C data. You appear to be saying (my apologies if I am misinterpreting your statement) that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to “rising fossil fuel freed CO2” and that the “delta 13C/12C isotope ratios” supports this view. Perhaps it does, but where is the evidence and then why would it be that Keeling et al (2017) found the following:

“Here, we update the longest direct time series for δ13C [13C/12C ratio relative to a standard] of CO2, starting in 1978, from the flask program at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Rather than resolving carbon sinks, we use data/model comparison to show that there must exist an additional process, previously neglected, that reduces the atmospheric 13C-Suess effect.”

It may not seem too surprising that more data leads to a need for a more complicated model, but the problem is that the actual observed trend in δ13C decline (which is linear when plotted against 1/CO2) did not change as a consequence of the new data!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Jim Ross
October 13, 2020 3:51 pm

Jim, good questioning comment. Simple high level answer that you do not have to look up. You simply misread Keeling’s comment. His additional process is fossil fuel consuption.

13C is one proton heavier than 12C. Both are stable isotopes (unlike 14C) so the proportions were however god given at Earths creation.

Turns out that in photosynthesis, 12C gets used slightly more ‘faster’ than 13C—since lighter, simple chemical reaction kinetics. So as carbon got sequestered as fossil fuels, it was disproportionately as 12C, thus increasing the atmospheric 13C ratio over time.

Now that we are burning fossil fuels, the 13C ratio is declining way beyond what natural sinks might explain.
Put differently, another physical disproof of the Salby sink nonsense floating about amongst skeptics.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 14, 2020 1:33 am


Thank you for responding. Time to get into the weeds: Keeling et al (2017) can be found here: (this site also provides a link to supporting information for the paper). The authors have used a very comprehensive (complex) model which is based on the assumption that all of the increase in CO2 is from fossil fuels so, no, that is not the “additional process” to which they refer. I did not misread the comment by Keeling et al.

The fundamental problem is this: the decline of δ13C reflects an average ratio of -13 per mil for the incremental CO2 in the atmosphere, whereas fossil fuels are estimated to have a flux ratio of about -28 per mil. Nowhere close. Models that seek to ‘explain’ this very large mismatch rely on estimated disequilibrium fluxes (differences in fractionation between in/out fluxes between atmosphere/ocean and atmosphere/terrestrial biosphere). In the model of Keeling et al (2017), the mismatch is a factor of almost 8 times in isotopic mass balance terms; i.e. the effect of fossil fuels alone is (or would be) 8 times more than what we actually see in the atmosphere (see their table S5). The ‘adjustment’ for disequilibrium fluxes accounts for 80% of the difference between the theoretical effect of fossil fuels on the atmospheric δ13C ratio and the actual observations.

Given the size of the mismatch, I think that it is inappropriate to say that that the 13C/12C ratio “supports” the view that all the incremental CO2 is due to fossil fuel combustion. One could perhaps say that it is “not inconsistent with”, provided of course that you are comfortable with the adjustments necessary to achieve a match with observations. Even then you still have a problem. Why does the average δ13C of the incremental CO2 not change over time? Not only is it consistent with direct measurements comment image
average δ13C content of -13.0 per mil, R2 0.99), it is also the value seen in the Law Dome ice core data as shown in Figure 1 here:
average δ13C content of -13.1 per mil, R2 0.96.

Finally, as a scientist, my major concern with the Keeling et al paper is that they found that their model (hypothesis) could not reproduce the observations and their solution was to add another complexity to it in order to achieve a match. As everyone knows, the more variables you add to a model, the easier it is to find a way of making it match. Models are not evidence.

Reply to  Jim Ross
October 14, 2020 2:00 am

While you are down there amongst the weeds can you check for me where exactly the marine water isotope ratio comes from? Is it from the Peedee Belemnite isotope standard for example or from a direct measurement of marine water chemistry?

Jim Ross
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 14, 2020 3:58 am


I am not sure I fully understand your question (and I am in serious danger of getting out of my depth here). 13C/12C ratios are quoted relative to a standard, in the form of δ13C, and the standard used these days is known as VPDB – Vienna PeeDee Belemnite. There is a lot of detailed discussion here: which may be of interest.

For δ13C flux values, NOAA provide some indicative values here:
(Scroll to bottom of page.)

For detailed assumptions used by Keeling et al with respect to the ocean biological pump, see Table S1 in their supporting information.

Reply to  Jim Ross
October 14, 2020 4:30 am


Thanks, that’s my point. The ratio measured in a solid crystal will have undergone fractionation on precipitation – the heavier C13 will drop out more often.
But the gas in the air has come from the dissolved phase in the water – the lighter C12 will be released more often.
So why assume that the released to air C13/C12 gas ratio can be measured by analysing solid crystals?

Jim Ross
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 14, 2020 11:01 am

My limited knowledge ….

The actual physical standard moved to NBS19 after the original PDB standard was fully used. The standard itself is not really important other than everyone uses it and its 13C/12C ratio is known and agreed. The δ13C of a sample of CO2 is then measured by comparison to the standard. As long as the 13C/12C ratio of the standard is consistent, the δ13C of the sample will be the same regardless of the lab which undertook the analysis of the sample. The δ13C is then reported according to a specific scale, VPDB, which has the same 13C/12C ratio as the PDB standard did (0.0112372), in order to maintain comparability with older PDB-based reporting, but which is determined by applying a scale shift due the actual 13C/12C ratio of NBS19 being slightly different to PDB. Hope that makes some sense.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 14, 2020 7:06 am

“Now that we are burning fossil fuels, the 13C ratio is declining way beyond what natural sinks might explain.”

Rud Istvan,

DMA’s comment below demolishes your claim. The decline of carbon 13 that attends the rise in carbon 12 (i.e., in CO2) is not a unique feature of human emissions. As Dr. Salby shows, their opposite changes are plainly a feature of natural emissions.

PS: “13C is one proton heavier than 12C.” is equally wrong. Best stick to something you understand.

October 13, 2020 4:59 pm

Concerning Bohm etal, fig 3, the 13C ratio change shown (as well in the other figures) exhibits a temperature dependence inverse to SST, is a natural response to solar warming since the Maunder Minimum.

1. Introduction
[2] We investigate stable carbon isotope records
of aragonitic skeletons of the coralline sponge
Ceratoporella nicholsoni (Figure 1), which lives
in surface and upper thermocline waters of the
Caribbean. These sponges precipitate aragonite
very close to isotopic equilibrium with ambient
sea water [Druffel and Benavides, 1986; Bohm et
al., 1996; Reitner, 1992]. Carbon isotope histories
recorded by the sponges display the anthropo-
genic carbon isotope shift of the 19th and 20th
century [Druffel and Benavides, 1986; Bohm et
al., 1996; Swart et al., 1998; Lazareth et al.,
2000; Moore et al., 2000; Nozaki et al., 1978] as
well as variations prior to the 19th century. These
preindustrial variations provide evidence for nat-
ural variations in the atmosphere/surface ocean
CO2 inventory.

– my bold

The change is due to natural warming along with the increase in Anthro CO2, but the CO2 isn’t warming anything nor is the change alarming or dangerous, but blown out of proportion.

The more rapid change since 1950 is due to the above average growth of the warm ocean area >=25.6°C driven by higher solar activity during the Modern Maximum, driving increased natural CO2 outgassing.

The colder ocean <25.6°C continually sinks both isotopes of CO2, changing the mix in the ocean and in coralline sponges. None of this is a problem whatsoever.

Reply to  Bob Weber
October 14, 2020 3:04 am

“These sponges precipitate aragonite very close to isotopic equilibrium with ambient sea water”
Thanks for that. There still remains the issue of temperature dependent light isotope fractionation that occurs with gas exchange from seawater into the atmosphere.

October 13, 2020 5:10 pm

“More recently, we know that during the Medieval Warm Period …”

Even more assuredly we know that the remains of trees from 1000 and 2000 years ago (and from some earlier periods?) keep appearing from under melting glaciers and are also found in many high altitude locals, well above the current tree line. Also, less obvious without careful observation, but still in solid existence, there are the remains (carbon dated as growing during the Holocene) of many plants at more northerly latitudes than those same plants will grow today. These seem to strongly indicate previous higher temperatures then than exist today.

October 13, 2020 7:34 pm

There is a widespread misunderstanding about how the energy balance is achieved on Earth. Applying the US Standard Atmosphere to assess the so-called CO2 forcing is simply laughable. The atmosphere changes gear once the total precipitable water achieves 30mm. That occurs consistently when the sea surface reaches 26C. It dramatically increases the ability of the atmosphere to reject heat:!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg2wMlxHit3T7gwhi
At 30mm TPW, the atmosphere becomes layered and has a level of free convection above the surface that results in cloud burst that lead to monsoon and cyclonic storms. These storms are the global temperature thermostat.

This emergent property is so powerful that the ocean surface temperature can only approach 32C; never exceed it. The power of storms can be appreciated by taking care to note the red lime on the linked chart. That would be the entire global surface energy contribution from assumed CO2 forcing, based on US Standard Atmosphere, for a period of 31 days. It is laughably trivial. In fact 130 time less than the energy currently rejected by just the ocean surfaces.

So TPW above 30mm is demonstrably a cooling gas. Once in storm mode, the radiating temperature of the atmosphere is down to 230K; about the same as CO2. The clouds formed from tropic storms can reject any amount of energy needed to limit the ocean temperature to 32C. With those facts in mind, is there ANY possibility of catastrophic global warming?

October 13, 2020 7:37 pm

“The Green House Effect

Of course it exists. …. It works by inhibiting radiative cooling to space. So is not a direct warming, is actually just an absence of sufficient IR cooling (only some of which is ‘downwelling warming’, itself a skeptical misconception resulting in endlessly ‘wrong’ SST downwelling IR debates) to balance incoming insolation.”

Well, it inhibits some radiative cooling to space.
As warm things on Earth surface can be detected using IR wavelength from orbit.
So does not inhibit all radiative cooling to space.
What be difference if the greenhouse effect inhibited more or less radiative cooling to space?
Not in terms global warming but say upon a person or rock.
So magic switch: doesn’t do anything, stops all radiative cooling to space, and allows
all radiative cooling to space.
I don’t think this magic switch would have much effect.
Now might have some effect on Earth over long enough time period.
I don’t think me or the rock is radiating much heat into space at the moment and if stop it by greenhouse effect stopping all it or none it, it would make noticeable effect in say 30 mins of time.
But moving from room with temperature 30 C to room of 10 C, that would be bigger difference- quite noticeable within 30 mins.
But I do think, over long enough time period such magical switch “should” make a significant difference.
Or if in spaceship and there is a room with big window which has same magical switch- blocks all radiant energy from leaving, doesn’t block any radiant energy radiant, or is “earth normal”. All I would care about is air temperature in the room is “set at”. And also care about humidity in the room. So if magical switch is actually something make then air more humid or drier- then this would matter.
Because human mostly loses heat via convection and evaporation. Or how dry and temperature of air, would matter.

October 13, 2020 8:23 pm

“We do know via satellites that Earth is benefitting from rising fossil fuel freed CO2 (doubters,check the delta 13C/12C isotope ratios and their meaning).”
Salby addresses this at about 18 minuets in this video :–9I&
Berry uses his model to show the C12/C13 argument is wrong:
I cannot find errors in their work on this. I do not think our emissions make much difference in the atmospheric CO2. Greening is beneficial but it is nearly all natural.

October 14, 2020 4:26 am

“But the sun does shine at night ” Probably the biggest mistake in almost all climate models. They all use an unjustified assumption that using “average” insolation and many other “averages” in other equations give a realistic result. They don’t. . The earth is not a flat plate and no amount of wiggling will give the same result as an exponential change in radiative effects with CO2 concentration- both between night an day, and across the curvature of the earth.

Reply to  philo
October 14, 2020 4:39 am


Here is our solution:
An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget

October 14, 2020 5:52 am

“Probably the biggest mistake in almost all climate models.”
Without this “mistake” the Sun would warm the surface on the day lit side with sufficient power to create the weather (as indeed it does).
Without this “mistake” there would be no need to create the fantasy of “back radiation” heating the surface.
Without this “mistake” there would be no need to invoke atmospheric thermal radiant opacity as the cause of “back radiation”.
Without this “mistake” there would be no reason to control CO2 emissions.
Without this “mistake” the “Cause” is lost.

So no mistake, it is a deliberate political act.

Michael Keal
October 14, 2020 11:14 am

No discussion on global warming, climate change, etc. no matter how erudite or how technical would be complete without a big thank you to our sponsors that have for so many years made such discussions possible.
After all as we in what used to be called ‘the West’ became increasingly virtuous with all our windmills and solar farms and in the UK blowing up perfectly good generating plant, as our manufacturing sectors declined due to ever rising energy costs, we should remember that all this lunacy has only been possible thanks to our good comrades in China building new coal generation hand over fist so that, with cheap reliable electricity and non-union labour, even to the extent of importing coal from Australia so they could afford to buy things made in China with the power from the coal they were too virtuous to burn …
And the biggest beauty of it all? Its greening the planet! The plants are just loving all that fresh newly-liberated fossilised Chinese carbon.

October 15, 2020 9:41 am

[[The Green House Effect. Of course it exists. But is often misunderstood even amongst skeptics, because does not work like a real greenhouse (inhibiting convection), so is weaker. It works by inhibiting radiative cooling to space. So is not a direct warming, is actually just an absence of sufficient IR cooling (only some of which is ‘downwelling warming’, itself a skeptical misconception resulting in endlessly ‘wrong’ SST downwelling IR debates) to balance incoming insolation.

[This is caused by molecular infrared absorption by ‘green house’ gasses, and then their omnidirectional rescattering, which inhibits it all going back to very cool space. In sum, any GHE is just an indirect warming via an absence of sufficient radiative infrared cooling. A simple physics idea, which fully suffices here.]]

How many times will I see this ridiculous fake physics CO2 warming hoax repeated by so-called climate scientists?

CO2 doesn’t have any way to block Earth’s surface heat either coming or going. The Earth’s surface range is -50C to +50C, and CO2’s radiation absorption/emission wavelength of 15 microns has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, way outside this range. It’s not even infrared, but more like microwave radiation, which doesn’t have anything to do with heat and mainly bounces off things after maybe doing some kind of damage. So how many people are still left who don’t know the first thing about Planck’s Radiation Law, the ground theorem of radiative physics that covers all cases?

CO2 causes ZERO global warming, nada, zilcho. Sometimes I wish that CO2’s -80C 15 micron radiation could cause a little bit of global warming to cut the leftist-run U.N. IPCC octopus a little slack and not have to keep calling it pure evil. But alas, -80C radiation can’t cause global warming any more than a wet match can light a cigarette. Even a frozen wet match at 0C is way way hotter than CO2’s -80C.

Here’s my free lesson on radiative physics that nobody interested in this subject can afford to miss, and literally so, since big plans are underway to rob you blind to solve the imaginary heating caused by odorless, colorless, harmless CO2 after shutting down the fossil fuel industry and leaving us starving, freezing, and softened up for a global Marxist takeover, or what they now call a Great Reset, which you probably won’t survive to witness. You can be sure that the IPCC doesn’t want you to see their nakedness, giving their big stage to useful idiots, but the truth marches on.

Repeat after me: Just Say No to the IPCC and -80C.

No matter how many billions it’s siphoned from taxpayers to push their fake physics hoax, the IPCC can’t change physics. It’s time to quit giving them any respect and just laugh them off and hope they will go away.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights