GFS Analysis Shows Zero Warming: For Every Hot-Spot on The Planet, There’s Also Been a Cold-Spot

From the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 22. May 2022

By Die kalte Sonne

Currently much is being reported on extreme heat reaching from North Africa to Europe. In some places in Morocco and Spain, new temperature records for May have been set.

However, it’s worth taking a look at the whole world, because in addition to regions that are clearly too warm, there are also the exact opposite. They’re marked with yellow on this overview from Climatereanalyzer.

Image: Screenshot Climatereanalyer.org

For example, the U.S. state of Colorado recorded snow in May, as reported by the Denver Post.

Brazil is also experiencing unusual cold. Mercopress reports record cold for the capital Brasilia, which is located far inland. The paper quotes meteorologist Estael Sias as explaining the cold snap as a result of climate change.

An unprecedented cold wave in Brazil for the month of May has been labeled a threat both to the country’s thousands of homeless people and also to crops, it was reported Thursday.

A 1.4°C mark in Brasilia Thursday became the coldest temperature in the city’s history since it was founded in 1960, with over a month to go before the official beginning of Winter in the southern hemisphere (June 21).

Sao Paulo also recorded a most unusual temperature of 6.6°C Wednesday, the second-lowest for the month of May since 1990, when it hit -4°C.

The abrupt drop in temperature is due to Cyclone Yakecan, of “anomalous trajectory”, which dragged an air current from Antarctica and “spread it over the interior of South America,” meteorologist Estael Sias explained. Sias also said these “severe and most anomalous” climatic events were “a consequence of climate change.”

Overall, however, the anomaly is 0 degrees worldwide, as can be seen from the map.

Climatreanalyzer also calculates with a reference value from 1979-2000, but at that time it was colder on Earth. Compared to the current reference value it could even mean a cooling. Important: This is a purely cut-off date consideration!

5 26 votes
Article Rating
185 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 23, 2022 10:08 am

One of the usual suspects, like GISS, will report warming.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 24, 2022 4:34 am

Tulsa Oklahoma is reporting that the last four days tie for the coldest high temperature on record for these dates, tied with similar weather in 1907.

Last edited 1 month ago by Tom Abbott
May 23, 2022 10:35 am

Global land area is 130 million square km, which means you can divide it up into about 1.3 million pixels (assuming each pixel is 10km x 10 km). Then there are 12 months a year (or 365 days a year). That’s a lot of months (or days and pixels) that one can cherry pick to show temperatures (or precipitation) is now highest ever or lowest ever (depending on one wants to “show”).

PCman999
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 11:02 am

One wonders what the average of all those cells would be.

Reply to  PCman999
May 23, 2022 11:38 am

That, unfortunately, does not matter since temperature is an intensive quantity and you can’t (or rather) shouldn’t take averages of the two to estimate temperature across both pixels. One should use enthalpy.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 11:53 am

I’ve been saying this here for years. Yet everyone only wants to talk about “global average”.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 23, 2022 12:08 pm

Same here. It goes to illustrate the quality of “climate science”.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 24, 2022 8:48 am

On average, the global temps are B.S.!

bdgwx
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 6:16 pm

GFS provides the equivalent potential temperature fields. You can download the grids here. Song et al. 2022 examine the enthalpy of the atmosphere over the last 40 years via equivalent potential temperature (theta-e).

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Macha
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 2:46 pm

And only 30% is land.

sparko
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 4:08 pm

One can then also go on to call it a one in a thousand year event, ignoring the fact that the expectation will be for thousands of such events world wide every year, given the number of recordings, and records that can be set

sparko
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 4:27 pm

One could also go on to call it a one in a thousand year event, ignoring the fact that given the number of observations and locations, ,the expectation is for thousands of such record breaking events every year

Duane
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 23, 2022 6:42 pm

Guaranteed that for every point recording a record high temp another point on the planet will have a record low. Also guaranteed that every day multiple locations are having record highs and an equal number are having record lows. Something about thermodynamics and conservation of energy – unless energy is being converted to mass it cannot be destroyed, and unless mass is being converted to energy, energy cannot be created. Energy can however be stored and released chemically.

Also guaranteed that both the record lows and the record highs are not the actual all time lows and highs but only represent data from the tiniest of all data sets – only a few decades to at most about 170 years out of the last 4.5 billion years.

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 24, 2022 8:21 am

Exactly correct. At any time, there is a “record” being set somewhere. Our database to which conditions are compared and “records” are determined is very brief.

Combine the above with innumerable types of “records”, and you have an unending announcement of “records”.

I think it is a broken record.

Questing Vole
Reply to  Indur Goklany
May 25, 2022 8:34 am

As usual, the chosen map projection exaggerates the real area at the poles.

Ack
May 23, 2022 10:42 am

96 here Thursday, today its 53

Derg
Reply to  Ack
May 23, 2022 6:48 pm

Your 53 is a hot 53 😉

fretslider
May 23, 2022 10:47 am

The image confirms the UK isn’t that warm

In fact it’s a bit chilly in Southern England

Dave Fair
Reply to  fretslider
May 23, 2022 11:19 am

You mean that speck of the speck of the Earth?

fretslider
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 23, 2022 11:37 am

Some call it Airstrip1

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  fretslider
May 23, 2022 12:06 pm

Not that warm in the East Midlands either. Despite weather forecasts for the last 3 weeks saying in for a scorcher within a few days. Like Diana Ross I’m still waiting

fretslider
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
May 23, 2022 1:29 pm

These days 18C is described as a scorcher in the media

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Redge
Reply to  fretslider
May 23, 2022 10:00 pm

I blame it on the blokes who don shorts, t-shirts and flip flops the moment the temperature gets above 5C

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  fretslider
May 24, 2022 12:25 am

Yeah, May has seemed cool in the South of England. Meanwhile the Met Office is claiming its unusual to get 27.5 degC in May….by referring to a thermometer reading at Heathrow Airport!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
May 24, 2022 2:09 am

According to the Met Office, the Central England Temperature (CET) region has been much warmer than average so far this May. 13.6C up to May 22, which is +2.8C warmer than the 1961-1990 average. Year to date, again up to May 22, is +1.92C warmer than average so far in CET. You guys must be quite unlucky to have missed out on all this extra heat.

Bellman
Reply to  ThinkingScientist
May 24, 2022 7:10 am

Meanwhile the Met Office is claiming its unusual to get 27.5 degC in May

That’s the opposite of what they are saying.

Today’s highest temperatures were confined to the southeast of England, with only 15 stations recording 25°C or above. The temperature of 27.5°C at Heathrow is around 10°C higher than the May 1991-2020 long-term average daily maximum temperature but nevertheless falls far short of the UK’s all-time May record of 32.8°C.

The Met Office observational record shows that 25°C is not a particularly unusual temperature for this time of year.

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2022/05/17/are-mid-20c-temperatures-in-may-unusual/

PCman999
May 23, 2022 10:59 am

Weird how any transient weather effect gets labeled as an effect of climate change – seems like some meteorologists don’t know the meaning of the term.

Richard Page
Reply to  PCman999
May 24, 2022 9:48 am

On a side note, there’s been an interesting news story recently that huge dust storms on Mars are caused by heat imbalances; and yet, on Earth, the storms are caused purely by global warming. Some delusional people simply cannot connect the dots.

Last edited 1 month ago by Richard Page
TallDave
May 23, 2022 11:37 am

if cold temperatures are caused by global warming, then hot temperatures must be caused by global cooling

and zero anomaly temperatures are definitely your fault

Ireneusz Palmowski
May 23, 2022 11:40 am

La Niña works. Tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico and heavy rainfall in Western Europe.comment image

Mike
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 23, 2022 11:16 pm

I’ve jut about had a gutful of La bloody Nina.

May 23, 2022 11:52 am

Duh. There’s only so much energy to go around. Oh yea, the climate alarmists don’t believe in Conservation of Energy.

commieBob
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 23, 2022 12:24 pm

Yep. Correct me if I’m wrong but I think James Hansen’s positive feedback theory ignores the energy it takes to evaporate water.

The theory is that more CO2 will cause a little warming. That will cause increased evaporation which will increase atmospheric water vapor (the main greenhouse gas by a lot) and that, in turn, will cause Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

About 50% of the solar energy absorbed at the Earth’s surface drives evaporation …

link

That’s a big effect and shouldn’t be ignored. I’ve read Hansen’s paper*. As far as I recall, there’s no mention of evaporation. So, yes, they do seem to ignore conservation of energy.

(*The link I have for Hansen et al 1984 no longer works)

Last edited 1 month ago by commieBob
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 2:26 pm

Is this the 1984 you want?

commieBob
Reply to  Pat Frank
May 23, 2022 5:28 pm

Yes, that’s it for sure. Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall.

Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 6:34 pm

Search for it. It’s widely available for free.

Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 2:33 pm

“Correct me if I’m wrong but I think James Hansen’s positive feedback theory ignores the energy it takes to evaporate water.”
OK. First it was not James Hansen’s theory. Water vapor feedback was the basis of Arrhenius’ calculation in 1896. And he knew about latent heat.

The reason for the feedback is the continuing effect of increased wv in blocking IR. This vastly exceeds the once only heating required to raise the wv level.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 3:56 pm

There is a big hole here. If the earth radiates “x” outward and the atmosphere intercepts a percentage then “ax” is the amount absorbs. Assume 50% of that energy is re-radiated back toward earth -> 0.5ax gets sent back.

But we know that the atmosphere can absorb “ax”. So why doesn’t the ax/2 amount headed earthward get absorbed by the atmosphere on the way back to earth?

If the ax/2 radiation gets absorbed by the atmosphere, it never gets to earth to cause any increased evaporation – meaning no increase in water vapor and no feedback.

If the atmospheric CO2 is so saturated with outbound radiation that it can’t absorb the ax/2 radiation headed earthward then increasing CO2 would seem to be a benefit! It would help absorb that ax/2 headed earthward. Not only that but if the existing CO2 is saturated then outbound radiation from increased input from the sun would *not* get absorbed by the atmosphere. Radiation from increased temperature would escape to space.

Holes everywhere I look!

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 23, 2022 5:08 pm

Tim,
Aren’t we looking at the sum of an infinite series as the photons bounce back and forth between the atmosphere and the surface?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 24, 2022 3:37 pm

Yep!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 24, 2022 3:37 pm

There is a lot more than just photons being bounced around. Absorptance, emissivity, radiation all modified by temperature. The electromagnetic power radiated is isotropic, i.e., in a sphere and carries photons along with it. Since it is an expanding sphere, the amount of power in a given area is reduced by distance. This is one reason that W/m^2 per steradian is used to equate powers.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
May 24, 2022 4:48 pm

It’s a “damped” series, with loss being incurred with each bounce (heat lost to space).

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 23, 2022 6:33 pm

“So why doesn’t the ax/2 amount headed earthward get absorbed by the atmosphere on the way back to earth?”

It does, as does the ax/2 heading out into space both of whose absorbed energy already contributes to ax. The net result is that about half of what the atmosphere absorbs is returned to the surface and half goes out into space. The supporting math is trivial.

240 w/2 arrives from the Sun and 390 w/m^2 is emitted by the surface at its average temperature of 288K. 300 w/m^2 is absorbed by clouds and GHG’s leaving 90 w/m^2 passed directly into space.

150 w/m^2 (half of 300 w/m^2) is added to the 90 w/m^2 to offset the 240 w/m^2 arriving from the Sun as the remaining 150 w/m^2 is added to the 240 w/m^2 arriving from the Sun to offset the 390 w/m^2 being emitted by the surface.

It’s important to keep in mind that owing to the fast connection between the water in clouds and that on the surface, relative to longer term averages, absorption and emission of solar energy by clouds is a proxy for solar energy absorbed and emitted by the surface.

It’s also important to realize that for each Joule of emissions that leave the planet and can trace their origin to latent heat or other non radiant energy that entered the atmosphere from the surface, a Joule of surface emissions that would have left the planet must be returned to the surface to offset the lost non radiant heat. It’s called a zero sum effect.

Last edited 1 month ago by co2isnotevil
commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 5:31 pm

I say Hansen’s version advisedly. Obviously Arrhenius didn’t use Bode’s feedback analysis.

Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 5:55 pm

Arrhenius did the same calculation, as have others since. Hansen, in a minor 1984 paper, alluded to Bode’s methods to aid explanation. But he’s just doing linear algebra, same as Arrhenius.

Hansen’s paper is here

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 7:16 pm

As far as I can tell, Arrhenius predicted a slight beneficial warming so maybe he got it right.

As Monckton has amply demonstrated, and most of the control system people here would agree, Hansen got Bode wrong. And that has other climate scientists’ shirts in a knot.

So, Hansen’s reliance on Bode was more than just pedagogical.

Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 7:26 pm

Arrhenius predicted a slight beneficial warming”
Arrhenius calculated ECS as 4°C, similar to modern values, if a little on the high side.

“As Monckton has amply demonstrated, and most of the control system people here would agree, Hansen got Bode wrong. “

Monckton does not have a clue about Bode or control theory. But it doesn’t matter. Hansen simply set out some linear algebra. That is all, and it stands on its own and is correct. Some EE’s seem to think no-one can do linear algebra without the blessing of the venerable Bode.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 8:25 am

“Some EE’s seem to think no-one can do linear algebra without the blessing of the venerable Bode.”

Some climate alarmists think that Hansen’s incorrect application of Bode that makes the power replacing surface emissions independent of the input forcing is valid when all this actually accomplishes is to allow an arbitrary amount of output from any amount of input and thus any sensitivity, specifically one large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 9:32 am

As I point out below, without your mistake at the end, your derivation is just the same as Hansen’s, except he has the particular case with G=1.

MGC
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 9:22 pm

Arrhenius thought the warming would be “beneficial” only because he assumed it would occur over many thousands of years, not in just a few decades.

That’s like the difference between bringing a car going 60 mph to a slow, gentle stop, versus bring that same car to a stop by running directly into a brick wall.

Mike
Reply to  MGC
May 23, 2022 11:25 pm

Another gem of wisdom from MGC.
So we must be driving directly into a brick wall every time the sun comes up right?

MGC
Reply to  Mike
May 24, 2022 8:14 am

Mike, maybe think about the difference between daily weather and climate. Not the same thing.

Typically false strawman “argument”.

Last edited 1 month ago by MGC
Richard Page
Reply to  MGC
May 24, 2022 9:57 am

True but then please give an example of something that has lasted for ‘several decades’ (more than 2 but less than 10 I’d guess) and so must be climate and not just weather? I’ll wait.

Mike
Reply to  MGC
May 24, 2022 5:41 pm

MGC, Maybe stop making embarrassingly ridiculous statements.

MGC
Reply to  Mike
May 24, 2022 8:01 pm

Sorry, Mike, but there is nothing at all “embarrassing” nor “ridiculous” in my previous statement.

CO2 level in the air is currently rising over 100 times faster than at any time in tens of millions of years. We are currently driving climate change at rates that are orders of magnitude faster than what Arrhenius imagined would happen.

Ecosystems (and human societal systems) will likely be hard pressed to adapt to that rapid a change.

Doonman
Reply to  MGC
May 24, 2022 10:12 pm

But all that CO2 came from the atmosphere in the first place. That means the earth’s ecosystems evolve.

Why are you opposed to evolution? It’s natural. That should be the question you ask yourself. Otherwise it’s just hysterics.

MGC
Reply to  Doonman
May 25, 2022 9:00 am

Translation of Doonman’s comment:

“Why should we bother to avert poor outcomes for ourselves, for future generations, and for many other species? Poor outcomes that are the result of our rapid altering of the climate. It’s just evolution. It’s natural.”

Is this really the kind of position you want to support, Doonman?

“That should be the question you ask yourself.”

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
May 26, 2022 10:54 am

2 big false assumptions in one short comment:

1) the outcome of gradual warming (likely natural-caused) is “poor.”

2) humans can do anything to affect it meaningfully.

MGC
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 26, 2022 12:30 pm

Three big false assumptions in one short comment from Janice:

1 – “likely naturally caused”

Sorry, but based on decades of evidence, not a single major scientific organization, anywhere in the world, supports such a claim. Not one. Not anywhere.

I’ll take their word over “because Janice says so” any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

2- “gradual” warming. On a geo-historical basis, no, not “gradual”.

3pretending that “humans can’t do anything to affect it meaningfully” (a false claim driven by imagining that false claim #1 was “correct”.)

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
May 26, 2022 1:35 pm

The burden of proof is on you.

Mike
Reply to  MGC
May 25, 2022 6:34 pm

CO2 level in the air is currently rising over 100 times faster than at any time in tens of millions of years”

And another one. Can you even comprehend 10,000,000 years time span?
Do you honestly believe that anyone could actually know what was happening that long ago down to a couple of hundred parts/million? Time you grew up.

MGC
Reply to  Mike
May 26, 2022 8:36 am

Sorry to see that you are unwilling to accept the reality of the scientific research evidence, Mike. See reference below.

Your response is an example of the ‘argument from incredulity’ logical fallacy. You can’t understand how such a thing could be, “therefore” it must be “wrong”.

Kinda like how folks several hundred years ago could not imagine how the earth could be round; “therefore” that idea “had to be” wrong.

https://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/faculty/zeebe_files/Publications/ZeebeEtAl-NGS16.pdf

“the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years”

john harmsworth
Reply to  MGC
May 26, 2022 9:46 am

It’s barely p0ossible to see anywhere that actual science is being done in the current environment. I see pile of government money pushing agendas forward, with a greedy, politically biased and willfully blind academia more than happy to trade scientific principle for cash and career. Modern civilization and science itself will not move forward until this is fixed.

MGC
Reply to  john harmsworth
May 26, 2022 12:21 pm

Lots of empty claims here, with nothing at all presented to back any of it up.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MGC
May 26, 2022 9:42 am

So if the CO2 level went up 1% in one day, that would be a disaster. But if it went up 10% in one month, that would be less important? The “logic” of your statements eludes me entirely. They are, in fact, nonsense. The finish state HAS TO BE more important than the rate of change.

bdgwx
Reply to  john harmsworth
May 26, 2022 11:39 am

If it were only that simple. Unfortunately the climate system is rather complex. A 500 GtC pulse spread out over 10000 years would not be expected to produce the same amount of warming as 500 GtC released in only 100 years. The reason is due to Earth’s buffering capacity of atmospheric carbon. The rate is constrained due to limitations in the speed of the uptake processes in the biosphere and hydrosphere which are themselves modulated by temperature. The rate of carbon release is very important and significantly effects the final state. A slower the release results in less in less warming and less carbon retained in the atmosphere at the end of the release.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
MGC
Reply to  john harmsworth
May 26, 2022 12:18 pm

John says: “The finish state HAS TO BE more important than the rate of change.”

So John, please let me ask: with a car going from 60 mph to a dead stop, please explain how the “finish state” is more important than whether or not this change of speed occurred by a slow, gentle braking, or by running the vehicle straight into a brick wall.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MGC
May 27, 2022 9:07 am

The finished state is stopped. All other “qualifications” are your own. We are talking about a physical system, not your aunt’s Sunday drive or any other anthropomorphism. A faster, smaller increase in CO2 will be followed by a faster, smaller decrease, assuming that the uptake from the environment is fixed. If it isn’t, please provide evidence.

bdgwx
Reply to  john harmsworth
May 27, 2022 9:52 am

The point is that the rate at which an agent interacts with the system can have a dramatic influence on what the final state is. I thought MGC’s example was intuitive. I’ll give you another. 3 million joules is enough to completely boil away 1 kg of water starting out at 20 C if delivered fast enough. But if delivered slowly over a long period of time you might not be able to even boil 1 gram of it or even raise its temperature by more than a few C if done really slowly. The point is that rates have a huge impact on final states. Hopefully that is easy to understand both with the car braking and the water boiling examples. There are countless physical processes in which this is true.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 27, 2022 3:21 pm

Uh, you might want to rethink your scenario. Why would the rate make a difference in boiling water? Heat loss through the container?

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 27, 2022 5:15 pm

I do not need to rethink my scenario. The rate matters because if it can be delivered faster than it is shed then it will continue to warm/boil. If not then the warming/boiling will slow down and stop once a new stead-state is achieved. If you don’t like that scenario then perhaps that of power flow in a conductor will resonate better. You can run megawatt hours (literally) of energy through standard 12 AWG conductors over a long period of time and nothing bad will happen. But a few kilowatt hours over the same conductors is enough to cause a devasting arc blast if that energy is delivered in a few milliseconds like what would happen with a bolted fault. I can’t stress this enough. Rates matter a lot in regards to the final state of a system. For some physical processes it can mean the difference between life and death…literally.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 28, 2022 3:29 pm

The rate matters because if it can be delivered faster than it is shed then it will continue to warm/boil. If not then the warming/boiling will slow down and stop once a new stead-state is achieved.”

So what? Aren’t you one of the ones arguing the “heat is hiding in the deep ocean”? If so then how can the heat get shed? The rate doesn’t matter if it’s all in the deep ocean and is accumulating!

Reply to  MGC
May 24, 2022 2:18 am

The nice thing about arguing by analogy is that you can pick any monumentally stupid, inappropriate, irrelevant, scenario to ‘prove’ anything you like. It only convinces not very bright schoolchildren though.

MGC
Reply to  Gavin
May 24, 2022 8:18 am

“you can pick any monumentally stupid, inappropriate, irrelevant, scenario to ‘prove’ anything you like.”

An apt description of many so-called “skeptical” lines of attack against reality.

Regardless of any analogy, there’s a huge difference between altering the climate over a period of thousands of years versus just a few decades. Geological history has shown us that rapid climatic changes in the past have often resulted in mass extinction events.

Last edited 1 month ago by MGC
Richard Page
Reply to  MGC
May 24, 2022 10:00 am

Again you’ll likely have to qualify that argument – geological history shows that ‘rapid changes’ usually occur over thousands of years whilst slow changes take millions if not longer.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
May 26, 2022 10:56 am

Ha! So, you admit there were “rapid climatic changes in the past.” Long, long, before human CO2 emissions were even potentially a factor.

bdgwx
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 26, 2022 11:28 am

There were several rapid climatic changes in the past. One thing paleoclimatology has told us is that given enough nudge the climate system will change and often rapidly at that. The PETM is a good example.

MGC
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 26, 2022 12:12 pm

Janice,

Rapid natural climate changes in the past are not “evidence” that humans cannot also influence the climate.

Imagining otherwise like saying that people having died of natural causes in the past is “evidence” that no one is ever murdered now.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MGC
May 26, 2022 1:36 pm

Again. The burden of proof is on you.

bdgwx
Reply to  Janice Moore
May 26, 2022 4:07 pm

You don’t need proof to know that affirming a disjunct is a common logic fallacy. And besides the onus is more upon those who claim that atmospheric carbon based molecules cannot result in a positive radiative force because they were emitted by humans. There’s nothing functionally special about carbon molecules emitted by humans vs nature. They interact with the EM spectrum and impede the transmission of radiation all the same.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MGC
May 27, 2022 9:09 am

And you can prove this using Car accidents? Ridiculous beyond my ability to continue to entertain.

bdgwx
Reply to  john harmsworth
May 28, 2022 8:30 am

If you don’t understand that rates can have a dramatic effect on the final state using the car wreck example then it is unlikely another example would bring about an epiphany.

MGC
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 9:30 pm

Arrhenius thought that warming would be “beneficial” only because it would occur over thousands of years, not over just a few decades time.

That’s the difference between bringing a car going 60 mph to a slow, gradual stop, versus bringing that same car to a stop by running straight into a brick wall.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MGC
May 27, 2022 9:18 am

The IPCC also stated that warming of up to !.%C was generally beneficial for the planet. Lots of evidence from the past to confirm that. even before we talk about the frozen wastelands of the planet. Of course, that was before the permanently “politically aggrieved” saw an opportunity to destroy Capitalsm, kill billions with nonsensical economic pipedreams and of course, advance and enrich themselves in the process. All the people who never, ever contribute anything to making the world better for a single soul. the intellectual and immoral heirs of Karl Marx. Now there’s some unfortunate CO2 production for you.
Regressive, “green” taxes, skyrocketing government spending for no benefit, energy poverty and restricted human freedom? Check!

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 8:45 pm

Nick, you fail to acknowledge how important this paper was to establishing the IPCC’s narrative.

This was the paper that provided a theoretical rationalization for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. I believe it was Schlesinger who first came up with applying Bode, but as part of his curriculum, albeit as his own unreviewed analysis. This analysis was eventually published as an appendix to a paper in a collection of papers edited by Mike MacCracken and Fred Luther, ostensibly reviewed by these editors, but not really, as all they did was produce cleaner figures for Schlesinger’s work. After this publication, the analysis was considered ‘peer reviewed’ and never subject to the level of review necessary for something so significant to the formation of the IPCC.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 23, 2022 9:02 pm

This was the paper that provided a theoretical rationalization for a climate sensitivity large enough”
Arrhenius did exactly the same algebra as Hansen, in a much more famous paper in 1896, and got a CS of 4°C/doubling, which is very close to what Hansen’s GCM produced.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 27, 2022 9:24 am

126 years of unending research. Zero change in that 4C maximum assessment. If the fact that tens of millions is still being spent isn’t evidence of the political nature of this number, I give up on the state of modern science. It is a shameful indictment of it’s fakirs. Nobody honest and knowledgeable human can possibly think that 4C is in any way likely. Runaway warming? Give me a break. Grifters!

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 23, 2022 9:07 pm

Here is the relevant part of Hansen’s 1984 paper. He mentions Bode at the start. But there is nothing at all in the maths that depends on Bode. It stands on its own.

comment image

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 9:59 pm

His equation (7) is absolutely wrong. The actual equation is g = G/(1 – Gf). Not only did he confuse the closed loop gain, g, with the feedback fraction, f, he assumed the open loop gain, G, is a dimensionless 1 without acknowledging his assumption.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 23, 2022 10:34 pm

“His equation (7) is absolutely wrong.”
No, its derivation is elementary and correct. He has
ΔT_eq=f*ΔT_0 (4)
ΔT_feedbacks=g*ΔT_eq=g*f*ΔT_0 (5)

So in his balance equation
ΔT_eq=ΔT_0+ΔT_feedbacks (6)
you can substitute using (4) and (5)
ΔT_eq=f*ΔT_0=ΔT_0+g*f*ΔT_0

Dividing by ΔT_0:
f=1+g*f
so that f*(1-g)=1
and so follows (7): f=1/(1-g)

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 10:49 pm

People thinking that the atmosphere can be modeled with electronic circuit analysis….

Its cute, in a hilariously stupid sort of way.

Mike
Reply to  b.nice
May 23, 2022 11:27 pm

It’s like building a machine and being left holding a bucket full of bolts when you’re finished.

Reply to  b.nice
May 24, 2022 12:02 am

Nobody thinks that, except maybe Lord Monckton. It can be modelled with mathematics.

commieBob
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 4:28 am

Monckton, himself, is not a control systems expert. He got one to do the analysis.

Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2022 7:38 am

commiebob,
I’m also an accomplished expert in feedback control systems. I first understood Bode and was designing amplifiers back in 10’th grade and even taught the subject to undergrads when I was a grad student at Cornell. Feedback amplifier analysis is somewhat counterintuitive which is one reason why alarmists are so confused about it. The other is that confirmation bias accepted Hansen’s errors in order to have a theoretical basis for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC.

Bob boder
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 7:13 am

Nick

Look at the world economy, this is a result of the non-sense being spewed by people like Hansen. You know it’s BS and the result is real world people hurting it’s time for you to stop.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Bob boder
May 26, 2022 9:55 am

I tend to think I recognize the corrosive effects of post-modernism in Science, politics, economics and culture. It may be the end of all that is great about Western civilization.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 9:20 am

But you must use the correct assumptions to obtain the correct mathematical description of what is occurring in the process.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2022 9:52 am

Sure, just not successfully.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 26, 2022 11:09 am

Christopher Essex, a very able mathematician, disagrees with you, Mr. Stokes:

(from his lecture “6 Impossible Things … and Climate Change” here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY&t=23s&ab_channel=NetZeroWatch )

[25:20] List of fundamental unsolved math problems.

2 Math Equation Problems Not Yet Solved (needed for meaningful climate modeling)

1)    [26:10 – 27:00] Navier-Stokes Equations ([27:08]non-linear differential equation — unsolved. – they govern the flow of fluids (e.g., air and water) If you don’t have a handle on how air and water move [] then you really can’t [] have an intelligent conversation about climate[].

2)    [27:15] Computer Science unsolved problem is the P v. NP (Polynomial v. Non-polynomial Time Problem of Computational Complexity) math problem – this limits how well (not at all, at this time) a computer can be used to solve the math equations needed to solve climate model’s queries –

[27:40] BOTH the above must be solved to be able to meaningfully do climate simulations re: CO2

Physics Problem Not Yet Solved

[27:50] Closure Problem of Turbulence — thus, cannot use Navier-Stokes flow equation to solve flow even in a closed pipe if there is any turbulence from first principles.

[28:40 – 29:08] Cannot even determine average flow with turbulence (because to average, you have to do the entire original calculation anyway) from first principles.

[29:09 – 29:51] Experience or data cannot overcome the non-closure problem because we have far too little data and or the time of measurement given what is being measured, climate, is far too short.

[29:53] People DO use models to do empirical “closures,” but they are not doing so from first principles.

[30:18] (James Cameron’s) Computer Water Versus Real Water – [32:10] The point is: there are no math or physics equations that give the result pictured (it is fake water and not an accurate representation of the physical world).

Reply to  b.nice
May 24, 2022 7:48 am

b.nice,
Confirmation bias is a powerful way to make people stupid.

john harmsworth
Reply to  b.nice
May 26, 2022 9:52 am

I agree it’s stupid, but not fundamentally different than modelling by computer. Regardless of how it’s done, if it lacks ANY parameters or includes those that are incorrectly quantified, the result will be incorrect. Also, and even worse, modifying any parameters after the fact to correct the output is a laughable exercise in closing barn doors. That it has been done and continues to be done is a clear sign of “science” done by agenda.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 7:29 am

This derivation is complete garbage and has nothing to do with Bode’s feedback analysis that’s cited as its origin. Equations 4) and 5) are complete nonsense and when you start with nonsense only more nonsense will result. The input is forcing in w/m^2 and nowhere are you translating w/m^2 into degrees. Furthermore, you can only add w/m^2 of feedback to w/m^2 of forcing, so where is the input forcing in your analysis? Embracing the idea of temperature feedback is where this all went wrong since you can’t add degrees of feedback to w/m^2 of forcing! Hansen and Schlesinger were in way over their head regarding the application of feedback analysis.

The proper derivation is to consider a feedback amplifier with I as the input, O as the output, G is the open loop gain of the gain block and f is the fraction of O fed back to the input..

The input to the gain block is the input plus the feedback fraction times the output, or I + O*f and the output of the gain block is the open loop gain times its input, or O = G*(I + O*f).

Divide both sides by I

O/I = G(1 + f*(O/I))

Recognizing that the closed loop gain is O/I, substitute g for O/I.

g = G(1 + f*g)

Now solve for g.

g = G + f*g*G

g = G/(1 + G*f)

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 9:28 am

Well, your derivation goes wrong at the end
g = G + f*g*G
so g*(1-f*G)=G
and so g=G/(1-G*f)
Hansen’s Eq (7) is just this with open loop G=1, ie
g=1/(1-f).

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 10:28 am

Nick,

Yes, that’s my point, Hansen assumes the open loop gain is a dimensionless 1 and if you go back and look at his paper, you will also see that he flips g and f.

Schlesinger bragged to me that he was the foremost expert in climate feedback and I strongly suspect that Hansen got the idea directly or indirectly from him. In an effort to get Schlesinger’s feedback model included as ‘peer reviewed’ literature, Hansen misinterpreted the analysis requiring Schlesinger to have a correction published, which was referenced in AR1, along with Hansen’s paper, as the theoretical basis for climate feedback. Schlesinger’s correction was first published as ‘peer reviewed’ as an appendix added to a paper written by an editor of a collection of papers from various authors for an obscure DOE report. This report, which was ostensibly a collection of peer reviewed papers, was edited by Mike MacCracken and Fred Luther.

Schlesinger’s correction had a different derivation that arrived at g=1/(1-f), and also assumed G=1 without declaring so. In another part of the derivation, he implies that G is a conversion factor turning w/m^2 of forcing into degrees of temperature change and it can’t be both. Schlesinger’s error arose by confusing the feedback fraction, f (Bode’s Beta) with the feedback factor, f*G (Bode’s Beta*mu). This led to incorrectly cancelling out the G along the feedback path from the gain block input and back to the feedback summation node.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 12:09 pm

Yes, that’s my point, Hansen assumes the open loop gain is a dimensionless 1″
The open loop gain is 1. His balance equation is
ΔT_eq=ΔT_0+ΔT_feedbacks (6)

Without feedbacks, ΔT_eq=ΔT_0
ie open loop gain 1.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 1:03 pm

Even Schlesinger noticed the more obvious flaws in Hansen’s derivation, that is, the assumption of unit open loop gain and the swapping of f and g. He attempted to fix them by introducing new errors of his own.

Perhaps you can explain how a dimensionless open loop gain of 1 can convert w/m^2 of input into a temperature change output. Keep in mind that the official explanation of feedback is per Schlesinger and echoed by Roe and not Hansen’s more obviously flawed attempt.

Here’s a copy of the Schlesinger ‘paper’ that he copied from his textbook and sent to me.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/ref/1988_Schlesinger.pdf

This next link is where it was first ‘published’. Note that the above textbook was published later, but included the original drawings that MacCracken and Luther cleaned up in their publication.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/ref/macluther.pdf

You can find it as Appendix A in this article written by MacCracken and Luther.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESEARCH
AND MODELING ACTIVITIES FOR
PROJECTING THE CLIMATIC EFFECTS
OF INCREASING CARBON DIOXIDE

It was sneaking flawed feedback analysis into the literature in a way that avoided adequate peer review that sent climate science into the toilet.

bdgwx
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 3:00 pm

It is frustrating trying to reconcile Hansen 1984 with Schlesinger 1988 since different symbols are used. As best I can tell Hansen’s f & g is equivalent to Schlesinger’s Rf and f respectively. Am I reading that right?

Reply to  bdgwx
May 24, 2022 4:07 pm

bdgwx,

Yes, although Schlesinger’s Rf is actually a meaningless ratio that is equal to the closed loop gain, but only when Go (the open loop gain) is a dimensionless 1. Frankly, I think making them frustrating to reconcile was on purpose.

Schlesinger’s error is exemplified by the text of figure 1. In the diagram, F should be f which is the dimensionless constant between -1 and 1 representing the fraction of the output to be added to the input as feedback. He then says that F = f*Go which is the expression for the feedback factor. He clearly confused the 2 by applying f*Go (F) in the feedback path when he should have applied f.

Roe did the same thing in his paper that basically replicated Schlesinger’s derivation, with the same errors and using yet another set of variables.

http://www.palisad.com/co2/ref/roe09.pdf

Roe actually seemed to notice the conflation of the feedback fraction and the feedback factor and incorrectly claimed that either could be used, which is only true when the open loop gain is a dimensionless 1 and not Schlesinger’s Go or Roe’s lambda0 both of which improperly require dimensions and a value function that non linearly converts w/m^2 into a temperature change.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 3:06 pm

“Perhaps you can explain how a dimensionless open loop gain of 1 can convert w/m^2 of input into a temperature change output.”
Again, this is just a trivial bit of linear algebra, based on Eq 6. This identifies the input as T_0, the temperature that would have happened without feedback. No doubt it could have been related to a forcing, but Hansen didn’t do that. As it is, G is 1 by definition.

But you read far too much importance into these papers. Hansen’s purpose was to show how feedbacks could be combined, by parallel summation (eq 12). Nothing in climate science depends on that, which is obvious enough anyway.
 

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 4:37 pm

Nick,

You are terribly confused. Look at Schlesinger’s paper. Hansen’s is known to be horribly wrong. The input to the feedback system is forcing in w/m^2 and not temperature as assumed by Hansen while the output is degrees. How can Go, which Schlesinger had to assume is a dimensionless 1 in order to derive Rf=1/(1-f), also convert w/m^2 into degrees? Are you familiar with dimensional analysis? You simply can’t multiply forcing in w/m^2 times a dimensionless 1 and get degrees. The bottom line is that Go, f, and Rf (per Schlesinger) are all dimensionless constants and any value with dimensions or is not a constant is illegitimate.

Hansen’s purpose was to provide a theoretical basis for a climate sensitivity large enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. Amplification by positive feedback was their holy grail and confirmation bias accepted the many errors without applying any due diligence.

You under appreciate how Hansen and Schlesinger’s errors justified the formation of the IPCC and the duplicitous pal review process that led to canonizing amplification by positive feedback as ‘settled’. You are also wrong about dependencies since all of climate alarmism depends on a high climate sensitivity that’s justified with the incorrect application of amplification by positive feedback. All you have in support are heuristic computer models that are consistently wrong by running consistently hot. I have the laws of physics on my side.

And by the way, linearly adding codependent non linear components together is invalid from the get go and while Hansen’s analysis attempted to show that it was valid to do so, he failed to make a legitimate case, either empirically or theoretically.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 5:14 pm

a dimensionless 1″

An open loop gain of 1 is a short circuit, correct? I = O?

If so then where do you get a summing node for the feedback anyway?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 2:03 pm

Nick,
The fundamental problem with this equation,

ΔT_eq=ΔT_0+ΔT_feedbacks (6)

is that radiant temperatures can not be summed and what would be closer to the physical reality is this,

(ΔT_eq)^4=(ΔT_0)^4+(ΔT_feedbacks^4) (6)

since T^4 is proportional to the surface emissions and if Ps are the surface emissions corresponding to T, Rewrite (6) in terms of equivalent power densities.

ΔPs = ΔPi + ΔPf (6)

where Pi is the change in forcing that would produce T_0 without any feedback and Pf is the feedback power added to the forcing.

Since P has units of Joule/sec per m^2 and all Joules are the same, the absolute and incremental relationships are the same thus equation (6) can be rewritten as,

Ps = Pi + Pf (6)

Pf as a function of Ps is demonstrably constant at about 62% of Ps and largely independent of Pi, Ps and T as it is mostly dependent on the amount of clouds. The origin of Pf is Ps and PI that was absorbed by either clouds or GHG’s and subsequently emitted back to the surface coincident with new Pi. The delay between PI, Ps and Pf is crucial to understand as it’s this delay and not feedback that manifests an apparent gain.

The only point of making feedback incremental was to obfuscate the demonstrably constant linear relationship between ALL solar forcing (Pi) and ALL surface emissions (Ps) in order to establish a different linear relationship for the average and incremental PI and Ps in defiance of COE, but in a way that few would notice and confirmation bias would easily embrace. You along with many others have been horribly fooled.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 24, 2022 3:20 pm

“The fundamental problem with this equation…”
It is a partition equation, which in effect defines ΔT_feedback. The ^4 is a red herring. The equations concern ΔT, with values of a few degrees at most. So your

“would be closer to the physical reality is this,
(ΔT_eq)^4=(ΔT_0)^4+(ΔT_feedbacks^4) (6)”

is quite wrong. It is not ΔT that would be ^4, but T+ΔT, where the base T is not in Hansen’s linear equations. And proportionally
(T+ΔT)^4/T^4=1+4*ΔT/T+6*(ΔT/T)²+ higher powers
If T=300K, ΔT=3K, the first non linear term is 6/10000, which is negligible compared to the linear term at 0.04.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 5:52 pm

Nick,

“where the base T is not in Hansen’s linear equations.”

Ignoring the base T is Hansen’s fundamental problem as you seem to have discovered. The reason is that the base T emerges from the base forcing as a consequence of the same feedback mechanisms that establish ΔT_feedbacks from the next w/m^2 of forcing. Feedback must operate uniformly on all w/m^2 of forcing, not just the next one since the planet can not distinguish any one Joule from any other.

I keep leaving these bread crumbs for you to ‘correct’ and arrive at a proper conclusion on your own. I’ve been effective at guiding you to see what I want you to, but you’re failing to comprehend the meaning of what you’re seeing. I suspect your lack of comprehension is due to refutation bias which is the equally evil twin of confirmation bias.

The requirement for linearity is across all T found in the system, not just approximate linearity around the average T. You can claim any continuous non linear relationship is approximately linear at its mean, but that doesn’t make it a linear relationship and a linear gain relationship is a precondition for applying linear feedback amplifier analysis. NO EXCEPTIONS.

At T=260K (about the min temp on the planet), Ps = 260 w/m^2 and at the warmest T=330K, Ps = 672 w/m^2. 260/260=1 while 672/330=2. For the relationship between forcing (the input) and temperature (the output) to be linear, both ratios must be the same. The only relationship that’s approximately constant and linear is that between the surface emissions and planet emissions which is about 1.62 and of course, the average planet emissions are equal to the average solar forcing, thus the one and only sensitivity is 1.62 w/m^2 of surface emissions per w/m^2 of solar forcing.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 4:41 pm

If the open loop gain is 1 then there is no amplifier, thus I = O

With no amplifier how do you feed back anything? There is no way to sum anything!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 24, 2022 5:07 pm

If the open loop gain is 1 then there is no amplifier”

Not true at all. You can have an amplifier with unit voltage gain, but feeding back current means feeding back power.

Here is an article on the uses of a unit gain amplifier.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 6:38 pm

Bode’s precondition of an implicit power supply providing the gain infers an infinite input impedance, thus no power is consumed by the amplifier input,

The climate feedback model in contrast has an input impedance equal to its output impedance, thus the input consumes power and the output of the amplifier can be either feedback power or system output power (replacing surface emissions), but not both. In this case, Tim is correct and given the lack of an implicit power supply, a unit gain circuit (it’s not really an amplifier) can never produce more output power than input power as there is no source for any extra power..

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 25, 2022 10:45 am

unity gain amplifier is an electronic amplifier circuit that doesn’t amplify. “

It is an isolator between the input and the output so no loading is done on the input.

Why does the atmosphere need to be isolated from anything? In fact, it isn’t! Again, where does a unity gain amplifier have a summing port for the feedback?

Again, trying to use an electronic circuit as an analog for the atmosphere is a losing proposition. An amplifier circuit with no power supply is a passive circuit.

Passive circuits:

-An open circuit, i.e. no output at all so no feedback is possible.

-A short circuit with no gain. If the open loop gain is Zero, i.e. the output equals the input, then G is zero (no gain) and the transfer function becomes g = 0/(1-0f) = 0/1 = 0. It doesn’t matter what you think “f” is, with G=0 no feedback is possible.

-A resistive path through the amplifier, i.e. G < 0, so I>O. So the feedback loop becomes g = -G / [ 1-f(-G) ] = -G / (1+fG). The larger the feedback (f) the smaller g becomes, 1+fG grows in the denominator. As G approaches zero, you get the short circuit case. As G gets more negative (higher loss), g gets smaller as well.

The climate scientists need to come up with a better analog to use.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 4:36 pm

g = G + f*g*G
so g*(1-f*G)=G

Huh?

Why did you change fgG to FG when you factored out G?

It should be

g = G + fgG
g – fgG = G

Factor out g and you get
g(1-fG) = G
So

g = G/(1-fG)

Just like co2is derived.

Check *YOUR* math!

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 24, 2022 5:00 pm

Why did you change fgG to FG when you factored out G?”
I didn’t. I factored out g, as you did here, getting
g = G/(1-fG)
just as I did. But George got
g = G/(1 + G*f).
Check his math.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 25, 2022 10:11 am

You are getting confused with the positive and negative feedback.

Case 1: assume a summing node with positive and negative feedback ports

Case 1a: use the positive feedback port g = G/(1-fG)

If f is greater than zero then g = G/(1-fG). As the feedback goes up then g goes up.
If f is less than zero then g = G/(1+fG). As the feedback goes up, g goes down.

Case 1b: use the negative feedback port g = G/(1+fG)

If f is greater than zero then g = G/(1+fG) and g does down as f goes up.
If f is less than zero then g = G/(1-fG) and g does up as f goes up.

Case 2: define f as negative or positive with the positive sum node

Case 2a: g = G/(1-fG)

If f is positive then g goes up as f goes up.
if f is negative then g goes down as f goes up

I could go on but this illustrates the point. Whether you get positive or negative feedback, i.e. g going up or down, depends on how you define your system.

If G = 0 then you have an open circuit. There is no output.
If G = 1 then you have a short circuit. I = O. In this case where is the summing node?

This is one of the reasons that using electrical circuit analogs doesn’t work well in a non-electrical physical situation.

Again, you have to define your system if you have any hope of coming to a correct conclusion.

Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 24, 2022 5:58 pm

Actually, I wrote 1 – fG as 1 + fG in order to get Nick to ‘correct’ the error (I knew he couldn’t resist) and discover the implicit assumption of unit open loop gain for himself. I only referred to the proper equation in an earlier comment.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  co2isnotevil
May 25, 2022 10:47 am

You devil you!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 9:19 am

The equations are nice but they are missing an important fact. The process for feedback is RADIATION. Temperatures do not add directly or linearly when dealing with radiative processes. There is a factor of “^4” involved This makes the entire process exponential and not linear.

The whole “feedback” scenario is incorrect from the get go. I understand Monckton’s purpose is to show that the linear feedback theory is wrong because of incorrect assumptions, not that the process is the correct one.

One needs to read and study Planck’s treatise on the transfer of heat by radiation to understand that radiation of power is the process by which heat is transferred and not direct addition of temperatures. Radiation power “w/m^2” is the connecting phenomena, and not degrees of temperature. Planck’s document is the basis for thermodynamic heat transfer by radiation and explains how cold bodies do not “heat” hot bodies, but only slows the net total of power.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
May 24, 2022 9:33 am

Jim,
Yes, only radiant feedback can be added to radiant forcing to offset radiant surface emissions per the SB Law. The claim that approximate linearity around the mean is sufficient for applying a linear analysis is irrelevant since any continuous non linear relationship is approximately linear at all points in the relationship. The whole point of the application of Bode to the climate is to mathematically decouple the radiant energy offsetting an output delta T from the input forcing responsible for that offsetting energy. This allows the offsetting energy to become arbitrary which is required to support their ECS which is far larger than the available energy can support.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 24, 2022 6:22 am

You are missing a large part of water vapor interaction in the atmosphere. First, latent heat does not raise the temperature of a water vapor molecule, that is why it is caused “latent”. Only when it changes from vapor to liquid to does it release the absorbed latent heat. In most cases, this is high in the atmosphere, i.e., clouds, and when it is surrounded by lower temperature atmosphere.

You can’t use the argument that CO2 at lower temps radiate less energy thereby allowing heat to accumulate in the atmosphere. Kirchoff’s Law says absorbance equals emittance, therefore if less is emitted, less is also absorbed as you move higher in the atmosphere where temps are less. As a consequence, when water vapor gives up its latent heat at altitude, less is absorbed by CO2 and much escapes to space via infrared from water vapor condensing.

The other interaction is the intercept of the sun’s radiation as water vapor condenses that turns it back to vapor. This is radiation that does not reach the solid surface to be absorbed and reradiated. In essence, some part is radiated back to space as it condenses again.

Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 3:08 pm

“Correct me if I’m wrong but I think James Hansen’s positive feedback theory ignores the energy it takes to evaporate water.”

It’s much worse than that. Bode’s linear active feedback amplifier analysis that Hansen inferred applies to the climate sensitivity has 2 preconditions, both of which are specified in the first paragraph of Bode’s book (which is referenced in his paper) and both of which are ignored. First is that the system is strictly linear, which means the input and output are linearly related for all possible inputs and outputs, not just those around the mean. The second is the requirement for an implicit source of Joules powering the gain. In Bode’s amplifier, the output power comes from the power supply and not the forcing. The claim that the average forcing not accounted for by the incremental analysis is the power supply is bogus as all of this power is consumed maintaining the average temperature which is also not accounted for by the incremental analysis.

RickWill
Reply to  commieBob
May 23, 2022 4:29 pm

That will cause increased evaporation which will increase atmospheric water vapor (the main greenhouse gas by a lot) and that, in turn, will cause Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW).

The residence time of water in the atmosphere varies a day or so around 8 days.

The annual turnover is determined to be close to 522,000,000,000,000 tonne.

If there is a GHE controlling the energy balance on Earth and water is the most powerful greenhouse gas then there would be thermal runaway.

A lot of water goes up and a similar amount of water comes down – over a year cycle. It is not causing thermal runaway.

The least water in the atmosphere is in December and January when the evaporation rate is highest. However the bulk of the land area is at its coldest and the water is converging to the colder land surfaces. Most rainfall on global land occurs in December and January.

bdgwx
Reply to  commieBob
May 24, 2022 6:15 am

commieBob said: “That’s a big effect and shouldn’t be ignored. I’ve read Hansen’s paper*. As far as I recall, there’s no mention of evaporation. So, yes, they do seem to ignore conservation of energy.”

Hansen’s 1984 model was an air/ocean coupled global circulation model. All GCMs solve the primitive equations including conservation of mass, conservation of energy, and conservation of momentum simultaneously. Water vapor is one of the primary feedback mechanisms analyzed both in terms of its radiative behavior and the latent heat it transports. Evaporation is mentioned several times.

Ron Long
May 23, 2022 12:22 pm

Goldilocks and the 3 bears: somewhere it is too hot, somewhere it is too cold, and somewhere it is just right. Where I am it is too cold, shows how smart I am.

mal
Reply to  Ron Long
May 23, 2022 12:42 pm

Where I am at it just right, that about to change to warm but this late in may 104 and 105 F is over due. Hot here is in the teens.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Ron Long
May 23, 2022 2:09 pm

I live in Scotland where it is always too cold. Unfortunately, we now have a Scottish government which insists that Scotland is too warm.

Last edited 1 month ago by Bill Toland
Climate believer
May 23, 2022 1:19 pm

What’s normal?

Imagine this scenario in the UK in 2022:

Persistently warm weather over the period May to July.

The summer was very hot & dry, with some of the highest temperatures ever recorded for the second half of July occurring in this year.

There was a remarkable spell of hot days, with temperatures over 30degC in England.

For the south-east of England specifically, a maximum temperature above 32degC was recorded in each of the months from May to September, and in July specifically, the temperature exceeded 32degC on 9 days.

The media and alarmists™ would be beside themselves, what more proof do you need that the climate is out of control than this? they would be shouting.

…. except this scenario is from 1868.

#unprecedented

jeffery p
Reply to  Climate believer
May 23, 2022 2:24 pm

I cringe whenever the weather forecaster uses the term “normal.” It’s above normal temperatures today, below normal tomorrow, etc.

The word is “average.” For any location, normal weather is a range of conditions for the date. The average of that range isn’t normal, anything within the range is normal.

Redge
Reply to  jeffery p
May 23, 2022 10:08 pm

The media use the term “normal” deliberately because most people will assume the temperature is abnormal

It’s part of the deceit

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  jeffery p
May 24, 2022 12:30 am

Yeah. And to make every days ordinary weather forecast seem exciting they say above average or below average. But every day is one of those. How about they define average as the 95% confidence interval around the mean?

Because then they would only be able to big up the forecast and their job 5% of the time. Instead of all the time.

John Shotsky
Reply to  jeffery p
May 24, 2022 5:51 am

I so agree. Weathercasters have a normal temperature, but places don’t.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  Climate believer
May 23, 2022 5:54 pm

And it wouldn’t pass for hot in my part of the USA. 32°C is under 90°F. To be hot in these parts, it has to get well over 90.

John Hume
Reply to  Climate believer
May 24, 2022 3:26 am

One really hopes you didn’t cherry pick that year.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Climate believer
May 24, 2022 5:00 am

Weather history destroys the alarmist claims of unprecedented weather today.

Vuk
May 23, 2022 1:22 pm

How true, I’ll have to revise my average body temperature numbers, my extremities always much colder than my armpits where I usually put thermometer.

Steve
May 23, 2022 1:29 pm

All extreme weather events are now attributed to climate change. Before fossil fuels I’m not sure what they were attributed to.

Reply to  Steve
May 23, 2022 1:37 pm

Weather.

Auto

Mr.
Reply to  Steve
May 23, 2022 1:39 pm

All extreme weather events are now attributed to climate change.

Fixed it for ya Steve.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steve
May 23, 2022 1:53 pm

Way before, weather was blamed on witches. Climate change is the new “witches”.
Progress!

BobM
Reply to  Steve
May 23, 2022 6:05 pm

Tea leaves and goat entrails.

jeffery p
May 23, 2022 2:19 pm

Net zero?

May 23, 2022 2:23 pm

“GFS Analysis Shows Zero Warming”
This is a hopelessly innumerate article. It makes this headline claim, but the only data it has to offer is of one day, Saturday May 21. And for that there is just a qualitative claim that there are as many cold spots as hot spots. Absolutely no evidence of “Zero Warming”.

To give an idea of the cherry picking involved, I maintain here a daily record of NCEP/NCAR reanalysis global temperature. Here is a plot of the last 15 months

comment image

In fact the average for May 21 was 0.17°C. Not the coldest day in what has been a cool May, but quite cold relative to recent months. But the daily variation you see shows the uselessness of basing a claim like this on one day’s data.

b.nice
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 3:07 pm

Anyone that thinks an anomaly of 0.17C is “warming” needs to get out more.

Even an air-conditioned room isn’t that stable.

Mr.
Reply to  b.nice
May 23, 2022 4:09 pm

Just checked my temperature controls on my A/C system and my baseboard heaters.

Neither of them have settings to hundredths of a decimal place.

And they’re claimed to be for “climate control”.

Is there a class action lawsuit already underway that I can join?

MGC
Reply to  Nick Stokes
May 23, 2022 9:16 pm

Well said, Nick. There are so many holes in this article, that it makes swiss cheese look like a bullet proof vest.

b.nice
Reply to  MGC
May 23, 2022 10:44 pm

Hole is in the middle of that ZERO !

Ben Vorlich
May 23, 2022 3:34 pm

Who knew?

Climate “doomers” believe the world has already lost the battle against global warming. That’s wrong – and while that view is spreading online, there are others who are fighting the viral tide.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-61495035

V8power
May 23, 2022 4:22 pm

Snow in may = local weather, heat in june “unprecedented heat”

Herbert
May 23, 2022 4:41 pm

Remember the First Law of Science-
“For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert” (Arthur C.Clarke,1968).

R K
May 23, 2022 5:57 pm

All temperature comparisons are useless around the globe unless you take into account the area pressure, the wind direction and wind speed, the surface the wind has travelled over and the elevation or altitude of the measuring station. There really is no such thing as average weather – you only have to look at synoptic charts and the ever changing pressure systems to realize this.
I have almost finished downloading all the maximum temperature recordings for many of Australia’s larger cities for the last 120 years and there is no warming. Many of the highest recordings were 80 to 100 years ago

Tim Gorman
Reply to  R K
May 24, 2022 4:51 pm

You are describing enthalpy. Pressure and absolute humidity are the main measurements of what you list.

Steve Oregon
May 23, 2022 8:26 pm

My anecdotal science says there’s never been a cold spring like the current, very odd year here in the Portland Oregon area. At least during all of my working years since the early 1970s.
Worst golf spring ever too.
So there’s my report.

Ireneusz Palmowski
May 24, 2022 12:05 am

The global sea surface temperature is falling.comment image

john harmsworth
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 27, 2022 9:58 am

We appear to be past the recent warming. It seemed to coincide with the recent solar maximum. I am aware of some of the hypotheses regarding varying effects of different light frequencies on the upper atmosphere. Mainstream climate science has refused to entertain any consideration of these ideas because they have gross political motives, but it seems to me that it is well past time that we start to look into why the “climate” just won’t behave the way billions have been blown in predicting.

May 24, 2022 1:53 am

I used to be in the Greens, I then realised fairly quickly, that there was no way people were going to put up all the windmills needed, and there just wasn’t the pump storage for when the wind stopped. So, then I started looking at what happens when all the fossil fuels are burnt. I then found that mentioning that global warming would stop when fossil fuels were burnt, led to some very nasty behaviour by one Con-alley artist. Which led me to look at the science and to become a sceptic.

That was nearly 20 years ago … what has taken these people so much time?

Richard Page
Reply to  Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
May 24, 2022 10:07 am

The first step is to admit there’s a problem – most of these people don’t want that realisation to intrude into their self-congratulatory cosy little fantasy where they are all superheroes out to save the world from the evil fossil-fuel burning villains!

R K
Reply to  Mike Haseler (aka Scottish Sceptic)
May 24, 2022 12:59 pm

Mike,
There is probably only one answer and that is nuclear power for electricity and the heat from that power generation to make methanol and dimethyl ether. Prof.George Olah, who won the 1994 Nobel Prize in Chemistry wrote a book ” Beyond Oil and Gas – The Methanol Economy” It tells how it can be done.

Ireneusz Palmowski
May 24, 2022 6:50 am

The 10-day forecast indicates very cold minimum temperatures across western North America and Europe.comment image

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 24, 2022 9:11 am

Must be balanced out by high day time temperatures in most cases though. If anything, the global 10-day average temperature anomaly forecast looks like it will be on the warm side across most regions.

gfs_world-ced_t2anom_10-day.png
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 24, 2022 11:59 am

Do you think temperatures below 0 C at night will offset positive temperatures during the day? 

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 24, 2022 11:44 pm

The chart I posted comes from the same source you used. Yours shows projected minimums, mine shows projected average temperature anomalies. Judging by that, it seems that global temperatures will remain fairly high over most of the globe. Siberia looks set to be exceptionally warm.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  TheFinalNail
May 25, 2022 7:52 am

Do you think average temperature or night frost is more important to plants? And why such big temperature differences?
Besides, it’s freezing in Siberia.

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Tim Gorman
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
May 25, 2022 10:54 am

You’ll probably not get an answer.

For me, it’s frost. Most plants can handle high temps, even if it hurts harvest levels, but they can’t handle frost and drought.

May 26, 2022 5:47 am

The map and data stated with it say global temperature anomaly was zero on one specific day. Meanwhile, there are global temperature anomaly datasets based on reanalysis with weather models, including CFSv2, JRA-55 and ERA5 (ERA5 uses the ECMWF model). Whole months and years have been having global temperature in positive territory according to these.

bdgwx
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
May 26, 2022 6:51 am

The GFS works pretty much the same way as CFSR, JRA, and ERA5. That is they all use 3D or 4D-VAR assimilation. The main difference is that GFS is designed for forecasting whereas reanalysis is designed for post hoc analysis. So while the GFS does provide analysis fields they are not as accurate as those provided by CFSR, JRA, ERA5, and the like. Karsten Haustein runs a website that keeps track of the GFS analyzed global average temperature in near real-time and on a monthly basis. He also provides a 7 day forecast of the global average temperature and a running log of the 7 day forecast error.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 26, 2022 8:44 am

He makes pretty graphs but they are still of average (mid-range) temperatures with no uncertainty intervals shown. So we still don’t know if the anomalies represent growth in minimum temps, maximum temps, or some of both. And we still don’t know if the anomalies are within the uncertainty range or not.

Can you find something useful that tells us what is actually going on with the globe?

Bellman
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 26, 2022 10:43 am

So we still don’t know if the anomalies represent growth in minimum temps, maximum temps, or some of both. And we still don’t know if the anomalies are within the uncertainty range or not.

Yet this entire article claims it’s possible to know there has been zero warming, based on a single day of the same data.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 26, 2022 11:54 am

The top graph is not a temporal average. It is a global average at the analysis time. The GFS provides an analysis at 0, 6, 12, and 18 UTC. The forecasts are not temporal averages either. They are the predicted temperature fields every 6 hours out to 168 hours. It is only the monthly products that are temporal averages.

I might be able to help you find the data you are looking for. When you say “what is actually going on with the globe” what do you mean exactly? Are you wanting to know the temperature, equivalent potential temperature, geopotential heights, wind vectors, divergence, etc. or something else entirely?

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 27, 2022 4:14 am

What am I looking for?

  1. I am looking for the climate models to forecast maximum temps.
  2. I am looking for the climate models to forecast minimum temps.
  3. I am looking for the climate models to use absolute temps, not anomalies.
  4. I am looking for each climate model individually to properly propagate uncertainty and show it as either error bars or shaded areas on their graphs, both for max temps and min temps. Stop just assuming that all uncertainty is purely random and Gaussian and cancels out in the final product.
  5. I am looking for reanalysis products to focus on max temps and on min temps separately and to use absolute temps instead of anomalies.
  6. I want reanalysis products to properly propagate uncertainty and to show it on their graphs using error bars or shading. Stop assuming that all uncertainty is purely random and Gaussian and cancels out in the final product.
  7. I want climate models, especially those in the IPCC reports, to focus regionally and produce forecasts of max and min temps regionally using absolute temps and not anomalies.
  8. I want the climate models to become more holistic. Both the RCP and SSP’s are primarily emission/radiative based focusing on only on GHG’s and temps. There are no models integrating temperatures with food production, growing seasons, heat/cold deaths, or energy production requirements, at least that I can find.

Good luck on finding *any* of this. If you want to know why I want this it is to:

  1. allow comparison by the public as to whether max or min temps are warming or cooling.
  2. allow the public to properly judge whether changes in *absolute* temps are significant or not.
  3. to force the climate prognosticators and government bureaucrats to focus on whole world impacts region by region. It makes *no* sense to apply one-size-fits-all solutions on a global basis. That’s a failing of vision by the “elites” that think they know best how *everyone” should live.
bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 27, 2022 5:22 am

1) Available via KNMI Explorer
2) Available via KNMI Explorer
3) Available via KNMI Explorer
4) This is done via ensemble spreads
5) Available via their grib or netcdf files
6) Available via their grib or netcdf files
7) Widely available
8) I have not researched this myself, but I believe IPCC WG2 contains relevant information here.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 27, 2022 8:16 am

1) Available via KNMI Explorer
2) Available via KNMI Explorer
3) Available via KNMI Explorer”

KNMI Explorer provides data. It is not a climate model.

4) This is done via ensemble spreads”

Ensemble spreads are *NOT* uncertainty in the raw data nor are they propagation of uncertainty from the raw data.

“5) Available via their grib or netcdf files
6) Available via their grib or netcdf files”

It looks like you can only download netcdf files one at a time per station. That doesn’t help with global reanalysis on a gridded basis.

7) Widely available”

Where? You didn’t provide any links. I can’t find any on the internet. Be specific or it can only be assumed you can’t find any either.

8) I have not researched this myself, but I believe IPCC WG2 contains relevant information here.”

Nope. I’ve looked. The IPCC addresses socio-economic impacts from the viewpoint of its emission scenarios but the climate models have *nothing* included on a holistic basis.

You are blowing smoke. Try to do better.

bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 27, 2022 8:37 am

TG said: “KNMI Explorer provides data. It is not a climate model.”

Correct. Though, I’m not understanding what your concern is here. You said you were looking for max, min, and absolute temperatures. You can download that from the KNMI Explorer.

TG said: “Ensemble spreads are *NOT* uncertainty in the raw data nor are they propagation of uncertainty from the raw data.”

That is the uncertainty envelope of the predictions.

TG said: “It looks like you can only download netcdf files one at a time per station. That doesn’t help with global reanalysis on a gridded basis.”

The grib and netcdf files contain the gridded scalar and vector fields.

TG said: “Where? You didn’t provide any links.”

The IPCC has an interactive site here.

TG said: “Nope. I’ve looked.”

Fair enough. My knowledge on this topic is very little so I’m probably not the best person to ask.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 27, 2022 3:05 pm

Though, I’m not understanding what your concern is here. You said you were looking for max, min, and absolute temperatures. “

I said:

  1. tg:I am looking for the climate models to forecast maximum temps.
  2. tg: I am looking for the climate models to forecast minimum temps.

That is the uncertainty envelope of the predictions.”

No, it isn’t. It is the range of predictions different models give. That is *NOT* an uncertainty envelope. *All* of the models could be as inaccurate as all get out and the envelope represented by their combined outputs would then be as inaccurate as all get out.

You are assuming that reality *has* to lie somewhere in the envelope of their predictions. Yet you have no justification for assuming that. Without an uncertainty analysis at each iterative step of each model there is nothing on which to base an assumption of their accuracy.

“The grib and netcdf files contain the gridded scalar and vector fields.”

Did you bother to read what I wrote at all? It is gridded data BY STATION! As I said, “That doesn’t help with global reanalysis on a gridded basis.”

The IPCC has an interactive site here.”

And that site show the middle of the US having minimum *and* maximum temps going up on a linear slope with no pauses. Sorry, but that isn’t convincing when agricultural studies show the same area with expanding growing seasons and stagnant to declining heat accumulation over the expanded growing seasons.

Thanks for clueing me in on the site but it’s as unbelievable as the rest from the IPCC.



bdgwx
Reply to  Tim Gorman
May 27, 2022 4:54 pm

TG said: “I said:”

I know. I saw the request. CMIP5 and CMIP6 are the most well known suites of climate models. KNMI Explorer allows you to download the data for each model in each of those suites.

TG said: “No, it isn’t.”

Yes it is. The ensemble is the best expectation of the variable. The ensemble spread describes the dispersion of actual values of the variable. That is the definition of uncertainty. This is actually the standard approach for quantifying the uncertainty in weather forecasts as well. You don’t have to like it. You don’t even have to accept it. I’m just telling you how it is.

TG said: “Did you bother to read what I wrote at all?”

Yes, I did.

TG said: “It is gridded data BY STATION!”

That’s not even wrong. There is no such thing as “grid by station”. The grib and netcdf files contain actual gridded scalar and vector fields. There is no “by station” concept here.

TG said: “Thanks for clueing me in on the site but it’s as unbelievable as the rest from the IPCC.”

So you insinuate that this information does not exist, are shown that it does exist, and then move the goal post by employing yet another “nuh-uh” argument. If you are never satisfied with the information available then why keep asking for it? And why not do what every other scientist does when they think they can do better by…ya know…actually doing it better and publishing their work so that it can be reviewed and replicated by others?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bdgwx
May 28, 2022 3:26 pm

KNMI Explorer allows you to download the data for each model in each of those suites.”

Having the data is no good to me. The CLIMATE MODELS need to be changed to focus separately on minimums and maximums, not some hokey “mean” that is meaningless for making rational judgements.

“The ensemble is the best expectation of the variable”

Nope, and I told you why. If the models are all inaccurate then the ensemble is giving an inaccurate expectation for the variable. Until a *real* uncertainty propagation is done for each model and it’s forecast is validated using future data then the accuracy of the models simply can’t be ascertained. If the are mostly running “too hot” then what kind of expectation are they giving?

“That’s not even wrong. There is no such thing as “grid by station”. The grib and netcdf files contain actual gridded scalar and vector fields. There is no “by station” concept here.”

I don’t know what you are looking at. When I went to download the data at the site I had to specify the data download on a station-by-station basis. That’s about as small of a grid as there is. It is also useless for using on a regional basis by anyone who isn’t doing this full-time.

So you insinuate that this information does not exist, are shown that it does exist, and then move the goal post by employing yet another “nuh-uh” argument.”

If the site is useless then it is useless. That’s not moving the goalpost. The site shows maximum temperatures in the the middle of the US going up when that is *not* what is actually happening according to agricultural scientists. Useless is as useless does to paraphrase Forest!

%d bloggers like this: