In parts 1 thru 3 we detailed how ocean currents warmed the Arctic, how more La Ninas were warming the oceans and affecting jet streams. Here I examine the dynamics that warm the land. Because the degree to which the earth’s surface is heated by the sun determines air temperatures, landscape changes like lost wetlands, deforestation, overgrazing and urbanization have all contributed significantly to warming since the Little Ice Age ended. Although most landscape changes are caused by humans, the intent here is show how landscape changes largely account for the land’s temperature trends that have been incorrectly blamed on rising CO2.
Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.
A transcript of this video maybe viewed below.
Read more: The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change: part 4 Landscape ChangesBelow is the transcript to the video
The Big 5 Causes of Natural Climate Change part 4 Landscape Changes
available at https://youtu.be/ja6ZRgntPsg
Welcome everyone
This is part 4 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change. In parts one thru 3 we detailed how ocean currents warmed the Arctic, how more La Ninas were warming the oceans and affecting jet streams. Here I examine the dynamics that warm the land.
Although most landscape changes are caused by humans, the intent here is show how landscape changes largely account for the land’s temperature trends that have been incorrectly blamed on rising CO2.
Despite the cooler global average temperature, the earth’s highest recorded temperature, 56.7 Celsius or 134 Fahrenheit was set in California’s Death Valley in 1913, due to landscape features present in most desert ecosystems.
Less vegetation and bare desert soils heat surfaces to greater extremes. You have likely experienced a similar effect when walking barefoot in the summer on a cool grassy surface and then, stepped onto burning asphalt pavement.
Dry regions also produce fewer clouds allowing greater solar heating than elsewhere.
The same amount of energy can raise the temperatures of dry surfaces much more than moist surfaces. And dark soils, reflect less and so absorb more solar energy than other surfaces
Similarly, urban heat islands form in part because urban development has created desert-like conditions.
Because urban heat islands amplify every heat wave and set new records, people living in urban centers are more easily seduced into accepting climate crisis narratives than people living in cooler rural regions.
The temperature of the air is determined by the temperature of the earth’s surfaces.
1. The sun primarily heats the earth’s surface, not the air
2. The air then gets heated by contact with the earth’s heated surface.
And that warmed air rises and warms the atmosphere above
3. At higher altitudes, the rising air radiates heat back to space and cools and sinks back to the surface
Any large- or small-scale conversions of ecosystems from forests to grasslands or grasslands to deserts increases the earth’s skin surface temperatures.
With the advent of the satellite era, we now have global coverage of the earth’s skin surface. But skin surface temperatures can be as much as 30 degrees Celsius hotter than conventional air temperatures measured 5 feet above the surface. This map of the earth’s land surface maximum temperatures illustrates how solar heating and landscapes combine to determine skin temperatures
As expected, the coldest regions are at the poles represented in dark blue. But surprisingly for most people, the hottest maximum temperatures are not recorded at the equator, but elsewhere due to landscape effects.
This graph correlates the earth’s ecosystems with surface temperatures.
Forest ecosystems cover the greatest area. The northern forest across Canada and Eurasia experience maximum temperatures centered around 20 degrees Celsius or 68 degrees Fahrenheit and the equatorial forests reach maximums centered around 30 Celsius or about 86 Fahrenheit.
Grasslands typically experience higher maximum temperatures, spanning 30 to 50 degrees Celsius. The prairies of north America illustrated in yellow are warmer than north Americas eastern forests but cooler than the western deserts
The hottest maximum temperatures are recorded in the deserts spanning 45 to 70 degrees Celsius. Death Valley’s 56.7 Celsius record air temperature was observed in 1913. In 1922, 57.8 degrees Celsius was recorded in the desert of Libya breaking the Death Valley record.
However, because these extreme air temperatures happened 100 years ago and conflict with CO2 climate narratives, some researchers speculated that Libya’s temperature must have been incorrectly recorded, so successfully lobbied to remove it from the record books. There have been ongoing similar attempts to erase Death Valley’s record temperature. Clearly those who control the present narratives, control the past.
Now with satellites measuring skin surfaces, the record hottest skin surface temperature of 70.7 Celsius (about 160 Fahrenheit) was recorded in 2005 in Iran’s Lut Desert, but it’s not clear what the air temperature would have been.
The reason different ecosystems experience such different temperatures, even at the same latitude, is because of moisture.
The same amount of energy required to raise one gram of water one degree Celsius, measured here in joules, can also raise dry air by 4 degrees.
The same amount of energy that increases wet soil by one degree raises dry soil by 2 degrees
Likewise, that same amount of energy would raise asphalt by 2 degrees. In addition, asphalt and other dark surfaces absorb more energy.
Finally, 2200 times more energy is required to evaporate one gram of water without changing the temperature. Without moisture to evaporate, that energy instead causes surface temperatures to rise.
Any loss of vegetation, such as converting a forest ecosystem to an urban setting, will reduce evaporation and moisture, and thus generate heat islands.
Wetlands around the world have been increasingly drained and dried since global warming began in the 1800s.
In the 1800s California’s central valley was considered a marsh land represented by the yellows and greens. By the 1990s, over 90% of California’s wetlands were drained and dried. Irrigation has only partially offset the resulting warming effects
The most severe loss of wetlands in the United States are colored red. And the percentage of lost wetlands in each state is listed here.
California’s 91% loss was the greatest, but similar losses were observed in the Midwest from Iowa to Arkansas to Ohio. Florida only lost 46% of its wetlands but nearly 90% of the everglades.
Such losses were not confined to the USA. Globally 87% of surveyed wetlands have been lost since the 1700s. And that loss continues today.
Based on reconstruction of tree rings, there has been no change in the natural variations in rainfall, so increasing dryness has not been driven by human climate change. Griffin, in 2014, reconstructed rainfall patterns for the past 700 years from blue oak tree rings. The blue star and dashed line represent California’s extreme 2014 drought. The reconstruction revealed similar droughts happened about 3 times every century and some have been far worse than 2014, even during the colder Little Ice Age.
In addition to lost wetlands, degraded landscapes have reduced natural cooling that happens via transpiration. Over 60 to 80% of the globe’s dry lands have been degraded by deforestation and overgrazing.
As human populations expanded by 7-fold since 1800, the demand for wood for heating and buildings grew, causing the area of deforestation to double.
In 2021, researchers from the US Forest Service compared the effects of the 2021 heat wave on undisturbed forests versus deforested and degraded forests.
In west Oregon undisturbed forests were 5.5 degrees Celsius (or 10 degrees Fahrenheit) cooler. Likewise in Washington state, the degraded forest plantations were 4.5 degrees warmer.
Thus, researchers concluded, “the loss and degradation of primary forests was driving regional climate change and amplifying the severity of heat waves and droughts.
This graphic illustrates the regions where deforestation and forest fragmentation have taken the greatest toll. (rust colored). Between 2002 and 2020 as populations grew, China lost over 6% of its forests
Southeast Asia, largely in Malaysia and Indonesia, have lost huge swaths of forest because misguided politics are subsidizing biofuels and promoting deforestation to plant palm oil.
In contrast, Scandinavia exhibits no fragmentation and a growing forest, and it has not experienced global warming
By reconstructing temperatures using Scandinavian tree rings, Esper 2012 concluded temperatures have been declining for the past 2000 years. The 3 warmest 30-year periods happened during the Roman Warm Period 2000 years ago, and the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago. Both were warmer than the recent 30-year warm period between 1920 and 1940.
Overgrazing has likewise warmed the land’s surface skin temperatures. A 1994 study found overgrazed grasslands were 2 to 4 degrees Celsius warmer than well managed grasslands. and overgrazed north American grasslands were warming 63% faster than well managed grasslands.
The loss of grasslands in the 1930s contributed to the deadly Dust Bowl.
In contrast to the false narrative that global warming is causing more fires, more fires are, however, changing the landscapes, reducing transpiration, and warming the land. Southern California’s Malibu Canyon suffers 2 fires each decade as result of human ignitions.That has resulted in the loss of shrub lands, converting them into invasive grasslands that are both more easily ignited and increase skin surface warming
While studies show humans start over 84% of all wildfires, along California’s central and southern coasts, the growing human population has started 100% of the fires
To what degree these landscape changes bias the global average temperature upwards, depends on the proximity to any landscape changes, of the weather stations that contribute to that average,
As of 2011, the World Meteorological Organization oversees 11,119 weather stations, and to easily operate them these stations are associated with human habitat, not wilderness. The United States has the densest coverage and the most stations operating for 75 years or more (represented by red dots), the minimum time span needed to assess natural vs human climate changes.
For the rest of the globe, that coverage averages out to just one station for each area the size of the state of Connecticut. And that one weather station is assumed to represent all temperatures in the surrounding 5,000 square miles.
Urban areas represent less than 1% of the entire land surface of earth. However, 27% of the weather stations used to calculate climate change are in urban areas.
Urban heat islands are typically 2 to 3 degrees Celsius, or 5 to 6 degrees Fahrenheit, warmer than surrounding, well-vegetated suburban and rural regions. Urban heat islands are typically created by reducing vegetation and removing rainfall into storm drains while paving over moist soils and wetlands with asphalt and concrete.
Oddly, some studies, simply based on population size, argue rural and urban areas are equally warming and so blame rising temperatures on CO2. But those studies ignore the fact that even with smaller populations, rural areas are warming due to lost wetlands, deforestation, and overgrazing.
To robustly evaluate the warming effects of CO2, new studies must be done that account for the effects of those landscape changes,
These NASA photographs show the effect of urban centers versus more vegetated suburbs seen in green. The infrared photo shows the well vegetated suburbs are 10 degrees Celsius or 18 degrees Fahrenheit cooler
Again, it is no coincidence that it is typically urban dwellers suffering from urban heat islands who mistakenly support political parties that push a global warming climate crisis.
In addition to adding more vegetation, one solution to reduce urban heat islands, requires converting dark rooftops to white roof tops
Dark roofs absorb 16 times more heat than white surfaces. And hotter roofs generate hotter buildings
Dark roofs heat the atmosphere 4 times more than white surfaces Additionally hotter buildings emit more heat through the night increasing the nighttime minimum temperatures.
In 1988, Thomas Karl, who later became director of the National Climatic Data Center, published research showing that as an urban center’s population increased, so did the early morning minimum temperatures, but not maximum temperatures
In a town of 10,000 people, the minimum temperature increased twice as much as a small-town of 2000 people. In a city of one million people, the minimum temperature increased 15 times more than the small town.
And although maximum temperatures decreased, the city’s average temperature still increased 15 times more than the small town. As cities grow the altered landscape, added buildings, and streets of asphalt will store more daytime heat, which is then slowly released at night, and that best explains the asymmetric temperature trends.
Trying to evaluate how temperatures were affecting Sierra Nevada wildlife, I examined the temperature data from the nearest us historical climate network station in Tahoe City. Unexpectedly, but like Karl’s study, I found the maximum temperatures were highest in the 1930s and have been cooling since But minimum temperatures had been rising.
The Sierra Nevada was not getting hotter. Surfaces were just cooling less by early morning
Unfortunately, the commonly paraded temperature trends only present the average of the maximum and minimum and that misleading statistic hides the grossly different temperature dynamics.
Minimum temperatures are more sensitive than maximums to surface changes due to differences in daytime and nighttime convection. Solar heating during the day generates robust convection that carries heat away from the surface and upwards, to mix with cooler air above.
During the night, convection is greatly reduced so that air warmed at the surface is not diluted by mixing with cooler air above. Inversion layers often form that can trap heat, even preventing smoke from rising.
In 2013 I published this graph in my book of temperatures in Death Valley, from data supplied by the us historical climate network. The climate trends were very similar to that observed in the Tahoe City data and elsewhere in California, with the maximum temperatures peaking in the 1930s.
Death Valley’s weather station shows it was sited in a more natural landscape in 1913 when its record maximum temperature was recorded, even though minimum temperatures were much lower.
As meteorologist Anthony Watts and his Surface Station surveys have revealed, even Death Valley has been affected by landscape changes. As Death Valley became a National Park and popular tourist spot, a visitor’s center and several RV parks were added around the weather station. The observed rise in minimum temperature is again consistent with those land surface changes.
Death Valley is also a symbol of how fragile our temperature data has become as politics can outweigh science. The data I published had been previously adjusted for any known errors.
It was consistent with California’s regional climate trends observed in Tahoe city and Yosemite national park as well as other stations around the country.
Peak maximum temperatures were consistent with the EPA’s heat wave index that also peaked in the 1930s.
But in 2014, I got an email accusing me of misrepresenting the Death Valley data. When I checked, I found Death Valley’s data had been adjusted once again, and this time the 1930s warm peak was squashed
And Death Valley’s temperature trend was now structured to align with the current CO2 global warming narratives.
Clearly those who control the present, control the past.
Up next: part 5 of the big 5 natural causes of climate change: clouds . Until then…. Embrace renowned scientist Thomas Huxley’s advice….
Skepticism is our highest of duties and blind faith the one unpardonable sin!
A very useful summary but a few points that are not quite right.
In relation to convection it needs to be noted that rising air cools because surface KE is converted to atmospheric PE via expansion as it rises. PE cannot radiate to space until it is returned to the surface as KE again elsewhere in descending air. Nor can that PE produce downward radiation.
Additionally, deserts are hot and cloud free because they are locations of descending air which heats as it descends and dissipates any clouds. The air is dry because it lost all its moisture in the upward leg. Deserts are generally situated beneath the downward leg of a permanent Hadley, Ferrel or Polar cell.
Deserts are dry because they are almost always located downwind of elevated terrain that causes moist maritime air masses to rise and adiabatically give up much of their moisture via precipitation on the upwind side of the elevated terrain. In the the mid latitudes (30 to 60 deg) in both northern and Southern Hemispheres the prevailing winds are westerlies while in the tropics the prevailing winds are northeasterly north of the equator and southeasterly south of the equator.
To find a desert, find the prevailing wind direction and the location of upwind high terrain.
The driest place on earth is the Atacama Desert located in a long valley between the Andes Mountains to the east and Chilean coastal range to the west. At 24 deg south lat this desert is near the place where the southeasterly trades give way to the westerlies, creating a sort of “perfect storm” of rain shadow, no matter which way the wind blows.
Some deserts occur where high ground upwind enhances the effect of being beneath the descending leg of a climate zone cell.
It is no coincidence that the main deserts in both hemisphere are at similar distances from the equator.
Well, the point I made is that it is the prevailing westerlies that become maritime air masses that deliver most of the precipitation in the mid-latitudes – running 30 to 60 degrees north or south of the equator. Whenever there is high terrain between a given area on land and its prevailing maritime air mass, it always results in high rainfall on the upwind side, and low rainfall on the downwind side. Be it the “Great American Desert: located east of the Cascades and Sierras, and again on the east side of the Rockies where the westerlies deposit more precip on recurring high ground. Or the Sahara desert east of the Atlas Mountains in coastal west Africa, the Atacama desert as I described above which is not in the mid latitudes, but because of it position between two mountain ranges, ended up being the driest place on Earth.
and some deserts occur where there is an adjacent cold water ocean current … Namibia, for example. No mountain range.
In convection the fluid motion itself transports the heat energy, and so the total heat flux increases. The generated potential energy is converted into the kinetic energy of the fluid and then dissipated into heat energy by viscosity. This is the energy cycle. While most processes are reversible, latent heat transport to height is not. This wastes potential energy.
In mechanical energy budgets, such as Wilde’s, the diabatic turbulent factors of latent and sensible heat are intertwined with the adiabatic process.
Convective efficiency of the energy cycle depends on two aspects:
i) the relative magnitude of latent and sensible heat transport, and
ii) the relative magnitude of the frictional dissipation due to precipitation as compared to the viscous dissipation of kinetic energy.
The latter ratio (ii) impacts 8 W m-2 in terms of potential energy wastage in mechanical energy budgets. This, by more or less frictional vs viscous dissipation of kinetic energy. This alone can account for a large part of centennial scale TOA imbalances.
And this does not include any direct diabatic consequences of turbulent flux in (i). Although, they are related.
Last self reply: in the context of landscape changes to climate, then, in addition to changes to latent heat flux from the surface in the form of evaporation and transpiration, we must also quantify a change in the presence of hygroscopic bacteria that act as precipitation nuclei over the continents. A reduction of precipitation nuclei will warm the system. Hygroscopic bacteria tend to transpire with water vapor from healthy leafy vegetated systems. CMIP is a long way from this level of computing, even then, the process is barely understood.
Too deep in the weeds for the downvoters? I’ll try to dial it back for the lowest common denominator (to accommodate).
The persistent La Nina state of the tropical Pacific has changed the conditions in central Australia through this austral summer. There was enough atmospheric moisture to initiate deep convection and much of Australia became a convergence zone for mid-level moisture. Some water brought more water.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2022/01/15/1700Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=total_precipitable_water/orthographic=-225.00,-22.22,802/loc=132.316,-25.131
Yes, El Niño and La Niña do cause the convective overturning circulation to move around a bit at the surface.
Stephen what did I say to ever make you think I was suggesting PE was radiating to space, I am very well aware of that.You are misrepresenting what was said.
Probably the best way to think about it is in terms of enthalpy, if we want to get technical. The enthalpy of a parcel of air is the sum of its internal energy and potential energy due to pressure. A rising air parcel cools by BOTH radiating its internal energy and cooling as it expands as pressure drops. Unless it radiates away its internal heat the parcel of air would warm if it sinks, and thus is unlikely to ever sink back to surface as cool air.
And I appreciate you trying to tell me how deserts form, but that was not the focus of this article. I have written about deserts forming beneath descending air many times, such as this January I post here HOW PRESSURE SYSTEMS CONTROL CLIMATE PART 2: ITCZ, RAINFOREST AND DESERTS
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/04/how-pressure-systems-control-climate-part-2-itcz-rainforests-and-deserts/
Yes you have but I was addressing readers who might not know that.
Not quite Stephen, Your comments seem more driven by your competitive ego. You opened with a supposed ‘correction’ saying “few points that are not quite right” which will only confuse the reader because my points were accurate. If you opened perhaps with “in addition” you might be able to claim you were helping readers.
You said that at higher altitudes the rising air radiates heat to space. My clarification was for the benefit of readers who might not realise that the portion converted to PE cannot be radiated to space.
Bringing PE and KE into the discussion taking people down your personal rabbit hole, is only an un-needed distraction that added nothing.
You said that a parcel of air having risen is unlikely to return to the surface as cool air. In fact the descent is forced within the convective overturning circulation because colder denser air at height is always heavier than the warmer less dense air rising up from below and is then always heavier colder and denser than the surrounding air all the way back to the surface.
I agree that we should not allow these issues to distract from your overall submission.
That isn’t what Jim said. What he said is
He made a conditional statement. In engineering terms he said that without heat transfer to a cold reservoir (radiation to space) the cycle of this convective heat engine will cease to work.
That is simply wrong. Convective overturning will occur even without any radiation to space for the reason I set out.
Uneven surface heating makes it inevitable
It is a tenet of the alarmists that convection would cease in the absence of radiation to space.
I dont know why you are getting this so wrong, you seem to otherwise have a decent grasp weather dynamics.
Your statement here regards “colder denser air at height is always heavier than the warmer less dense air rising up from below and is then always heavier colder and denser than the surrounding air all the way back to the surface” is misleading and irrelevant because you omit the dynamics that cause colder and denser air.
Again an air parcel’s temperature (its enthalpy) is controlled by changes in BOTH absorbed/emitted internal energy and any adiabatic changes, complicated by changes in latent and sensible heat modulated by evaporation and condensation. Air parcels acquire internal energy primarily via conduction with the earth’s surface, or other gas molecules.
Adiabatic heating and cooling are controlled by the Gas Laws, pressure and volume. In a situation where the air totally lacks water vapor, so here we can eliminate the effects of latent heat, if an air parcel acquires internal energy it expands and rises. But as it rises, it expands as air pressure decreases. It will rise to an altitude where adiabatic cooling brings it density into an equilibrium with the surrounding air. If circulation, etc, cause that air parcel to sink, it will warm adiabatically, with a tendency to rise again seeking its equilibrium altitude.
The only way for an air parcel to overcome the adiabatic warming that thwarts its sinking, is to radiate away its internal energy, which 99% of the atmosphere cannot do, except by transferring its energy to a greenhouse gas that can radiate that energy. CO2’s vital cooling effects are ignored by warming alarmists, and I addressed this dynamic in How CO2 Saves the Earth: Greenhouse Gases have Vital Warming & Cooling Effects https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H47-2DnnNw&t=8s
Then we must add in the effects of water vapor condensation and latent heat release which Jim Gorman mentioned. To help the general public understand all these complexities, they must be addressed in separate analyses in short articles. I guarantee as an educator that by cramming every complex dynamic into an article you will lose 95% of your audience. Most good educators for all disciplines follow the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid. I struggle mightily to limit the information in order to keep a video under 10 minutes, which seems to be a maximum attention span for most. And I fail to do that. But for some reason Stephen, you feel compelled to show off to the world that you know all about the complexities not mentioned in this or other articles, and so you undermine any attempts of myself and others to educate the public in digestible chunks. You do the skeptic community a disservice!
I have to insist that you have this wrong but do not wish to further detract from an otherwise fine submission.
Let me add that convection in “air” also helps transport water vapor to altitude where it precipitates and forms clouds. As a result, there is heat transported to altitude and subsequently radiated to space.
Without this extra assist from warm air rising, the only force pushing water vapor upward is from buoyancy. The latent heat is not part of the KE/PE cycle.
In so far as the extra assist results in a greater height being achieved then that part of the latent heat release does get incorporated into the KE/PE cycle.
No, KE is not part of latent heat. The height that WV achieves is due to buoyancy+KE. Latent heat absorbance/release has no effect on height due to KE.
Water vapour is indeed lighter than air and so creates buoyancy. Latent heat release provides more KE and gives an additional boost and the part used to achieve greater height increases the PE pool.
You are going to have to provide a reference showing the latent heat release from water vapor creates higher KE in the water molecule. That is not what I have learned. My research tells me that latent heat release is by radiation, and the loss of that energy allows the water molecules to associate again into a liquid that forms clouds.
I feel like everyone’s talking a different language.
In a most classic climate scenarios kinetic energy is the fluid motion of the atmosphere.
https://atmos.uw.edu/academics/classes/2014Q1/545/545_Ch_1.pdf
https://eapsweb.mit.edu/sites/default/files/Generation_of_available_1960.pdf
Kinetic energy is directly dependent on all diabatic process, i.e. solar input, and the turbulent flux of latent and sensible heat.
It is precisely these diabatic processes generating the gradients that drive kinetic energy
Frictional and viscous process dissipate the kinetic energy of fluid motion to internal ‘heat’ i.e. the internal energy of random molecular motions.
Overall, the conjecture is that the system is always trying maximize potential energy (maximum entropy production) through turbulent/convective process in response to the diabatic gradients. It’s a very important concept, in my view.
Entropy defined as heat supplied divided by temperature W K-1 m-2.
Minor changes to latent heat process can impact entropy production (potential energy). Keeping solar constant, under less potential energy, temperature must rise. These mechanisms do provide a framework within which to conceptualize Steele’s ideas.
The system always rides on the edge of entropy maximum. This maximum potential energy production is the limiting factor as the sun’s heat is filtered through the Earth system.
We have been informed about the ‘unprecedented’ heat wave in India recently, which supposedly is the worst since temperature records have been kept. The reality is this:
Which is an urban heat island problem compounded by a sampling protocol that favors urban areas.
https://scitechdaily.com/extreme-indian-heat-wave-nasas-ecostress-detects-blistering-heat-islands/
“Urban heat islands” definitely impact local air temps, and urban areas are where most people live and experience climate.
Yet at the same time, the effect on global temperatures from UHI is tiny compared to the effect of our oceans and how they absorb, store, and radiate and convect heat or cold to the global atmosphere. Oceans and the coriolus effect on atmospheric circulation are the overriding controls on global atmospheric temperatures.
Firstly, the oceans cover 70% of the Earth’s surface.
Secondly, the specific heat capacity of liquid water is far greater than that of either bare rock and soil, as well as vegetative cover.
Thirdly, the effects of oceanic currents, both overturning and lengthy oceanic conveyors like the Gulf Stream, cause the oceans to both store and redistribute total heat energy at vastly greater rates than does the land surface, whose effects – including UHI – are extremely localized and not regionalized or globalized.
Because of the coriolus effect, the atmosphere generates expansive moving air masses that take on the characteristics of the surfaces they pass over. Maritime air masses tend to be both moist and moderate in temperature, while continental air masses trend to be dry and extreme in temperatures. But because of the vast difference in surface area of the oceans vs land, and because of the thermodynamic heat transfer ability of oceans and air masses, the oceans are far more determinative of climate than land, of which UHI affects only a small minority of the surface thereof.
So the bottom line is that UHI has exaggerated effects on limited local areas of air temps that happen to be where most people live and experience climate … while the oceans effectively control both regional and global temperatures.
Better said than me. Your comment was further down the queue.
But, the point is that the temperature measurements the global warming hypothesis is based on are mostly biased high by increasing UHIs at the measurement points, which then exaggerates whatever warming may be occurring.
You forgot to point out that most surface stations since the instrumental record began are actually located in cities and are therefore are affected by the UHI. The world population has risen from 1 billion to 7 billion and urbanisation has happened. Therefore most surface stations are recording a warning that is correlated to urbanisation, but is wrongly attributed to rising CO2.
Julien –
The part of the world that is warming the fastest is the Arctic. Yeah, it must be all those “urban heat islands” up in the middle of the Arctic Ocean making it warm so fast up there.
Not.
Urban heat island warming, while real, is little but a pseudo-scientific excuse to pretend away the known (and globally far larger) warming effect of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
Jim,
something you didn’t mention is the night time temperature inversion effect. On clear and partly clear nights, the ground radiates to outer space and often cools off more than the air above it, leaving a temperature inversion from ground level up to a couple of hundred feet or so. Orchard owners put fans on poles to draw some of the warmer air down to ground level to keep the frost off their fruit (if lucky). City buildings cause the same effect with eddies of warm air reaching ground level, which is one of the reasons Karl’s Fig 7 shows higher morning minimums near cities with more and likely taller buildings.
You mention the warmer temperatures that asphalt and concrete will reach….I would also add that the view factor for radiative transfer from ground to cold sky is much reduced by warm tall buildings “blocking the view”.
I agree with your causes of inversions and have earlier posts on that topic but didnt want to go down the rabbit hole on all the details of inversions for this post, so that the main points could be made in no more than 20 minutes . Here’s an image from that post illustrating your point from my article posted here last year
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/06/the-cooling-side-of-greenhouse-gases/
It only needs a single-storey windproof wall to be erected in otherwise pristine countryside to manufacture an Urban Heat Island.
Put a thermometer in a Stevenson Screen on either side of this wall and compare them with a similar one in open country nearby and you soon get the message.
How many storeys of windproof walls exist in the average population centres where temperature records are kept?
Thank you. This is the first I’ve watched of this series. It was fantastic. I shall make a point of watching and reading all of this series. It explains so very much. I appreciate all the hard work that went into these.
Are there more studies about this?
Like this i started to see in Belgium a pattern as well: when we have thunderstorms, i often see that the worse and most intense storms form in the “wake of the big cities” (50-100 miles downwind of the 500.000+ populated cities in the paths of the thunderstorms)
It’s that obvious that i even can predict about where the flash floods will occur.
I’ve always been convinced that the biggest anthropogenic signal of the climate change is land use change, and that with correct land management, it can be reduced significantly.
But studies about this are really sparse…
Frederik, Pielke Sr has written about this many times and was a crusader for the idea that landscape changes are a significant component of climate change.
To find more studies on the topic you are discussing, I suggest you go to Google Scholar and search the title of a 2007 paper by Pielke Sr “An overview of regional land-use and land-cover impacts on rainfall”
GOOGLE Scholar will relay that about 480 researchers have cited that paper, click on that number and you will get a list of all those papers.
Pielke Sr. used to post here. He and Anthony Watts co-authored the paper
Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2011:
Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends
J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.Copyright (2011) American Geophysical Union.
That he alluded to that paper when discussing some other publications that dismiss the role of observing station microclimates stating
“An important caveat to their study is that they have not factored in the role of microclimate changes at the observing sites which we have started to explore, as reported on in our paper”
Google Scholar will link you to 124 papers citing their paper
Master of Minutiae strikes again..
But we are making some sort of progress
(Mini Quote: “Cities are deserts“and that is why they have high temperatures. It does not mean they have high energy content – the high temps mean they are DUMPING energy, not trapping it. Same as in the atmosphere or anywhere in fact)
I call BS on this:
Quote:”1. The sun primarily heats the earth’s surface, not the air
2. The air then gets heated by contact with the earth’s heated surface.
I do so by reference to the attached screenshot – taken from my local Wunderground personal weather station (PWS) on May 12 2019. The date is barely relevant.
See how the air temp was 2°C at 05:30 local time (04:30 GMT and roundabout = sunrise)
See how 3 hours later, the air temperature was recorded at 12.5°C
How did “the earth warming the air” cause such a rapid rise?
It get worse because that station is barely 3 miles away from my (Peta’s) Little Station and it recorded the soil/earth temperature at 10.5°C averaged over the previous 24 hours.
OK Uncle Jim: Why didn’t the earth warming the air warm the air during the night?
(The soil temp started the month (May 2019) at 11.8°C and finished the month at 15.0°C)
Later in the day, the PWS air temp reached 18.4°C
Again, if earth warns air, how did that happen when the earth was only at 10.5°C that day and never even reached 18 even a fortnight later.
Soil/earth temperature graphs are the most boring things evah, earth temps move glacially to put it mildly and not a 3°C per hour – as Jim Steele is asserting here.
Get my point….
The oft asserted assertion that The Green House Effect warms the atmosphere while said atmosphere is transparent to both solar and infra-red…….
……..Is Complete Total Utter Absolute BULL SHITT
El Sol warms the air/atmosphere directly – there is no requirement for green house gases – …….The GHGE is Junk.
and how many Wunderground PWS are there out there recording that fact 24/7/365 and have been doing for nigh on 20 years?
Our host here might know, he did used to sell them.
PETA, once again you reveal how totally clueless and dishonest you are with your pseudo science. 1) Your mini-quote was your fabrication and misrepresentation. 2) Rapid changes in temperature are typically caused by advection of warmer or colder air massed that acquired their temperature from thee earth’s surface and then are transported elsewhere. Try read a beginners text book on weather. 3) You are totally wrong to state “said atmosphere is transparent to both solar and infra-red 4) Greenhouse gases do exist and just by cussing in big bold letters that there isnt any will never change that fact, it only highlights your ignorance.
Jim Steel –> A great essay. The satellite data you have provided gives a good explanation of the vagaries of the current temperature data, both from “corrections” and from their locations reflecting land use changes.
I along with others have noted the temperature variance that goes with different land types as you travel. The satellites confirm that these differences do occur and are not properly reflected in the temperature record. “Homogenization” only serves to transmit the land use temperature rises throughout the temperature data.
Back when I used to live in California, I would frequently drive from San Jose (Santa Clara Valley) through the Sacramento Valley on my way to the Mother Lode. Not having AC in my 4WD, my window was usually rolled down with my left arm propped up on the door. Near Davis, there were several acres of alfalfa growing along the freeway. As I would drive by, I could feel a drop in temperature of several degrees. Then, the temperature would climb back up to about 100 deg F as the fields receded in my rear-view mirror.
Interesting but these are anecdotes.
How about taking the area of lost wetlands, the delta in albedo change/heat absorption change and comparing the resulting number vs. the consensus increase in watts/square meter?
That will at least give an idea of the relative orders of magnitude are comparable.
Ditto urban heat islands, overgrazing etc.
Note I’m not saying the idea that land use is the major factor in warming is wrong. What I am saying is that just putting forward bits and pieces doesn’t clearly add up to evidence supporting the assertion.
mr. steele, is there any way of getting these videos on a dvd format? I am considering a meeting with our local school board to convince them that this and other information about climate be included in science curriculum.
Hey Joe, I like the way you are thinking. You could go to my Youtube channel at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7XNHEz2QCJ_Phf2mvDFk0Q/videos and click on any of my videos. Below the video next to the like and share buttons is a download button. You can show the videos from your laptop. My laptops no longer givee access to DVDs
thanks jim.
Interesting article. The site Our world in data provides information on the long term changes in deforestation.
https://ourworldindata.org/forests-and-deforestation
Is it possible to quantify the effect of UHI on world temperature with these data?
The problem is even though urban areas only cover ~1% of the land surface, they comprise 27% of the weather stations used to compute the average. There were earlier attempts to factor out urban heat effects but now some data products don’t bother while others believe their pair-wise homogenization schemes deal with the issue, but that is a very dubious assumption. If a pair of stations differ which one gets adjusted? And they don’t even attempt to account for all the other landscape changes mentioned here that bias regional temperature data.
This series is very thought provoking Jim. I have enjoyed it. Frankly the number of minor and major influences leading to what we call climate is vast and mostly escape peoples’ notice. Many landscape changes are quite slow and also go unoticed.
I live in the eastern portion of the mountainous west. There are noticeable changes in the hydrology of this region from the mid to late 1960s when I hiked the mountains as a young guy to the present time. One involved fussing with the local beavers who had a big influence on retaining spring runoff into the later parts of summer. Once the beavers were removed and their dams breached the whole of the mountains tended toward being drier earlier in the summer, and what followed was brush and forest being replaced by grassland or bare ground. I have no data to back this up, but the mountains seem warmer to me in high summer than they once did. People are trying to re-establish beavers in lots of places.
Likewise, the explosion of ungulate populations from the 1920s or so into the 1980s led to loss of brushy and forested country and expansion of grasslands and bare ground. As much as I like to view ungulate herds, the return of predators to control them leads slowly to improved country with grassland giving way to forest and brush once again.
This guy is awesome. His one video details the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule and why it doesn’t penetrate water, and shows that the top layer of the ocean is COOLER than the deeper water. If CO2 can’t explain the oceans warming you can’t claim CO2 is causing Global Warming.
Land use changes/landscape changes IMHO the largest human influence on the climate. While GHG emissions are highly-overrated, land-use changes are greatly under calculated.
My contention is the UHE is the primary source of any warming observed in the datasets. Adjusted properly for UHE, global warming just goes away…
Article can be summarized as follows:
“There are climatic influences other than CO2 radiative forcing. Let’s just focus on them and ignore CO2, even though decades of research evidence point to CO2 is the dominant factor.”
Water vapor is the dominate greenhouse gas
Mike, the level of water vapor in the air cannot change on its own. The dominant factor in changing the earth’s climate is currently atmospheric CO2.
Well there’s an ignorant non-sequitor
I am “replying” because the software for this site says “you already voted for this comment” (which I know to be impossible). PLUS 1.
You misinterpret my intent MGC in an apparent attempt to obscure the science by promoting groupthink! Good science always requires a controlled experiment in order to determine with any reasonable possibilities that it is the variable in question causing the effect. It is impossible to have a controlled experiment in climate change science, except for examination of small manageable dynamics.
To scientifically evaluate any climate effects of CO2, we must control for all the variables causing natural climate change. The “decades of research” research that you embrace failed to do that proper accounting of all the natural variables in their rush to push CO2 as the cause of everything, and thus control our energy industries.
Once we analyze all the natural variables, the effects of rising CO2 on climate fail to be significant. And if you objectively read the scientific research, you will find many researchers over the decades have confessed that the anthropogenic climate signal has failed to emerge from natural variability, ( to get published, they add “maybe in the future”)
Excellent points.
Dr. Pat Frank has a response on another article that espouses what science and scientists should be.
Simple linear regressions of created temperature data will NEVER prove that CO2 is the only or even a major factor of increasing temperatures.
Science requires observations, hypothesis, physical experiments, mathematics providing accurate predictions, and most importantly, ACCURATE MEASUREMENTS verifying the results.
Current climate science has none of this. Even in the face of facts as presented here they refuse to address how well mixed CO2 can result in temperatures around the globe that vary from no growth to a modicum of higher temperatures.
Jim Steele says: “the effects of rising CO2 on climate fail to be significant”
There is ample evidence from earth’s climate history that resoundingly refutes this claim, with the PETM event of 55 million years ago being the most dramatic. During the PETM, geologic processes rapidly dumped large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Large and rapid temperature increases resulted.
The difference between the PETM and today is that we are putting CO2 into the air ten times faster.
Clearly MGC you are easily led. You totally fail to recognize the difference between a speculative narrative and solid science. Reconstructions of the PETM period are far, far far from proving any effect of CO2. There has been trustworthy proof of determining if rising CO2 was a just a result or a cause of many other changes . As the continents were shifting, the oceans were cooling from the bottom up, changes in upwelling brought deep sequestered CO2 to the surface. There were many dynamics effecting climate.
re: “reconstructions of the PETM period are far, far far from proving any effect of CO2.”
MGC, you have your choice between:
1 – published scientific research conclusions
2 – “just because Jim Steele says so”
Monty, I’ll stick with Door Number One!
Damn MGC, IS the troll factory giving you a bonus for every dishonest smears you throw.
What Jim Steele says is based on published scientific conclusions. What MGC the troll says, is only a generality attempting to push groupthink.
Here is just one published scientific research paper supporting my claim that ocean circulation could have easily caused the PETM and in the process emitted CO2. High CO2 being a result, NOT a cause!
From Deep-Sea Temperature and Circulation Changes at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum Tripati & Elderfield (2005)
“The abrupt switch to convection in the North Pacific is modeled to have warmed the deep ocean by up to 3 to 5°C and could have driven the PETM by maintaining high levels of atmospheric CO2 and water vapor. Circulation-induced ocean warming could have driven additional increases in atmospheric CO2 by destabilizing methane hydrates in deep ocean sediments. The solubility of CO2 in seawater would also have decreased because of temperature and salinity changes, promoting higher atmospheric CO2. Tropical ocean warming would have also promoted a more vigorous hydrologic cycle, higher evaporation rates, and saturation vapor pressures, resulting in increased levels of atmospheric water vapor, consistent with proxy data for surface water salinity and humidity across the PETM. ”
MGC, go back to the troll factory, and tell them that because your smears are so easily debunked, that you are not worthy to be a paid troll!
Steele, all that your reference demonstrates are different possible mechanisms by which 1- CO2 entered the atmosphere during the PETM, and 2- how that CO2 remained in the atmosphere during the PETM.
The authors of that study do not in any way claim, anywhere, that CO2 radiative forcing was “not” a key causal component of the PETM warming trend. In fact, they explicitly invoke warming via CO2 radiative forcing several times throughout their paper.
They also invoke cooling at the end of the PETM when the released CO2 eventually becomes sequestered once again and CO2 radiative forcing has attenuated.
And just look at their opening statement, for pete’s sake: “A rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels is thought to have fueled global warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum”. How much more obvious can they make themselves?
Sorry, but I grow more and more dismayed all the time when seeing such clear examples of misunderstanding scientific literature. This latest PETM excuse was just SO easily debunked.
Monty, I’ll still stick with door number one!
ROTFLMAO You are such a stupid slime ball!
Yet another response that contains no content other than an ad hominem tirade.
(Again)
I am “replying” because the software for this site says “you already voted for this comment” (which I know to be impossible). PLUS 1.
Decades of research that started with the conclusion “CO2 is the dominant factor” and still hasn’t found a scrap of empirical evidence that supports the preconceived ‘conclusion.”
And willfully ignores, discards or “adjusts” away all the information that supports the exact reverse conclusion-that CO2 is a non-factor.
So color me unimpressed.
What bona fide evidence do you have that researchers “started with the conclusion” ?? In my view, you’re simply making things up.
re: “still hasn’t found a scrap of empirical evidence”
Sorry, but this is just willful avoidance of the facts. Just a few examples:
Chen (2007)-“Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra.”
Santer et al (2013) – “We present evidence that a human-caused signal can also be identified relative to the larger “total” natural variability arising from sources internal to the climate system, solar irradiance changes, and volcanic forcing. total natural variability cannot produce sustained global-scale tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling. Our results provide clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.”
Jevrejeva 2009 Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850
“We show that until 1800 the main drivers of sea level change are volcanic and solar radiative forcings. For the past 200 years sea level rise is mostly associated with anthropogenic factors. Only 4 ± 1.5 cm (25% of total sea level rise) during the 20th century is attributed to natural forcings, the remaining 14 ± 1.5 cm are due to a rapid increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases.”
LOL MGC says “willful avoidance of the facts. Just a few examples” when MGC cherrypicks a few phrases and willfully avoids the mountain of facts contradicting his blind beliefs.
MGC lets start with your ignorance of spectral signatures and Chen (2007).
Indeed we can see spectral signatures of greenhouse gasses that prevent some portion of the LW emissions from escaping as expected from black body emissions. But you totally ignore all the cooling effects to push your BS alarmist narrative.
Every time any greenhouse gas redirects a portion of the earth’s LW back, to warm the surface, the surface now radiates 20 to 30% of that heat back through the atmospheric window, free on any greenhouse absorption. All the spectral signature indicates that heat carried by LW in wavelengths absorbed by greenhouse gases, simply takes a detour via other wavelengths.
ALL atmospheric scientists agree that CO2 absorption is saturated in the lower atmosphere. So the alarmist then argue, that CO2 is not saturated at higher altitudes. But at higher altitudes CO2 acts as a cooling agent for the earth not a warming one.
I suggest learning some real science and stop cutting and pasting biased snippets you dont even understand
(and yet again!)
I am “replying” because the software for this site says “you already voted for this comment” (which I know to be impossible). PLUS 1.
Steele –
The spectral signature as viewed from space, as discussed in Chen 2007 is, of course, a net result of all heating and cooling effects.
The claim “you totally ignore all the cooling effects” is clearly false.
“I suggest learning some real science”
ROTFLMAO, MGC dont bite your nose off to save face.
No it is most definitely not a net result of all the heating and cooling effects.
As Chen states, “Changes were detected in the spectra that were attributed to known changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.” They simply measured how much energy was being emitted via different wavelengths .
Besides, their satellite measurements also did not measure the entire spectrum of emitted LW and thus cannot fully account for cooling.
You desperately need to learn some “real science”
Please describe this so-called CO2 “cooling” mechanism that you claim exists, that could supposedly create an effect that would supposedly “not” be evident in the data discussed by Chen. Also state what the magnitude of such a so-called “cooling” mechanism would be, in comparison to the known greenhouse warming mechanisms.
Oy.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/nasa-satellites-see-upper-atmosphere-cooling-contracting-climate-change
Took me one minute to find that.
Hey there Charles,
Nice try! Really. But sorry, you didn’t complete the task.
1 – Steele has claimed that this cooling mechanism would “not be accounted for” via satellite observation. You didn’t show how this is the case. And don’t you think it rather ironic that the news report you reference states that their information about this cooling mechanism is based on … oh yeah, that’s right … satellite observation.
2- You did not state what the magnitude of this cooling mechanism is in comparison to the known greenhouse warming mechanisms. Got any info on that question?
MGC, Please learn some science slime ball. The cooling effect is well known. How else does 99% of the atmosphere shed the internal energy acquired via conduction with the earth’s surface? No greenhouse gases, NO COOLINg! I’d love to see your low IQ address the physics of cooling that you deny!. But I know you will duck that also, and go on dishonestly trolling.
But to be kind and help the mentally disadvantaged, I direct you to an earlier video “How CO2 Saves the Earth: Greenhouse Gases have Vital Warming & Cooling Effect”. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H47-2DnnNw
Also you ignore the physics stated elsewhere in this thread.
“Every time any greenhouse gas redirects a portion of the earth’s LW back to warm the surface, the surface now radiates 20 to 30% of that heat back to space through the atmospheric window, free on any greenhouse absorption.”
CO2 alarmists like you, stop thinking about the complete dynamics, stopping at the limited idea that CO2 radiates heat back to earth and therefore climate crisis LOL, But you ignorantly fail to consider the totality of the warming and cooling cycles that occur at near light speed.
re: “the surface now radiates 20 to 30% of that heat back to space”
Or in other words, 70 to 80% of the CO2 energy radiated back to the earth remains. That creates net warming. And this effect is observable via satellite observations, which, once again, contrary to your claims, do see the net totality of the warming and cooling cycles.
You are just making up BS you stupid troll! “70 to 80% of the CO2 energy radiated back to the earth remains” is total BS. Learn some science!
C’mon now, Steele. You claimed that the surface radiates 20 to 30% of that heat back to space. If your claim is correct, then 70 to 80% would not be radiated back to space. Grade school arithmetic to the rescue yet again.
That’s 70 – 80% of what percent? You also fail to recognize that as radiation moves upward, less and less is absorbed. You probably don’t even know why.
Damn! C’mon man! You must be the stupidest troll, the troll factory has ever sent to WUWT. The atmosphere and CO2 do not retain heat. How stupid are you? Never mind! We all see it!
I wrote, “the surface now radiates 20 to 30% of that heat back to space through the atmospheric window, free of any greenhouse absorption.” But being the dishonest slime ball troll that you are, you cherrypick partial sentences so you can do elementary school arithimetic.
For the LW that doesn’t exit the atmosphere freely, we must consider absorptions and emissions.
CO2 absorbs and emits LW in microseconds. There have been studies estimating thousands of absorption and emission cycles s LW passes thru the atmosphere. They compute that infrared takes less than one second to travel from the earth’s surface and escape our atmosphere.
As discussed in part 3, it is absorption by the oceans, enhanced during La Nina-like conditions that stores solar heat and warms the earth.
But MGC the really stupid slime ball troll argues that 70 to 80% of the LW is retained. ROTFLMAO.
MGC you are making all the other dumb bunnies look really good!!!
Steele
Did I ever say “how” or “where” that 70 to 80% is retained? No.
As you mention and as we both know, most all of it ends up in the oceans. We’re just saying the same thing in different ways.
YOU ARE SUCH A STUPID TROLL! Nice try fool, but we were talking about infrared radiation that only penetrates a micron into the ocean. Indeed we were saying things in a different way. I was talking science and you were talking more stupid troll bullshite.
Really, Steele ? You’re actually resorting to that tired old pseudo-scientific“infrared radiation only penetrates a micron into the ocean” talking point excuse?
I’m so ashamed for you, Steele. Not only for your reliance on already long refuted pseudo-scientific excuses, but for your constant ad hominem tirades.
I expected so much better.
Here is one more perfect example of why the only accurate way to characterize MGC is he is a disgusting, lying, stupid slimeball troll obsessed with pushing disinformation and smearing honest skeptics,
This slime ball refers to statements of fact such as “infrared radiation only penetrates a micron into the ocean”, and calls it pseudoscience. But there’s is not a single scientist involved in related research that would dispute the physics. That is something only disgusting, lying, stupid slimeball trolls will do. And history shows we should expect no better of MGC!
Here is the physics:
“Considering the absorption of radiation by the sea, Beer-Lambert‟s Law describes how the intensity, I, of an electromagnetic wave decays exponentially within a medium as a function of the path length from the interface (z): I(λ, z) = I0(λ) e -α(λ)z (1) where α is a wavelength (λ) dependent attenuation coefficient.
The penetration depth, δ(λ), is 1/α(λ) which is referred to as the electromagnetic skin depth and gives the distance along the path of propagation for the intensity to drop to 1/e of its value at the interface. For infrared wavelengths, δ is typically a few tens of µm (Bertie and Lan 1996)”
https://www.ghrsst.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/SSTDefinitionsDiscussion.pdf
Steele misunderstands the comment about “pseudo-science” and “only a micron penetration into the ocean” in its full context.
Of course it is well known that infrared penetrates barely into the ocean surface. The “pseudo-science” part is misusing this fact as an excuse to try to hand wave away the warming effect of infrared energy on the oceans.
Final note: as is his sorry custom, Steele has once again included in his post an uncalled for, unbridled ad hominem tirade. So shameful.
At this point, perhaps I should stop expecting better.
LOL Caught with his pants on fire, the troll shamelessly tries to cover up his total ignorance. That’s why the only accurate way to characterize MGC. If he walks and talks like disgusting, lying, stupid slimeball troll, then he must be a disgusting, lying, stupid slimeball troll. I’m proud to call it, like I see it.
Yet another woeful demonstration of hateful anger, rage, and abuse by Jim Steele.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2013/06/09/study-anger-and-heart-attacks-strongly-linked/?sh=5fa23a574650
JS –> “Every time any greenhouse gas redirects a portion of the earth’s LW back, to warm the surface, the surface now radiates 20 to 30% of that heat back through the atmospheric window, free on any greenhouse absorption.”
This is new to me. It is something I never saw before in any of my research. I can’t believe it never dawned on me. Thank you for the education.
I agree with high altitude CO2. You also didn’t mention that absorption and emission are both dependent on temperature. As CO2 cools, it can absorb less and less. So any more energetic radiation will not be totally absorbed.
Translation: I am upset that Jim didn’t promote CO2 as my lord and savior.
You apparently have no objection to the 99% of his report since you didn’t post any.
You are doing poorly as usual.
tommy, why are you asking me about Steele’s 99% statement? I had not been involved in that particular part of this thread. In fact, until you mentioned it, I’d not even read that 99% comment.
You missed the point since you chronically dismiss him while barely discussing his posted report.
You are too fixated on CO2 ignoring many other factors that drives the planets weather system which doesn’t depend on CO2 at all which is why you are badly mistaken.
CO2 is indeed your god which is why you do your numerous pretzel level replies to defend that overrated trace gas with a trace IR absorption range with a postulated negligible warm forcing effect on the “heat budget” at the 430-ppm level.
Yes, tommy, of course, there are factors other than CO2 radiative forcing. But the totality of the evidence points to CO2 as the current dominant factor.
A worthwhile discussion should not simply dismiss such evidence out of hand, and should not ignore the fact that every major scientific organization in the entire world has concluded that CO2 is the current dominant factor.
I posted this you bypass it with another useless consensus statement:
It is clear you don’t have much to offer here.
Again, the totality of the evidence points directly to human emissions of CO2 and related greenhouse gases as the current dominant climate change factor. And that evidence has only grown stronger and stronger over time.
Thus the characterizations:
“overrated trace gas” and “negligible warm forcing effect”
are simply incorrect.
Show us the math that predicts a given temperature for a CO2 concentration. Without a functional relationship you are just trumpeting a wish.
Using time series to show a correlation between CO2 vs time and temp vs time proves nothing. You can show correlations to postal rates, COVID rates, fentanyl deaths, you name it. None of these are proof of anything.
Correlations are done to find POSSIBLE connections so that hypothesis’, functional relationships, and experiments can be developed. You have shown nothing that shows proof.
Read this and concentrate on night time temps and on heat accumulation.
<https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25212-2
This is firm information from agriculture specialists. They have no axe to grind about how rising temps are bad.
Really you don’t consider CO2 by percentage in the atmosphere a trace gas when it is .0430% of the atmosphere.
The true tale of the Atmosphere,
Nitrogen (78.1%), Oxygen (20.9%), and Argon (0.934%) which, in combination, make up 99.934%
I stated correctly that CO2 is .043% of the atmosphere definitely a trace gas.
Absorption range of the CO2 main band occupies around 5% of the IR window and mostly outside of the Terrestrial OLWR window thus absorbs only small slice of the OLWR energy outflow from the planet.
You are a truly stupid man.
tommy
Why did you quote only a part of your comment?
You did not say merely “trace gas”. You said “overrated trace gas”
Of course CO2 is a “trace gas”. Duh. It is the “overrated” part, that you left out in your reply, that is incorrect.
The magnitude of the warming effect from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has been known since the 19th century (Arrhenius 1896) and has been verified repeatedly since then.
Thus “negligible warm forcing effect” also remains incorrect.
Last time I checked the hypothetical ECS range for CO2 doubling in the atmosphere from state of the art CMIPs is 1.8°C to 5.6°C. The numerical models are still in their infancy. Practically meaningless.
JCM claims that ECS range of 1.8°C to 5.6°C is “practically meaningless.”
Ridiculous.
Even a range of 1.8°C to 5.6°C is highly useful. If nothing else it tells us that ECS is not
0.18°C to 0.56°C (in which case there’d be little to bother about)
nor is it
18°C to 56°C (in which case we’d really be doomed)
In any case, 1.8°C to 5.6°C is far from “negligible”, as tommy has falsely asserted.
It is a political construct to limit oneself to the tuned and parameterized models. The infant brute force CMIPs yield a meaninglessly large range 1.8 – 5.6C. This is not suitable for policy recommendation. The CMIPs have no internal consistency and no energy budget closure.
The tuning involves adjusting numerous free parameters, for which each CMIP member has radically different internal tuning requirements and wildly different compensating errors. CMIPs at the core have more to do with advancing computer science than advancing climate science.
In any case, the greatest advances in understanding are occurring outside UNFCC framework, from those using untuned numerical methods, or so called “simple climate models” and “energy balance models”. These are the people who will advance the science to which the learning can be implemented into full blown GCMs at some point in the future. This is where the cutting edge science is occurring, unobstructed from the politics. Generally speaking, climate sensitivity to CO2 is likely less <1K. This more closely appears to align with reality.
e.g.
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/10/365/2019/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2002RG000113
Planets appear to be better characterized using an atmospheric diffusion effect, as compared to a radiative greenhouse effect. Someday IPCC will catch up, hopefully. I understand that science advancement is difficult to accept by someone driven by their passion for activism and their faith.
JCM once again pretends that the estimated ECS range is “meaningless”, even after its usefulness was just shown.
Next, we’re treated to lots of handwaving about the climate models, ignoring the fact that despite their admitted limitations, they’ve still been quite reasonably accurate over the past half century.
And then another helping of the “obstructed by politics” conspiracy theory excuse.
And then on to a climate sensitivity value that is far below the values estimated not by models, but by just looking at how the earth’s climate has actually responded to perturbation.
Sorry, JCM, but I don’t buy any of it.
I noticed a strikingly fast downvote in response to the material I provided. Complex and novel work, which takes great effort to digest.
Objectively, this individual is in denial of the crisis in the consensus framework, who is clinging to belief. The crisis, even acknowledged by his idols, where the democratization of CMIP models is falling apart.
This person is evidently not in the market to “buy” anything.
If your denial of scientific inquiry is not about politics i.e. policy-making, then I’m curious what it’s about.
re: “the crisis in the consensus framework”
re: “your denial of scientific inquiry”
Sorry, just more fabrications.
I encourage you to follow along with the developments.
40 years later, we remain with a set of models not converging, but diverging. With a tremendously wide range of projections, with wildly different mechanisms. If you are satisfied that this science is settled we are of a different philosophy. And that’s ok.
re: “With a tremendously wide range of projections, with wildly different mechanisms.”
Again, no. All substantially agree on the same primary mechanism: enhanced greenhouse gas effect due to human fossil fuel emissions.
I have no issue with differing points of view. But I do have an issue with false “facts” that simply aren’t so.
It’s OK to feel passionate for a cause, and to admit one’s bias. However, this mindset should be removed from free scientific discussion.
You are playing word games as I LATER in my next reply stated:
“Really you don’t consider CO2 by percentage in the atmosphere a trace gas when it is .0430% of the atmosphere.”
This was not originally a quote DUMMY!
You stated that it was incorrect which means nothing since you didn’t SPECIFY why it was wrong as I quote you in full:
You posted gibberish.
2.3 W/m2 for CO2 is indeed small.
This is just so silly, tommy.
You claim “you didn’t SPECIFY why it was wrong”
Oh please. Pointing out that CO2 is the “current dominant climate change factor” most certainly specifies why:
“overrated trace gas” and “negligible warm forcing effect”
are both incorrect.
Sorry, but I’m not the one playing word games here.
You have yet to prove me wrong as I posted the actual figures you never countered it at all:
It is FACTUALLY true that CO2 at .043% is a trace gas. That is what you deflect against over and over.
2.3 W/m2 for CO2 is indeed very small which you never countered it is clear you have NOTHING to work with.
Lets see if you can counter this from the European Space Agency
What is a trace gas?
A trace gas makes up less than 1% by volume of a planet’s atmosphere.
LINK
In the link they list CO2 as a TRACE GAS just I have been telling you.
Truly unbelievable.
How many times must it be pointed out that the “trace” part of “trace gas” was never disputed? How many times?
It was the “overrated” part that was wrong. So was the “negligible warm forcing effect” part.
This is such a sadly typical example of falsely arguing a point, tommy. You can do so much better.
Appeal to Authority is an argumentative fallacy. Look it up. You seem to think that it makes your assertions beyond reproach. IT DOESNT!
The author describes himself as a “proud member of the CO2 Coalition”.
The information that the CO2 Coalition provides distracts away from and avoids key issues; key issues such as the fact that human emissions are increasing a known greenhouse warming agent in the air at a rate over 100 times faster than any naturally occurring change in tens of millions of years.
Personally speaking, I would be ashamed to be such a member.
LOL MGC, You speak like a dishonest troll. No one in the CO2 Coalition denies or avoids the fact that CO2 has risen greatly. That is only a problem if it is truly the cause of climate change. Will Happer is an atmospheric physicist, served as a science adviser to 2 presidents and devised the Sodium Guide Star for more accurate targeting by telescopes and missiles. I was honored to have such a great physicist with decades of research, asked me to join his coalition, along with other top notch scientists, with notables like Roy Spencer, Patrick Moore, Pat Michaels, Craig Idso, Tony Heller, Richard Lindzen, Peter Ridd, etc
I know I would be reeally ashamed if the likes of you MGC was ever invited to join the coalition. Clearly you offer no scientific analyses, only feeble ad homs.
Great response!
“ human emissions are increasing a known greenhouse warming agent in the air at a rate over 100 times faster than any naturally occurring change in tens of millions of years.”
Recent agricultural studies show that growing seasons are extending while heat accumulation over the growing season is stagnant to down (US based study).
go here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-25212-2
Extended growing seasons are primarily driven by minimum temps, i.e. first fall frost (FFF) and last spring frost (LSF). Rising minimums makes the growing season longer.
Heat accumulation is, on the other hand, primarily driven by maximum temperatures. For heat accumulation to be stagnant or down, maximum temps have to be going down.
This matches what your graphs from Tahoe show.
The use of daily mid-range temperatures to drive global anomalies hides this entire scenario. Higher minimums can drive the global average up just as much as higher maximums can. Yet the only thing we hear from the CAGW advocates is that the globe is burning up!
If CO2 *is* a greenhouse gas then it is also contributing to longer growing seasons and lower maximum temps, at least in the US. That’s a GOOD THING! Freeman Dyson said climate studies need to be holistic, which is why he was no fan of the current climate models. A truly holistic model would include the greening of the earth, consecutive record global grain harvests over the past 30 years, and would separate out minimum and maximum temperatures in the models at the very least.
Jim: Thank you for your aggressive defense of the CO2 Coaltion. https://co2coalition.org/
No problem. The Coalition and its mission to share scientific truths is a force to be reckoned with that threaten far left politicians and their pseudo-science. That’s why Tom Steyer and Staci Abrams, who clearly are not scientists in the least sense of the word, sent a letter to Facebook demanding to have this Coalition of superb scientists banned from its platform. MGC is just another expression of that anti-science fascist ilk.
And sorry Greg for not mentioning you in my list above and all the great work you have done.
Jim, sorry, but it is my experience, and the experience of many esteemed scientists (see below) that your list of “notables” reads more like a Who’s Who of Pseudoscience Central than anything else.
For instance:
Richard Lindzen’s own colleagues at MIT have publicly disavowed him and have admitted that he has become more or less a crackpot.
And creationist Roy Spencer?
And Craig Idso? The “Medieval Warming Period” Project at his CO2Science website makes unfounded claims about the results of several research studies that are in direct contradiction with what the very authors of those studies have actually stated about their own research. And then CO2Science uses those unfounded contradictory claims as the basis for further false conclusions.
Here is just one of many examples of what I’m talking about:
Research study: “Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” Moberg et al 2005
Here is what the Medieval Warming Period Project at Craig Idso’s CO2Science website has claimed about the results of this research study:
“Peak temperatures during this time period [AD 650 and 1250] are about 0.22°C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record.[2000 AD]”
But here is what the authors of this research study actually state in their publication:
“We find no evidence for any earlier periods in the last two millennia with warmer conditions than the post-1990 period”
Holy direct contradiction, Batman!
Looking impartially at this example, I think a lot of people would be forced to conclude that Craig Idso’s CO2Science Medieval Warming Project folks are simply making things up, if not just plain lying. And this is but one of many examples from that project.
LOL MGC you must be Griff’s evil twin. A purveyor of meaningless ad homs, engaging in nothing but dishonest smear campaigns, but who is totally unable to discuss the science.
So start withMGC, and state the exact accusations against Lindzen, and why Lindzen’s publications are not accurate science. I’ve talked with Lindzen a few times, and there were absolutely no signs that he was straying from a path of robust science.
It is public knowledge what Lindzen’s MIT colleagues have said about him, written in an open letter. Merely reporting publicly available fact is not an ad hominem attack.
Again you are such a dishonest slime ball. You were asked to provide the “open letter” that you say is so easily available, so provide it, so we can scrutinize its veracity.
What I do know is Michael Mann and his alarmists colleagues were actively pressing university administrator and journal editors to marginalize any scientist expressing skeptical views. Typical fascist tactics that you seem to embrace.
I see little reason to entertain further questions on this topic from someone who continues with ongoing “dishonest slime ball” ad hominem attacks.
Those who know my comment history must find this a truly ironic comment, as I have been more than guilty of the same in my day, LOL.
Be that as it may, what has been stated still remains simple public record fact. Sorry that those simple facts have not been detailed enough for your liking, Steele.
Of course you will once again duck answering honestly when your BS is called out. But I admit, I didn’t expect you to use the whiny “your are picking on me” tactic.
And no need to know your history. Your dishonesty and ad homs have been clear from the beginning of this thread. So the gloves come off. It would be silly to extend any courtesy to a dishonest slime ball who is clearly intent on smearing good scientists he disagrees with.
You ducked his request for the “open letter” against Dr. Lindzen which means you don’t have it or just lying about it.
If you don’t produce it, I might just delete your smears against him and others in your unsupported attacks against scientists.
re: “which means you don’t have it or just lying about it.”
It’s kinda ironically funny seeing this statement, tommy. WUWT itself carried news about this letter.
re: “your smears against him”
Again, merely reporting public record facts, that were even carried right here on WUWT, are not “smears”.
Anyway, since deleting parts of this conversation is now being threatened (in order to cover up the simple truth about this matter) below is a link to information about the open letter written by MIT faculty against Lindzen. Here are some key highlights of that news report:
“As [Lindzen’s] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science,” said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.”
“In stark contrast to Lindzen’s letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system,” said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump/
You finally post the “open letter” which is just an opinion because I challenged you on it to produce it good for you!
Cheers
HMMM. A group of scientists who have hitched their fame and fortune to climate alarmism disagreed with Lindzen, without any scientific analysis. Emmanuel is a hurricane specialist whose opinion of hurricanes and climate change have been challenged by many other experts.
The letter gets attacked by the for profit propaganda group InsideClimateNews who profit from spreading climate alarmism. They did not refute scientifically Lindzen’s letter, their tactic was to push for Groupthink.
ICN deferred their analysis to the political and left wing Union of Concerned Scientists, who I was supported in my anti Vietnam War Days, but cant support their fear-mongering now.
Like MGC, it was all hype, smear campaigns and no science.
Such dishonest slime balls.
tommy, the link to the news article about that letter was posted because a threat was made to cover up the truth about it.
If we characterize the letter by the MIT faculty as merely “opinion”, then in all fairness, the claims made by Lindzen et al, to which these faculty were responding, must also be characterized as merely “opinion”. Just sayin’.
You posted it BECAUSE I requested it or failing to comply would result in removal of THEN unsupported smears you had posted.
It is called integrity which you still resist, meanwhile that letter you finally posted are simply opinions and that is all thus you ended up with nothing conclusive on your initial claims against them.
You show a real lack of depth in your replies that I find interesting are you really over 18 years old?
re: “It is called integrity”
This is a pretty ironic comment, tommy, coming from someone who represents a website whose own writers have not only admitted that said website publishes content that is “obviously false”, but have even stated that they consider publishing obviously false content to be a “good thing”.
Your immaturity is getting harder and harder for you to cover up maybe it is time for you to accept the obvious that the letter YOU posted under request doesn’t support your original assertion about Dr. Lindzen and you have yet to answer Jim Steele’s request:
When will you go past opinions?
The letter is an OPINION nothing more.
Your past failures are adding up here.
You are so out there you aren’t even in center field, you’re in the cheap seats. Do you truly think anyone pays attention to your ad hominems any more?
He suddenly ran away when confronted by Mr. Steele’s request:
He never answered it.
It is clear he is just another blustering warmist/alarmist loudmouth.
You never showed it was anything more than opinion thus you LIED when you made an assertion you never backed up and even when requested for the evidence you never produced it.
You are fast confirming that you are full of baloney.
re: “you made an assertion you never backed up”
More false argumentation from tommy.
The assertion made was that MIT faculty had “disavowed” Lindzen. In a written statement, they did disavow Lindzen’s claims, and that statement was provided.
Steele however, asked for further “back up” for things I never actually said.
Get your facts straight.
I’m not the one here “fast confirming that you are full of baloney”.
In climate science, those who view things differently than the consensus are immediately shunned. This virtually guarantees that any advancements in the science can only occur from those cast aside on the fringe. As the lauded consensus gains ever increasing tunnel vision, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any breakthroughs can be achieved therein. It becomes a defense of existing CO2 conjecture, and little to do with scientific advancement of climate. We can probably agree, climate science is much more than ‘climate change’ or ‘greenhouse enhancement’. Effectively, climate science has been on pause for about 40 years in the institutions. Granted, many on the fringe will be wrong, and this is always how science has advanced. It’s not usually pretty or easy. There is no virtue in shunning new or different ideas, or ideas which have been forgotten. In fact, it’s damaging from a science POV. This is the risk of confusing one’s politics with science. As non-scientists, those who feel threatened by certain scientific perspectives are acting on their politics.
I forgot to add, conversely, as scientists, those who feel threatened by certain perspectives are acting on reputation preservation. This has always been the case. What is new is the the troll-army non-scientist suppressors driven by their politics. It’s quite plain to see.
re: “As the lauded consensus gains ever increasing tunnel vision, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any breakthroughs can be achieved therein.”
There is another alternative you’ve not mentioned, JCM: breakthroughs are not necessary, because the so-called “lauded consensus” is already essentially correct.
re: “It becomes a defense of existing CO2 conjecture”
Sorry, but what is known about the influence of CO2 on climate is far from mere “conjecture”.
re: “There is no virtue in shunning new or different ideas”
There is every reason to shun “different ideas” that are demonstrably false. Moreover, by your own admission, most of them are.
And yet, nothing is being achieved. And nothing will be achieved. Someday it will dawn on you lot. It is then you will seek to understand the system for what it really is.
There, we can agree. However, it takes substantial ignorance to believe climates and their changes have been adequately characterized using greenhouse effects. I expect this mass delusion will be fascinating to future generations.
I’d suggest, JCM, that your conclusion probably depends on the particular definition of “adequately” that one cares to use.
In my view, and in the view of pretty much every major scientific organization on the planet, climates and their changes have been “adequately characterized” to the extent that the following conclusions are almost certainly correct:
1- human fossil fuel emissions are the dominant driver of present day climate changes.
2- the magnitude of human induced climate change presents costly risks to human society in the coming decades.
3- ignoring said risks, especially because we don’t know everything about them and they might be more costly than we presently estimate, is not a sound nor rational risk management strategy.
If the climate poses a risk, we should seek to understand what’s really happening. The enforced CO2 emissions-only viewscape will do very little to improve environmental or humanitarian outcomes, I’m afraid.
I see nothing from climate communicators or consensus climate scientists which offers anything useful on either front. All I see is highly politically charged stereotyping. A false narrative of good vs evil.
Active shouting down of dissenters. Meddling in the affairs of other scientists. Active gatekeeping. Fear of other. Troll armies who do not understand what science ‘is’. The notion that those who disagree are the enemy. Deep insecurity.
Experts who guard the problem definition that match their expertise; who appear to lack context and effectiveness for the complex problems of the world. A story which is causing untold collateral damage to the sectors in which they claim to care about. Their contributions being single-tier solutions and suppression of ideas.
It makes little difference to me one’s politics, or sense of moral purity. The appeals to authority in this arena will not be effective with me. The reductionist method has been a failure in earth system science. The system described in a way that appeals to children, with solutions to match. An utter failure of rationalism.
re: “The enforced CO2 emissions-only viewscape”
Yep, just like the “enforced” evolutionary viewscape of planetary biology. Perhaps even like the “enforced” heliocentric viewscape of our solar system.
You seem to want to continue imagining, JCM, that the CO2 emissions scenario is somehow “wrong”, yet provide no solid scientific justification to back that premise; just nebulous calls of “politicalization”.
Please explain how Arrhenius, who had the CO2 emissions warming scenario already figured out way back in 1896, was “politically pressured” to develop his conclusions.
Arrhenius was free to study his science in any way he saw fit, without meddling by others.
I fail to understand the threat you see from me, or the impetus to muddy the waters with tired talking points. You have your consensus, you have all politicians in agreement, you have education systems that teach about global average climate.
You have your simple ideas that were designed for easy consumption.
Go ahead and advocate to cut the CO2 while ignoring all other relevant factors to vulnerability, hazard, change, and risk. See how it works out. The science is settled, right? Everyone can go home. Nothing yet to learn. The science is all done. In 100 years there will be no further advancement of our understanding of planetary systems.
As you judge, misrepresent, meddle, and seek to interfere, I will continue my work restoring and studying climates. Go figure, it’s not hard.
I think you do feel justified, to talk down to people who you know nothing about. To rest on the shoulders of your idols. To find a few papers and call it science. However, what you and countless other fail to recognize is the damage you’re doing. So sure of yourself, with no doubts. In a word, faith. On a crusade to snuff out the evil wrongthinkers. Only idiots engage in thinking creatively about climate, right? They must be stopped! LOL
My point was, and remains, that what is already known is more than sufficient information on which to act.
Yes, how best to act is another crucial question on which there are significant differences. But the time to wait until we have better information before doing anything passed by long long ago.
I don’t know where you’re getting this stuff. I haven’t said anything about delaying.
As you continue to confuse spectra observed from radiometers as the cause of change, as opposed to the consequence of change, I will continue to work with my local communities to educate on what they can do to reduce weather risks and extremes. As I have for two decades; certainly to the chagrin of CO2 apostles. How dare he! He must be stopped! There is only one cause! The holy CO2 molecule!!! The spectral signatures prove it!!!!! I can point my IR sensor at the sky and measure a temperature!!!!!!!!
PS holy frickin sakes, eh? got a clue? hahahahahahahahaahahahahaha! Americans, gotta love em.
“I will continue to work with my local communities to educate on what they can do to reduce weather risks and extremes”
Excellent. Let’s leave it at that then.
Ciao.
And to continue to expose MGC’s scumbag trolling:
MGC tries to discredit Roy Spencer just because he is a creationist, as if one’s religious beliefs prevent honest adherence to the scientific methods. Often sincere religious people are the honest most trustworthy people, unlike scumbag trolls bent on a hateful smear campaign!
MGC parades his hatefulness, ignoring that there were some great scientists with Christian beliefs like Sir Francis Bacon, Newton, Pasteur, Linnaeus, Faraday, Pascal, Lord Kelvin, Maxwell, Kepler, and there are many others.
As a Catholic I never had a problem dealing with the mathematics that describes natural phenomena. It is the way the universe behaves. Faith is believing God made it that way. If someone believes the universe was made in some other way, then more power to them. It doesn’t change the math that describes natural behavior.
A large number of mathematicians, many climate scientists, and uneducated trolls like MGC all refuse to require the experimental work to make measurements clarifying how things work. CONCENSUS is the operative need for these people. They receive confirmation of their BELIEF, not validation of experimental predictions.
That is why they must cancel real scientists like Happer, Soon, and yourself. You are a heretic. They will excommunicate you for your blasphemous contradictions to their FAITH.
Keep rubbing their noses in the real data and maybe you can awaken in some their ability to question non-experimental prognostications.
re: “all refuse to require the experimental work to make measurements clarifying how things work”
Oh my yes. The worldwide Argo floats network, NASA’s Orbital Carbon Observatory, the Vostok ice cores data, the global temperature stations network, the spectral emissions satellite data, the measured infrared absorption by the CO2 molecule and its quantum mechanical understanding, all the historical climate studies, the worldwide network of sea level tidal stations, the satellite sea level data, the measurements of changes in the vertical structure of the atmosphere, the measurements of solar input, the monitoring of polar sea ice and changes in glaciers all around the world, and on and on and on and on …
These all most certainly represent a “refusal to require the experimental work to make measurements clarifying how things work”, don’t they.
Wow, Gorman. Just wow.
As usual, you recognize a simple time series of a variable as an experiment confirming something. I have no idea what that something is and neither do the climate scientists you continue to “reference” without names.
Do you even know what a functional relationship is? It is mathematical formula defining the output from a given independent variable.
You can plot all the time series you want but unless time (t) is an independent variable used to determine the value of a dependent variable (v = d/t) then using scaling to show how two time series correlate proves nothing from a scientific basis. It is not conducting an experiment either.
Jim Steel is trying to educate you on the complicated interactions that determine climate. You respond with simple moral superiority claims. You would lose a high school debate with your ‘arguments’ and don’t even realize it.
Sorry, but in my experience most scientifically literate people find creationist denial of evolution to be just about as far down the pseudo-scientific rabbit hole as you can go, and the espousal of such notions can’t help but raise sincere questions about someone’s objectivity.
Defending creationist denial of evolution on personal religious grounds also strikes me as being little different than defending the catholic church’s 17th century religious denial of heliocentrism.
During discussions the Catholic Church’s Bishop sent a letter to Galileo at the time asking why, if the Earth was spinning, was everything not flying off into space. Galileo had no answer, (pre Newton). The Bishop concluded that because of the lack of an answer to this question, now was not the time to update the Church’s guidance Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism.
The simplified story of the ignorant Catholics is a typical rewrite of history to cast aspersion on Christian faith.
Science and religion were not in conflict nearly as much as is stipulated, until a secular schism began to occur post the publishing of: “The Origin of Species” in 1859.
From all the bad pseudo science you have voiced here MGC , I doubt you know any scientifically literate people.
Did life start with the Big Bang or the Big Command? Can the right mixture of molecules come together and suddenly come alive?
These are all other worldly ideas. I strongly believe in evolution, but how life began is a mystery. So in my mind it is a matter of personal belief to be discussed in a respectful manner.
In contrast, in the minds of hateful trolls such as yourself, its just another opportunity to mindlessly denigrate someone you know nothing about nor have uncovered one instance that they have strayed from sound scientific practice. Your ugly hateful tactics raise sincere questions to whether or not you have any human decency!
Tell you what, tell us what species is evolving right now, at this moment. If evolution is an ongoing process how many mammals show the divergence that results in two different species. Scientists should be able to find current examples where they can point at the progenitor and progeny that have developed due to evolution and not breeding programs. Or, maybe it stopped at some point.
re: “tell us what species is evolving right now, at this moment”
Most all of them are, Gorman. It is just too slow a process to be noticed in a human lifetime.
Sorry that you apparently don’t understand this crucial point.
You don’t understand what you are talking about. Evolution doesn’t have to happen just during a single persons lifetime. It could have happened 300, 1000, 3000 years ago with both varieties still living on the earth at the present time.
What are they? You’re the one making an assertion concerning evolution, it is up to you to provide the proof of your assertion.
And finally to demonstrate that there is no cure for stupid, exemplified by this troll, let’s look at MGC’s smear of Craig Idso.
But perhaps it’s not just stupidity but a troll’s lying, that he tries to smear Idso for doing.
By cherrypicking a snippet from Idso’s website, MGC claims Idso is lying about what Moberg et al concluded.
But if you know the whole quote, everyone other than stupid trolls would realize Moberg wasn’t being misquoted, but reporting that by using a different methodology but the same data, they found ” Peak temperatures during this time period are about 0.22C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record”
“Using data provided by the authors, we have produced a graph of average decadal temperature anomalies, shown below, in which the Medieval Warm Period peaks just prior to AD 900 and is strongly expressed between about AD 650 and 1250. Peak temperatures during this time period are about 0.22C higher than those at the end of the Moberg et al. record.”
Holy stupid troll, Batman!
Steele, I’m well aware of the “rationale” that the MWP Project folks provided for their contradictory Moberg et al 2005 so-called “results”.
Note that the folks at the MWP Project provided zero explanation of whatever supposed “method” it was that they used to come to their contradictory conclusions. They also provided no reason why anyone should doubt the conclusions of the Moberg et al authors to begin with, and they provided no reason whatever for why their “method” should provide a “better” estimate than what Moberg et al. found.
Perhaps worst of all, they never even mentioned that the results they were stating do not match what the research scientists found themselves. Holy Half Truth, Batman!
Not to mention that there’s been lots more warming since “the end of the Moberg et al. record”; thus their conclusion from the Moberg data that the “MWP was warmer than current times” is now also shown false even by their own numbers (as if it weren’t already false, LOL).
And this is but one of many examples where the MWP Project folks “find” results that directly contradict the conclusions of the research scientists who actually did the work. Every time, their “explanation” for their contradictory results amounts to little more than just some variation of “because we say so”.
Sorry, but I don’t see how anyone who truly values legitimate scientific practice could ever even think of accepting the “conclusions” of such shoddy, incomplete, and yes, perhaps even disingenuous, so-called “work”.
If you were really so aware of the truth, why did you lie about what was said and continue to do so. Holy Dishonest Troll, Batman.
re: “If you were really so aware of the truth, why did you lie about what was said”
Sorry, Steele, but there was, and remains, no such “lie”.
The introductory comment merely stated, succinctly, the differences between what the MWP Project folks claimed and what the research scientists said about their own data. Nothing more.
The details of why there was a discrepancy were not discussed initially, simply to keep that post at a manageable and readable length. But the details have now been provided and discussed, and they can all be verified as correct.
Pseudo science? If something is understood it can be modeled. None of the Climate Models accurately describe the climate, none, and nearly 100% show a clear bias towards greater warming. Real science doesn’t:
1) Ignore 600 million years of climate history, 600 million years when CO2 never caused CAGW
2) Relies on experimentation and the application of the scientific method
3) The “Consensus” is shaped by results from experimentation, not “consensus” based on like-minded determining what outcome they want
4) Computer models can give you any answer you want
All this nonsense can be put to bed with one single experiment.
1) Use a LongPass IR Filter to isolate 13 to 18 Micron LWIR
2) Shine light through that filter onto a bucket of water
3) Compare its temperature to a control bucket of water
The fact that no one has bothered to do that experiment tells me that climate scientists don’t want to know the answer. NASA spends billions on studying the climate and they didn’t bother to see if CO2 can even warm water?
It is so dismaying to see folks blindly parroting demonstrably false “skeptical” talking points that have been spoon fed to them by pseudo-scientific propagandists. A few examples taken from the comment above:
re: “None of the Climate Models accurately describe the climate”
False.
Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
Climate models reliably project future conditions
National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
https://www.nationalacademies.org/based-on-science/climate-models-reliably-project-future-conditions
Evaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections Geophysical Research Letters Oct 2019
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model-projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
re: “600 million years when CO2 never caused CAGW”
False. During the PETM episode of 55 million years ago, geological processes rapidly dumped large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Large and rapid temperature increases resulted, which had profound effects on the planet’s ecosystem.
The biggest difference between the PETM and today is that we are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at a rate ten times faster.
re: “consensus based on like-minded determining what outcome they want”
An unfounded, fabricated conspiracy theory, nothing more.
re: All this nonsense can be put to bed with one single experiment.
Anyone with any scientific acumen at all can already predict the outcome of the suggested experiment, based simply on the Law of Conservation of Energy.
Not to mention that an experiment similar to what is suggested here was already conducted well over 200 years ago. Instead of a filter, a prism was used to separate the various wavelengths. See link below.
The claim “no one has bothered to do that experiment” is just SO ridiculously false.
Herschel’s Experiment:
https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/page/herschel_experiment
I would add to Dr. Steele’s Responce:
1) MGC, can you refute any of Dr. Steele’s Claims? If yes, do so.
2) CO2 has been as high as 7,000 ppm, 17x the level of today, and life thrived
3) Study the Quantum Mechanics of the CO2 molecule and you will be less alarmed
4) Quality of life greatly improves with warming, that is why people don’t live in Antarctica or Siberia
5) Coral don’t die from warm water, they thrive, there are no living coral at the poles
6) Dr. Freeman, considered the smartest man on earth, was a CO2 skeptic
CO2 is 400 ppm, or one out of every 2,500 atmospheric molecules. Do you honestly believe that vibrating 1 molecule out of 2,500 can materially alter the kinetic energy of the other 2,499?
A few thoughts:
1- I don’t know which exactly of Steele’s claims you would like me to refute. You’ll have to be more specific.
The crux of my initial comment was, and remains, that Steele described all kinds of various influences on the climate, but he ignored the most important one, which is currently of greatest influence: human CO2 emissions.
2- Yes, CO2 has historically been as high as 7000 ppm, and the planet as a result was much, much warmer. So warm that there was no ice, anywhere. A return to those kinds of conditions would raise sea levels to the extent that entire states would be underwater.
3 – “Quality of life greatly improves with warming” Not if that warming results in sea level rise that floods your home, and the homes of hundreds of millions of others worldwide. Not if warming results in drought conditions and loss of your water supply.
4- “CO2 is only 400 ppm”
Sorry, but small amounts of critical substances can have enormous effects. For instance, that little 400 ppm of CO2 is what keeps every plant in the entire world alive.
There is simply overwhelming evidence, known since the 19th century, that increasing CO2 in the air as we are doing results in increasing temperatures. It is as much a scientific fact as the fact that oxygen supports combustion
It is rather dismaying to find that the folks at WUWT have apparently not provided you with such well known scientific information.
MGC you say:”…a known greenhouse warming agent…”
If this is true and known then why is it not noted in the NIST data sheet?
Show the studies that analyze CO2 rate of increase millions of years ago were slower than present. Most studies analyzing millions of years ago just don’t have the time resolution in decades to match the last 15 decades.
Why are so many folks at WUWT not aware of the scientific evidence supporting this statement?
Never mind. We all know exactly why.
Zeebe et al 2016 Nature Geoscience:
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.”
Show the studies of physical evidence that accurately determine the carbon release rate per century or per decade from a million years ago let alone 66 million years ago!
No “models” please, those are not physical measurements.
I seriously doubt that you will find any with the time resolution that allows a direct comparison. Prove me wrong!
The paper is promoting a false claim since the RESOLUTION isn’t sufficient to support it against today’s data.
The paper is making no such “false claim”.
Zeebe et al 2016 Nature Geoscience:
“Our analysis yields an average sedimentation rate of 6.2 cm kyr−1 at
tin = 4, 000 yr, and thus an average sampling resolution of ∼40 years”
The resolution is more than sufficient to “support it against today’s data”.
Average sampling of 40 years.
That isn’t close to the resolution of today’s data that is down to the DAY in the modern temperature data.
This is what I responding to:
That is utter nonsense.
“That (40 year resolution) isn’t close to the resolution of today’s data”
True.
But 40 yr resolution is still more than sufficient to show that the CO2 rise rate over the past century, due to human emissions, far exceeds the CO2 rise rate that occurred during the PETM.
The research author’s statement remains correct.
40 years proxy is 39 years bigger than one year and better resolution of modern MONTLY published CO2 data.
The proxy data smoothed or is it he he he MONTHLY ooops can’t do that thus you can’t show a clear connection of the changes then (based on proxy data) to today’s MONTHLY CO2 data.
You are making it clear how silly you are
Human CO2 emissions began in earnest over 150 years ago. 40 year resolution of the PETM CO2 data is more than sufficient to make a valid comparison between the rate of CO2 increase due to human emissions over the past 150 years and the rate of CO2 increase during the PETM.
This is especially so when those two rates differ by a full order of magnitude.
The research author’s statement still remains correct.
Nope they are too far apart since you ignore how FEW data points there are in 55 million years’ time which is less than 20% representation of the entire timeline while CO2 emission measurements since 1958 is 100% represented as EACH year is a data point or better 12 monthly data points in a year.
Not only that they don’t have sufficient data to generate an ANNUAL or at least Centennial value (2 1/2 datapoints) to compare with today’s ANNUAL rate
You completely ignored Jim’s reasonable request:
You are unbelievable!
Given the existence of PETM CO2 data at a resolution of 40 year intervals (which is what is stated by the researchers) then all you have to do in order to make a valid comparison is to look at the contemporary CO2 record at the same resolution of 40 year intervals. This provides a direct apples to apples comparison. DUH!
The research author’s statement still remains correct: the contemporary CO2 rise rate is far higher than what was seen during the PETM. In fact, a full order of magnitude higher.
From your referenced study.
“We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETM occurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr−1 .”
This calculation of time resolution is dubious at best. There is no data to support this calculation. It is a pure average over 4000 years and has no actual data to support the actual release rate at a 40 year resolution.
The whole study is done using models and not actual data at 40 year time resolution from 66 million years ago. If you are happy with models that have no validation whatsoever against actual measured data, then you should so state that you believe the models used to determine the conclusions.
Gorman claims: “There is no data to support this calculation”
False. As usual.
From Zeebe et al 2016
“we cannot rule out brief pulses of carbon input above average rates on timescales < 40 yr … However, if such pulses occurred …d13C would show large, rapid step-like drops following such pulses, which is not the case”.
Translation into plain English: yes, there is data that constrains the maximum carbon release rate. Large CO2 rate increases would show up as rapid changes in the d13C signal. But rapid d13C signal changes are not observed.
The research author’s statement still remains correct: the contemporary CO2 rise rate is far higher than what was seen during the PETM. In fact, it is a full order of magnitude higher.
And even more to the point: the PETM episode is a prime historical example of what happens when large amounts of CO2 are rapidly introduced to the atmosphere: large and rapid temperature increases result.
It is still an average over 4000 years. What is the average rate of added CO2 over the last 4000 years? That is the figure that is important.
From the study:
“we cannot rule out brief pulses of carbon input above average rates on timescales < 40 yr …"
First, we are not looking at 'pulses' at the current time.
But read what they said, "we cannot rule out". They then turn around and try to rationalize why it didn't occur.
That isn't science.
If you can't rule it out, then you can't simply state that you are going to rule it out anyway.
Did you read the study and understand what they did? They used models! They didn't go into a lab and verify the real, physical concentrations to the model outputs. Pseudoscience!
It is so dismaying to continue to observe such poor “skeptical” understanding of scientific research.
First, let’s understand correctly what the authors mean by a “pulse”. They mean a large and sudden increase (occurring in less than 40 yrs time) of CO2 levels in the air. In this context, the current rapid increase of CO2 in the air is most definitely a “pulse”.
Gorman’s comment that “we are not looking at ‘pulses’ at the current time” demonstrates that he did not understand correctly what he was reading.
Second, let’s understand correctly, in full context, the comment “we cannot rule out”. The authors mean that they cannot rule out “pulses” of less than 40 yrs time based only on their sedimentation rate information. They then explain, however, that they can rule out such “pulses” via their d13C information. Contrary to Gorman’s claims, yes this most certainly is science. Good science at that.
Third, let’s please stop pretending already that these research conclusions are “not” based on physical data. Gorman’s comment: “They didn’t go into a lab and verify the real, physical concentrations” is totally absurd. Of course they used real physical concentration data.
There is real, physical d13C isotope data and real, physical d18O isotope data. There is real, physical sedimentation rate data. “Models” are used in order to piece together these disparate real, physical datasets into an overall cohesive whole.
The research author’s statement still remains correct: the contemporary CO2 rise rate is far higher than what was seen during the PETM. In fact, it is a full order of magnitude higher.
But Gorman continues to misunderstand, misrepresent, and just plain ankle bite, in an apparent effort to simply pretend away these research results.
Keep painting using that lipstick dude.
He is so bad at this can’t even realize that your statement:
The paper NEVER made a clear comparison between a 4,000 period millions of years ago with an averaged last 4,000 years period in modern times.
He is so clueless on how to validate statistical applications that is required between two separate time periods.
Thanks for the comment. It is amazing how time series averages can mix people up. Trying to get 40 year plus time resolution from 66 million years ago is bogus from the start.
The Panama land bridge closed 3 – 10 million years ago which would have had a massive change to coast lines of the Atlantic. This paper addressed that.
This paper never showed any research from other global locations. In order to claim that this one location has implications globally also means one must accept that the Little Ice Age was global in its effects.
Gorman says:
“Trying to get 40 year plus time resolution … is bogus from the start”
Gorman once again ignores and tries to pretend away the fact that the researchers explained their evidence demonstrating why no extremely rapid CO2 “pulse”, that would be of similar magnitude to today’s rate of CO2 increase, is observed anywhere in the PETM geological record.
Gorman also says: “this paper never showed any research from other global locations”
Another clumsy pseudo-scientific ankle biting excuse.
CO2 is well diffused throughout the entire atmosphere. A single location is more than adequate as a proxy for decades/centuries long global atmospheric CO2 concentration changes.
Meanwhile, the research authors conclusions still remain correct:
The contemporary CO2 rise rate is far higher than what was seen during the PETM. In fact, it is a full order of magnitude higher.
And even more to the point: the PETM episode is a prime historical example of what happens when large amounts of CO2 are rapidly introduced to the atmosphere: large and rapid temperature increases result.
You apparently don’t understand why this is necessary:
Notice that you ignored it completely that you didn’t address it.
LOL
tommy –
I notice that you ignored completely the researcher’s data discussion (mentioned earlier in this thread) for how they know that there is no extremely rapid CO2 “pulse”, that would be of a similar order of magnitude to today’s rate of CO2 increase, found anywhere in the PETM geological record.
Despite all the ankle biting from you and Gorman, the research conclusions still remain correct: the contemporary CO2 rise rate is far higher than what was seen during the PETM. In fact, it is a full order of magnitude higher.
And even more to the point: the PETM episode is a prime historical example of what happens when large amounts of CO2 are rapidly introduced to the atmosphere: large and rapid temperature increases result.
Re: ….the fact that human emissions are increasing a known greenhouse warming agent…
Natural sources of CO2 are 2 (two) orders of magnitude greater than human. Roughly in balance with natural CO2 sinks, even a small imbalance overpowers any human influence.
A fact must be supported by more than conjecture and computer simulations based on assumptions which have not been proven, only conjectured.
In other words: prove it (with data).
Janice,
Human emissions are currently putting over 30 gigatons CO2 into the air every year.
However, the CO2 content of the air is increasing by only around 20 gigatons per year. These are both easily verified facts.
Even a grade school child could look at these numbers and realize that nature must therefore be a current net absorber of CO2 out of the air. Even though nature puts lots of CO2 into the air, it also takes it all right back out again … and more to boot!
Nature cannot possibly be making the CO2 content of the air increase. Imagining otherwise is like claiming that taking more money out of your bank account than you put into it will somehow make the account balance increase.
As I said before there is no cure for stupid.
MGC claims “Nature cannot possibly be making the CO2 content of the air increase”
But the consensus is in solid agreement that the oceans hold about 90-95% of all the earth’s CO2. Upwelling events bring concentrations of CO2 to the surface that can be 2 to 3 times greater than atmospheric concentrations.
Learn some real science MGC!
Here’s some data on the release of CO2 from upwelling along the Oregon coast.
Jim, the only thing that the data you present actually does is to show that at this particular location, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans during some seasons, and released during others. So what?
Apparently you are not aware that there are direct measurements which demonstrate that the CO2 content of the oceans is increasing on a long term basis, and substantially so. See data below.
The oceans are absorbing CO2 out of the air on a net basis, and have been doing so for quite some time. This is simple, measured, fact.
Moreover, the paper from which your own data came even states this fact in its very first sentence:
“It is well known that the open ocean plays a key role
in the exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere, taking up nearly
2 Pg (1 Pg = 10^15 g) C yr−1 “
(Seasonal cycle of surface ocean pCO2 on the Oregon shelf
Evans, et al, JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, 2011)
Nature as a whole is also currently absorbing CO2 out of the air on a net basis. Nature cannot possibly be making CO2 in the air “increase”, because it is taking more CO2 out of the air than it puts into the air.
Simple grade school arithmetic, shown earlier, easily demonstrates this fact as well.
“Learn some real science”, Jim. Please.
LOL. MGC keeps parading his stupidity saying “the only thing that the data you present actually does is to show that at this particular location, CO2 is absorbed by the oceans during some seasons, and released during others”
You got it half right. The graph of surface CO2 clearly show CO2 venting to the atmosphere totally refuting your naive baseless claim that “nature cannot add CO2 to the atmosphere” Some months when the upwellng slows and its supply of CO2 and nutrients in to the photic zone are reduced, the surface waters become undersaturated with CO2. That doesnt mean the waters are now a sink for CO2 because diffusion is slow and reaching an equilibriums can take a year. But what the authors readily admitted is that the undersaturation was most likely due to photosynthesis outpacing the supply of CO2. Maybe MGC jsut cant read graphs!
True the authors speculate that the region is a weak net absorber of CO2, but that was mere speculation without measuring and controlling all the key dynamics. Yet still they admit that some years the region is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere, again totally refuting the dishonest troll’s claim nature cant supply CO2 to the atmosphere. Beside MGC seems totally ignorant yet again that nature had raised atmospheric CO2 from around 180 during the depth of the last glaciation to over 280 ppm to begin the Holocene.
No wonder MGC doesnt provide his real identity and skulks around with a pseudonym spouting pseudo-science
re: “the authors speculate that the region is a weak net absorber of CO2”
Still trying to avoid the obvious. Again, the authors explicitly state, in the very first sentence of their paper, that the oceans on an overall basis act as a long term net uptake of CO2, at a rate of 2 petagrams carbon per year.
Sure, the oceans vent CO2 to the air during certain seasons. But again, so what. On a net basis throughout the entire year, and for several decades now, the oceans have been a net CO2 sink. No amount of hand waving on your part changes these facts.
You’ve been shown the actually measured data of increasing ocean CO2 content, and even your own reference directly admits this obvious and measured fact. It appears that you are avoiding these scientific facts just to try to pretend away the other fact that the extremely rapid atmospheric CO2 increase is being driven by human emissions.
re: “nature had raised atmospheric CO2 from around 180 during the depth of the last glaciation to over 280 ppm to begin the Holocene.”
I’m well aware of this fact. I’m also well aware that this increase occurred over a period of about 17,000 years. That’s a rise rate of around 6 ppm per thousand years.
In contrast, human emissions are currently increasing the CO2 level at a rate well over 2000 ppm per thousand years, more than 300 times faster.
You are such a dishonest slime ball MGC.
The authors were sharing the results of another paper that you stupidly re-interpret as “the authors explicitly state, in the very first sentence of their paper, that the oceans on an overall basis act as a long term net uptake of CO2, at a rate of 2 petagrams carbon per year”
What the authors did conclude:
“These data indicate four important features about the
Oregon shelf: (1) The net fluxes of the upwelling season are
not canceled out by fluxes in the downwelling season, but
rather the latter appears to be near‐neutral or undersaturated
with respect to sea‐air exchange. (2) There are strong interannual
variations in the system’s functioning, particularly
during the upwelling season, that can change it from a strong
sink in some years to a strong source in others, casting
uncertainty on the system’s long‐term role as source or sink.”
I’m well aware that the authors were stating previously known results, Steele. That’s a pretty common practice when writing scientific papers, ya know: you generally start by summarizing what is already known.
And seriously now: how much more obvious could these authors make this introductory point? Look again:
“It is well known that the open ocean plays a key role
in the exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere, taking up nearly
2 petagrams carbon per year.”
So let’s make this perfectly clear, in plain, unvarnished English: the authors of the reference that you provided yourself, were stating, right off the bat, that it is already well known scientific fact that the oceans act globally as a net sink of CO2 out of the air, to the tune of 2 petagrams of carbon per year.
Everything else you are yammering about here that the authors speak of concerns the local Oregon shelf dynamics only. These results do not in any way represent other regions of the globe, which, as the authors clearly state, have their own local dynamics which can differ greatly from place to place. Nor do these results in any way represent the oceans as a global whole.
Sorry that you were not able to catch this crucial and vitally important detail; a crucial detail that totally deep sixes any “argument” you may have been trying to make about the oceans as a global whole.
LOL and clearly MGC was using “Simple grade school arithmetic”
Because the oceans are absorbing CO2 doesn’t mean it cant be a net exporter of CO2 to the atmosphere. Learn some science MGC!
There is no doubt that burning fossil fuels adds CO2, and deforestation and overgrazing dont absorb as much CO2 as before. But again for MGC’s grade school mind, the oceans contain ~93% of the world’s CO2 so , simplistic diffusion gradients would favor the oceans to always add CO2 to the atmosphere. Warming due to more LA Ninas can release more CO2 as well as increased upwelling since the end of the Little Ice Age that adds more CO2. There is no consensus that argues the oceans cannot be adding CO2 to the atmosphere as it clearly did during the Holocene.
MGC likes to mimic me, which is quite the honor, so again “Learn some real science”, MGC. Please.
Steele: please explain what can be concluded from the following data:
1- humans put 30 gigatons CO2 into the air in a year’s time.
2- over the same time period, the CO2 level of the air increases by only 20 gigatons.
3- although there is some variation in the exact numbers, these same two things keep happening year after year after year after year, for decades: the amount of CO2 increase in the air is not as large as the amount of CO2 that humans put into the air.
PS: in case you were wondering, 10 gigatons of CO2 just “magically disappear” every year, year after year after year after year, for decades, is not a valid conclusion.
You do know there has been a greening of the earth thanks to CO2, and that plants store CO2 as carbohydrates,etc. and transfer it to animals that eat plants. It really not magical, it’s taught in elementary school.
Perhaps you can explain how all the numbers you threw out were calculated. And please don’t duck another simple question by deflecting again with “everyone knows, its publicly available”
Steele:
“humans put 30 gigatons CO2 into the air each year” is easily calculated given the known amounts of fossil fuels sold and used worldwide every year, and a basic knowledge of the chemistry of combustion. BP’s annual statistical review of world energy is a good source for the raw data. (BTW, it is actually more than 30 gigatons. I rounded down to make the example simpler).
“the CO2 level of the air increases by only 20 gigatons” is easily calculated by translating measured atmospheric CO2 ppm increase per year into gigatons of CO2. All you need is the known total mass of the atmosphere and some simple unit conversions.
Ya know, for somebody who acts like they know so much about all of this, Steele, it is surprising that you’re not aware of where these, yes, “well known” pieces of data come from.
Anyway, there, questions answered. Now, your turn, Steele:
Please explain what can be concluded from the following data:
1- humans put 30 gigatons CO2 into the air in a year’s time.
2- over the same time period, the CO2 level of the air increases by only 20 gigatons.
3- although there is some variation in the exact numbers, these same two things keep happening year after year after year after year, for decades: the amount of CO2 increase in the air is not as large as the amount of CO2 that humans put into the air.
PS – the statement “there has been a greening of the earth thanks to CO2, and plants store CO2 as carbohydrates,etc. and transfer it to animals that eat plants” is not a “conclusion”, per se. But it sounds like you’re kinda on the right track.
Like all good math problems, please show your work for all your calculations. Simple generalities are just slime ball answers.
The beauty of being stupid MGC, is that you never need to suffer, too stupid to know how truly stupid you are!
(I trashed MGC next two replies as he is now trolling you) SUNMOD
And here’s another example of a Jim Steele comment that carries no content except ad hominem vituperation.
Yes. ENSO causes much upwelling.
There was a William Ruddiman a professor at U Virginia(now emeritus) who expounded on surface influences.
https://news.yahoo.com/man-pleads-guilty-setting-nearly-042523707.html
Yeah, He is clearly guilty. But all that extra CO2 and global warming made that arsonist light all those fires. There’s nothing CO2 can’t do.
Why the downvoting of a news article link? Were the facts presented incorrect? What is wrong with people? Trolls.
Bravo. Well done.
Jim, thanks for pointing out how important specific heat is.
I contend that CO2 in the atmosphere is unaffected by IR as to increasing temperature. If IR had an effect there would need to be two columns for specific heat of dry air or CO2. One when IR is present and without.