From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
There is a lot of talk about the short-term European heatwave with some suggesting that the record-breaking warmth is the result of climate change/global warming.
Some of the media and climate advocates have been over the top in their claims (see below), stating that this event was the result of human-caused global warming.
The truth and overwhelming scientific evidence provide a different story: the recent European heatwave is mainly the result of natural processes but was enhanced modestly by human-caused global warming.
The situation is very much like the Northwest heatwave of last summer; with many of the same elements.
A Short But Dramatic Heat Event
As noted in the media, a number of locations broke all-time temperatures records, with some locations in England reaching 40°C (104°F). The map below shows the locations breaking records on July 18th, with the x’s showing locations exceeding all-time record highs.
At some locations, the previous all-time record highs were smashed by several degrees, something illustrated by this plot of the central English temperatures (shown below). The blue line is this year’s temperature, the black line is the average value, and the pink line shows previous daily records.
The high this week for central England was absolutely unparalleled, particularly regarding the deviation from the previous record high. Also note that the heat wave was very short.
In many ways, this event was like last year’s heatwave in the Northwest, with previous records being absolutely smashed.
Ironically, such an extraordinarily extreme event is a sign that global warming played a very small role in this event. This reflects the
Golden Rule of Climate Extremes:
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability and the smaller the contribution of human-caused global warming.
Let me demonstrate how the “Golden Rule” applies in this event.
The Background Warming
Europe and England have been warming during the past decades and some of that warming is probably caused by increasing greenhouse gases such as CO2. To illustrate, below are the long-term changes in maximum summer temperatures over England from the UK Met Office.
Mean maximum temperatures had little overall trend from 1890 to around 1970 and then warmed around 1 C (about 2 F) during the last 50 years.
I can show you similar plots of other European locations, all of which suggest about 1-1.5C of warming.
Let us assume ALL of this warming is due to increasing CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Let us further assume that none of it was due to urbanization or changes in instrumentation (which can also produce warming temperatures).
That background warming of around 1°C is absolutely dwarfed by the magnitude of the heatwave, in which maximum temperatures were as much as 20C above normal (as shown by the figure above).
So why were the temperatures so extreme this week?
The reason is the development of a large ridge of high pressure, something called a ridge, which produces warming by sinking and moving air northwards on its western flanks.
Here is the upper level (500-hPa pressure level, about 18,000 ft) at 5 PM PDT July 17th. The ridging (high heights or pressure) are indicated by the red-orange colors. Note there was a trough (blue colors) of lower pressure on its southwest side. This feature increases southerly flow that brings up warmer air.
Now a shocker. Below is the same kind of chart for the great Northwest heatwave.
OMG! Very similar, including the low to the southwest!
Such a low center, by enhancing southerly flow moving into the ridge of high pressure, acts as a supercharger for the warmth.
High amplitude, wave patterns can be produced by natural variability and there is no evidence that the ridge in question resulted from global warming.
Ironically such a pattern also produces enhanced cooling to the east and west, something shown by the temperature anomalies (difference from normal) six hours later (red/brown above normal, blue below normal).
One should note that major heatwaves periodically hit Europe, such as in 2003 and 1976.
The bottom line is that the recent European heat wave was caused by an amplification of the northern hemisphere wave pattern, with global warming contributing perhaps 5-10% of the warmth. Natural variability of the atmosphere was the proximate cause of the warmth and does not represent an existential threat to the population of Europe.
There was some hot weather because:
The heatwave had Completely Diddly Squat, Nada, Zilch, Sweet Fanny Adams, Zero, Nothing to do with Green House Gases
Well no, it has PLENTY to do with Green House Gases because the Main Villain here (CO2) came out of that dessicated, drained and destroyed land – the sort with the low Albedo
There are folks out there who will assert that 500 Gigatonnes of Carbon has been released from the world’s soils inside the last century
I get that to be over 1.4 Trillion tonnes of CO2 (over the last century but notable since the late 1940’s when the Mauna Loa curve ramped steeply up
Oddly enough, at 17 Gigatonne per ppm, I get that to be an atmospheric rise of 82ppm
How does that stack up, for the last 100 years?
And if we want witches, if we want villains – look at the people who demanded that all that arable land be created in the first place.
We know exactly who they are becaue they are the ones who…
Are quite perfectly brain-dead because that what eating )(cooked starch) does to you
Ate making The Most Noise about everybody else emitting fossils.
iow, The Warmists know that they are Guilty As Hell for the observed Climate Changes (floods, sea levels, dust storms, cold waves, hot waves etc included) and they are trying to pass the buck.
Its all so simultaneously sad, childish and pathetic
AGW doesn’t exist, but if it does its not your fault.
“Global warming” as a “cause” of this event would imply a higher overall thermal energy content of the lower atmosphere/biosphere over a very short period than say the days before when it wasn’t hot. Not possible.
These “heat waves” are 100% about the distribution of the existing thermal energy in the lower atmosphere/biosphere, not about added thermal energy due to so-called “global warming”.
Looking at the temperature map above, it is obvous that a very small area in northwestern Europe had more than its average share of heat energy, due to the interactions of high pressure and low pressure centers that combine to concentrate the available thermal energy into a small area … while the vastly larger area surrounding northwestern Europe has less than its averaged share of heat energy.
This boils down, pardon the pun, to the First Law of Thermodynamics, or the “conservation of energy”. Energy can neither be created or destroyed, but can only be distributed, stored, or converted to mass. No “new” energy was created by “global warming” over the three day time period … the energy that existed was merely redistributed. A heat wave can happen at any static thermal energy level in the lower atmosphere/biosphere, hot or cold, wet or dry.
Same thing with cold waves, or as the media have taken to label them, wintertime “bomb cyclones”. Nothing in nature suddenly sucked thermal energy out of the lower atmosphere/biosphere – but high and low pressure zones that affect circulation in the lower atmosphere caused thermal energy to be redistributed out of the cold wave area to the surrounding, far larger areas.
“cause”
Strawman. He guessed a contribution of “5-10%”. 5-10% on top a normal heatwave temperature contributed to a record temperature . Nothing complicated about it.
A guess, with 100% error bars.
by the bye…
If anyone wants to REALLY ‘think of the children’
Put your name to this.
https://www.change.org/p/a-call-to-ban-glyphosate-and-other-chemical-desiccants
You will also be being in no small way a selfish shit (how times change haha) as well – unless you really wanna spend the last 10 years of your life as a nappy-wearing cabbage.
no rush
The Alarmists are using emotionalism, not science, logic, or facts to ascribe heatwaves to “climate change”, or some portion of them anyway. They know they can get away with this nonsense propaganda because they have pretty successfully changed the warmunist ideology more to the “extreme weather” talking point, and people can more easily relate to weather, but tend to have short memories.
thermometers at airports and cities are hardly “accurate” tools to measure global warming or cooling … GIGO … great for measuring UHI effect though …
43 places across the UK recorded a higher temperature than the one set 3 years early in this week’s UK heatwave. Not all influenced by UHI, at airports.
So what?
If they weren’t, then please provide the original reference data.
I’m confused griffo, I thought the UK was 6% wetter? I thought last year’s flood in Germany was a sign of things to come? How can it be so hot and dry? How can it be so cold in Eastern Europe at the same time, when this is all due to the climate warming?
Please reassure me that you don’t just seize on whatever unusual weather happens to occur, and attribute it to Climate Change ™
Also in Northern Italy everybody is screaming: “Record Heat!!!”, but that’s not quite the case. The record is indeed more on the projected temperatures than in the actual ones, which have been so far almost always a tad lower. Of course the UHI plays a role here as well
It’s been very dry, yes. But there’s no trend in that in the last 120 years, as clearly shown by pluviometric data.
AND STILL CHAMPION OF THE EUROPEAN TEMPERATURE RECORDS, ATHENS, JULY 10TH 1977 48°C.
In fact, only one of the 46 European countries broke their temperature record on Monday or Tuesday and that was, of course, the UK.
In other words, we’ve had hotter days in the past.
er no…
“The heatwave that has been gripping Greece since last week broke the country’s highest-ever temperature on Monday afternoon.
The town of Makrakomi in Greece’s Phthiotis region in the eastern part of the Greek mainland was the hottest place not only in Greece on Monday but in the entire European continent as well.
The meteorological station of the National Observatory of Athens (NOA) that is stationed there recorded a jaw-dropping 46.3 degrees Celsius (115.3 degrees Fahrenheit).”
(August 2021)
‘Sicily hits 48.8°C, the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe’
(august 2021)
Seville, Spain recorded 50c a long time ago but that was conveniently removed not that long ago.
It wasn’t that abnormal because Sicily showed that it can be nearly achieved with 49c.
Sicily weather averages and climate informationAverage daily max (°C) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 16.0 16.0 18.6 21.9 26.8 31.6 34.9 35.0 30.7 26.1 21.1 17.1 24.6
Seville, Spain averages and climate information
Average daily max (°C) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 16.3 18.1 21.4 23.9 28.3 33.6 36.4 36.2 31.6 26.7 20.2 16.8 25.8
Seville is hotter than Sicily in Winter, Summer and for the Year making the removal of the record agenda related only.
The activists have been slowly removing record temperatures around the world for decades.
Libya used to have the world’s highest temperature of 58c and of course that was removed too.
Is Libya the hottest place on earth?
“It held the record for the highest temperature ever directly measured on Earth – 136.4°F – for 90 years. Even though it was found in 2012 that the measurement was inaccurate, the region, which is about 25 miles from Tripoli, is still among the hottest on the planet.”
Why are you quoting something from Greece, 2021?
‘Sicily hits 48.8°C, the highest temperature ever recorded in Europe’
(august 2021)
Not yet validated and it didn’t occur on either Monday or Tuesday.
If it were to be validated then my argument would still stand that no European country’s temperature record was broken on Monday or Tuesday.
Try and keep up, griff, you’re not at the Guardian now.
5 places in the UK recorded 40C plus in this week’s heat wave – 39 others beat the previous record set 3 years ago. 9 of the ten years setting new temp records in the UK have been this century ( previous one 1990). all 10 of UK’s hottest years are since 2003.
Clearly the UK is warming rapidly this century.
Similar evidence from record new temps and heatwaves across Europe.
What is clear is that you continue to confuse weather with climate. You are like a broken record.
Do you know in parts of England it has been only 15c/16c today so are we going to freeze later to death if this continues with cooling rapidly this century?
Indeed! Cooling 25 degrees in just two days, by August 16th it will be -12 Kelvin! 😜
Hi Griff
I was in London this week, was very hot.
And guess what? No one cared.
Tens of thousands of tourists everywhere same as every other day, lots of locals stunning themselves in the parks (I talked to a few, most were loving it as they normally go to Spain to vacation for that), all in all it was all good.
Now it’s cold in Hastings, people are asking for the heat back.
What can you do?
” Similar evidence from record new temps and heatwaves across Europe”…………….The hottest temperatures registered in Europe reached 50C in Zaragoza Spain and the Loire Valley France last century …….The United Kingdom and the northern hemisphere generally, has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age and it must be said individual temperature highs lasting a few hours are meaningless in the scheme of things …. The British Isles heatwaves this century apart from 2003 are not comparable in consecutive day heat terms to 1911 , 1976 or the 1538 -40 Tudor Drought heatwaves when there were no reliably accurate thermometers …. It can be ascertained by proxy studies and chronicles how hot the previous climate optimums such as the Roman Optimum and Medieval Warm Periods actually were .This July hot spell resembles the 1808 three day Georgian heatwave when temperatures prior to the Stevenson screen may have nudged close to, if not exceeding , 40C …..Here is a passage from one article recalling how intensely hot London and the English countryside was in July 1808 : ” London is said to have resembled an oven …..in the shady side of the streets , the temperature was 100 degrees …five degrees more than is requisite to melt beeswax …….honey was seen running out from the base of the hives . Butter being transported to market turned to oil before reaching its destination ” ………………What were the atmospheric carbon dioxide values in 1976 1911 1808 and 1539-40 griff ?
re: “the recent European heatwave was enhanced modestly by human-caused global warming.”
And these “modest enhancements” from human caused global warming will continue to accumulate, decade after decade after decade after decade.
Remember the old “frog in the pot” story? The frog doesn’t jump out of the pot of water that is being warmed at a “modestly” slow rate. The “modest” warming didn’t seem to be any “existential threat” to the frog, but it eventually ends up being boiled alive.
Cliff Mass sounds a lot like that frog.
You do fit the definition of ankle-biter to a tee.
Yes, it’s really annoying, isn’t it, Charles, to have an “ankle biter” around who reminds folks of reality when they’re trying to rationalize it away.
Whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night.
The problem is that UHI won’t go away even with a reduction of CO2. Those temps will continue to grow and then you’ll have to explain them in some other way. Wonder what excuse you will use then.
[overlimit-cr]
I just had quite a bit to say about your vision of ‘reality ‘ MGC …
Absolutely.
You sound like an idiot.
Still trying to be relevant when you mislead and lie a lot about what other people say, you are lucky this is a blog format because I excel in exposing it in a forum format where I can make multiple quotes to show just how YOU lie and mislead people continuously.
You are not fooling anyone here because they have seen it all before from the mostly stupid/ignorant warmist/alarmist cult who have been here and elsewhere.
tommy –
My comments are all backed by verifiable evidence, usually directly from the published scientific literature.
I’m not the one “lying” here.
ROTFLMAO MGC’s biggest lie ever. “My comments are all backed by verifiable evidence, usually directly from the published scientific literature.”
Never, ever has MGC provided a single reference to support his lies and obfuscation! What a stupid dishonest slime ball troll!
re: “Never, ever has MGC provided a single reference”
It’s unfortunate to see that Steele’s inability to handle reality has now inveigled him into having to resort to simply posting outright lies.
Anyone can easily verify numerous direct references to published scientific research data in my posts.
LOL To counter your reputation as a dishonest stupid slime ball troll, all you needed to do was provide the reference to published science that verifies your argument. But no, as trolls always do, you think attacking the messenger that exposes your lies is somehow proof. LOL I’ve only see you ever provide one citation ever but that was to a crackpot theory about the ocean skin surface, by researchers who honestly admitted they don’t have instruments to measure or observe the changes that would support their narrative.
Stop with the projection.
You lied again, many times you don’t post anything while making bald unsupported assertions that are often silly and at best misleading.
You are not so much lying as deluding yourself ….. The George Costanza maxim : its not a lie if you believe it eh MGC ?
And MGC sounds a lot like the dishonest stupid troll that he has always revealed himself to be. In contrast to the frog story, MGC exemplifies the strategy that “. That’s why stupid dishonest trolls must be called out for who they are!
Oops the comment should have said “MGC exemplifies the strategy that if you tell a big lie often enough people will believe it”
Steele, I see you gave up trying to “support” your laughable fairy tale claims about IR “not being able to warm the oceans” in the thread in the other article. And we both know why you gave up: because your laughable claims were refuted and you have no rational “rebuttal”.
All that is required for a net warming effect of IR is for the cooling flux in the thermal skin layer to be reduced, which is exactly what Wong & Minnett (2018) stated in their research. You even alluded to a somewhat similar mechanism in your video describing how La Nina events act to create heat accumulation in the oceans.
For Steele’s “no warming from IR” to be “correct”, one needs to assume that all of the IR energy impinging on the ocean’s surface is immediately released to the atmosphere. All of it. Anyone who knows anything at all about molecular kinetics knows that this assumption makes zero sense.
MGC, You have shown many times you know absolutely nothing about molecular kinetics, and do so again in your last comment.
All one needs to do is provide a mechanism of how the skin layer that is almost always cooler than the ocean layer below, transports heat against the thermodynamic gradient.
You have been asked many times to show a mechanism that transports heat from the surface one micron level to several meters of ocean depth, but all you e er do is present stupid narratives without any proof.
You’ve been asked to provide one published paper showing a single mechanism of that transport of heat to depths, but all you can do is present a hypothesis by Wong and Minnett that is totally unprovable. Do stupid dishonest trolls know the difference between unproven hypotheses and fact? LOL
But what else should anyone expect from a proven stupid dishonest troll. We all see it. Only total morons would ever believe any of your unsupported narratives!
Every study shows the skin layer is typically (85+% of the time) cooler than the subsurface layer. Thus, conduction would always bring warmer subsurface water, heated diurnally by the sun, up into the skin layer to radiate heat away.
The small temperature difference between the skin and subsurface also suggest that most of the IR absorbed is also quickly irradiated away. Any possible mixing to depth by the wind would also enhance evaporative cooling, so it seems doubtful any significant heat from the skin surface is mixed downwards.
Any mixing due to convection also seems doubtful. For skin surface water to carry heat downward, requires cooling, thus loss of any heat gained in the skin layer by IR radiative cooling. Or daytime solar heating that causes evaporative cooling and increased salinity causing skin layer water to sink.
The greatest flux of ocean heat happens when cold air from the continents carries sensible heat away from the surface of the Gulf Stream or Kuroshio current.
For starters read Nighttime Cool Skin Effect Observed from Infrared SST Autonomous Radiometer (ISAR) and Depth Temperatures
ZHANG (2020)
re: “The small temperature difference between the skin and subsurface also suggest that most of the IR absorbed is also quickly irradiated away.”
Most? Most? Steele’s silly “no ocean warming from IR” claim requires that all of absorbed IR energy is released upward to the atmosphere. All of it.
Even a tiny fraction of the energy from incoming downwelling longwave radiation remaining in the surface skin layer would be sufficient to refute Steele’s “no ocean warming from IR” pseudo-scientific fantasy.
The observed ocean warming trend over the past few decades is the result a net heat flux on the order of only 0.7 W/m2 . But incoming downwelling longwave radiation is around 342 W/m2 . Even Steele should be able to do the math on the tiny fraction required for IR to have played a non-zero role in that warming trend.
Furthermore, all of Steele’s pseudo-scientific handwaving about transport of absorbed IR energy from the surface downward remains a total red herring. Steele continues to ignore the fact that all that is required for a small net positive ocean heat flux to be created is to reduce the upward motion of heat through the skin layer and out to the atmosphere. Even a small fraction of absorbed incoming IR energy remaining in the surface skin layer, as described by Wong and Minnett, would easily accomplish that.
It is also rather comical to see Steele simply dismiss the Wong and Minnett research conclusions out of hand, while ignoring the fact that their analysis is orders of magnitude more meticulous and more thorough than is his own “Nuh Uh because I say so” pseudo-scientific handwaving.
More stupid hand waving from the dishonest troll MGC, trying to convince people that it’s IR absorbed only in the upper micron skin layer where all the ocean’s heat can only be released that is heating the oceans, but not the sun that can heat the ocean a million times deeper. But that’s what he was taught in troll school, yup yup yup.
And for the umpteenth time the troll needs to show just one study that has observed any of the IR heat being retained and not released from the skin layer by IR radiation, conduction with the cooler air, or evaporation. So many ways to quickly lose heat from the skin layer before it can ever be mixed downwards !
However there are a ton of studies showing the deeper waters heated directly from the sun easily retain the heat.
MGC, watch and learn where the heating is happening GLOBAL WARMING DRIVEN BY PACIFIC WARM POOL,LA NINA & ITCZ: AN ALTERNATIVE CLIMATE CHANGE THEORY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMH_K8IF-1s&t=400s
And as shown in attached illustration there are wide regions of the oceans where more heat escapes to space than is absorbed. The places where the ocean typically absorbs heat is in the ocean tropical cold tongues where clear skies reduce IR but increase solar heating.
But we all know stupid dishonest slime ball trolls wont provide the evidence. Instead just tell more lies, hoping if you keep telling the same lies maybe he can convince some poor schmuck.
re: “there are a ton of studies showing the deeper waters heated directly from the sun easily retain the heat”
No one is disputing that there is a warming effect from sunlight penetrating into the oceans. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. Duh. But there needs to be some other forcing function to make that effect either increase or decrease.
Merely claiming “more El Ninos or more La Ninas”, which is more or less what you video is claiming being behind current changes, is nothing but pseudo-scientific hand waving. El Nino and La Nina merely exchange heat between air and ocean. They do not increase the heat content of both air and ocean, which is what is currently being observed.
On the other hand, there is a clear mechanism for reducing the heat loss out of the ocean skin layer. A mechanism that Steele tries to pretend away with little more than “Nuh Uh because I say so” handwaving, and this false “argument”:
“So many ways to quickly lose heat from the skin layer before it can ever be mixed downwards”
Yep, here we go again with yet another rendition of this false, already-ripped-to-shreds so-called “objection”. Heat does not have to be “mixed downward” in order for there to be a net positive heat flux into the ocean. All that is required is a reduction of upward moving heat loss from the skin layer.
Still waiting for just citation of MGC’s so-called proof. HIs boring repetitive false narratives are nauseating! LOL
Put up or shut up stupid troll!
He doesn’t have it since he keeps posting a repetitive word salad instead that doesn’t go anywhere.
Even WUWT’s Willis E. totally eviscerated, over a decade ago, this ridiculous “IR can’t heat the ocean” pseudo-scientific clap trap that Steele has been peddling. In four different ways, no less:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/15/radiating-the-ocean/
Willis E:
“Once again, the crazy idea that downwelling longwave radiation (DLR, also called infra-red or IR, or “greenhouse radiation”) can’t heat the ocean has raised its ugly head on one of my threads. Here are four entirely separate and distinct lines of reasoning showing that DLR does in fact heat the oceans.”
I’d already thought of Willis E’s argument #1 myself, but wondered “what about evaporation?”. Willis E’s argument #2 reminded me of why the evaporation excuse is dead wrong.
Willis E argument #3 is essentially Wong & Minnett. And #4 is a real last nail in the coffin of this wildly ridiculous nonsense.
To repeat: I am not the one here who is “so stupid”.
Eviscerate you claim? You need more proof than a trolls hyperbolic narratives. LOL Willis and I usually agree that the climate crisis is fabricated fear mongering. I’m glad that you agree with him.
Regards IR heating the ocean, its fascinating that a blog post by a staunch skeptic like Willis is the only reference you can find to support your “stupid clap trap”. I will contact Willis and see if he still thinks the same way, now that the science has improved, and present my rebuttal. Unlike you trolls, Willis engages in strong debate, disagreeing without using your lies and foolishness.
His first argument regards people’s paradoxical beliefs tells us nothing of the physics, so no reason to dwell on that argument.
His second argument simply asks “If the DLR isn’t heating the water, where is it going?” Stating “It can’t be heating the air, If DLR were heating the air we’d all be on fire” is silly and dismisses and thus ignores one key contribution that he then adds in argument 4. As Wong and Minnet admitted for the skin layer, “The direction of flow of heat is almost always from the ocean to the atmosphere”.
Accordingly, as the illustration I provided shows greats amount of heat flux leaving the ocean’s skin layer and warming the air, especially when cold winds from the continent blow across the ocean surface. It is such warming of the air that generates a milder climate in western Europe than its latitude would warrant.
He accounts for contributions from evaporation but until #4 totally ignores the fact that the skin layer radiates much of its heat right back to space. The skin layer radiates that heat back to space through the atmospheric windows without being absorbed by greenhouse gases. It is that infrared that satellites uses to measure the ocean’s surface temperature.
His 3rd argument regards mixing of skin layer heat downwards is very problematic. Any wind turbulence causes more evaporation from the skin layer and there are no observations of the micron thick skin layer mixing its heat downwards, and Willis does not make a distinction between the skin layer and deeper near-surface layers.
But there is definitely a mixing of the solar heated sublayers downward. Indeed what delays ocean cooling is the mixing of solar heated waters downward that then can not release that heat unless brought to the surface where it can radiate away, evaporate away or transfer heat to the cool air.
Argument 4 finally mentions “radiative losses of the ocean, which depend only on its temperature, and are about 390 w/m2”. If IR warms the skin layer, then the skin layer immediately radiates more heat away. And clearly the skin layer is radiating heat upwards and away and not downwards.
Outgoing IR at the TOA is about 240 W/m2. Thus,390 w/m2 outgoing radiation from the skin layer alone accounts for back radiated IR absorbed and released in the skin layer plus most of the solar heat from the subsurface that rises to the skin layer. Add in his 70 W/m2 via evaporation and 30 W/m2 conducted away by the air, Willis has accounted for all the IR heat.
What warms the ocean is solar heat that penetrates so much deeper, where cooling is delayed until that heat is brought back to the skin surface. And we know that solar heated water can be stored for days, decades and millennia.
Your desperate attempt to use Willis’s arguments without thinking any further is just one more example of why you are such a totally stupid dishonest slime ball troll.
This “conversation”, if you can call it that, has become truly comical.
The land absorbs infrared within just the first few microns depth and it warms as a result.
The ocean also absorbs infrared within just the first few microns depth and … what? It “doesn’t” warm? Why not?
“Because I say so!” seems to be Steele’s only answer.
What’s different between these two scenarios? The only mechanism that might allow the ocean to release more heat back to the atmosphere than the land and thereby “not warm” would be evaporation. The ocean can evaporate; the land can’t. But as Willis E. reminds us, the magnitude of evaporative heat flux is nowhere near large enough to accomplish this task.
It is so obvious that IR can, and indeed, must warm the ocean. Yet Steele impudently continues to childishly try to pretend otherwise.
Yes, Steele, by all means, please do contact Willis. I’m sure he could use a good laugh, too!
“” The land absorbs infrared within just the first few microns depth and it warms as a result.””
“” The ocean also absorbs infrared within just the first few microns depth and … what? It “doesn’t” warm? Why not?””
I can’t believe you know so little yet pontificate so much.
Why don’t you paste the definitions for:
A) sensible heat, and,
B) latent heat.
Now, discuss:
C) how IR absorbed by land results in sensible heat, and,
D) how IR absorbed by H2O results in latent heat.
You should then understand the difference in how IR displays as temperature between the two types of heat!
Gorman demonstrates that he is entirely unaware of the scientific facts that completely refute his “argument”.
The latent heat of evaporation off of the ocean’s surface is known to be much too small to remove all of the energy from downwelling infrared. See the Willis E. reference in my post above for the actual numbers.
“I can’t believe you know so little yet pontificate so much.”
God MGC you are sooooo dishonestly stupid! You are making up shit saying “The ocean also absorbs infrared within just the first few microns depth and … what? It “doesn’t” warm? Why not?”
I never argued that the skin layer doesn;t warm up! The debate has always been how much of the heat in the skin layer warms the ocean below.
The skin layer gets heated by back radiation, warms, and then radiates that heat back to space, as well as losing heat via evaporation and conduction to the wind.
You are such a stupid dishonest troll!
[two over daily limit-mod]
Why limit one of the few voices of reason in these comments?
Oh never mind. We both know why.
Your tone is obnoxious. You are locked in a cult of credentialism and not logical discourse. You are incapable of understanding your errors. You are heading for a ban. That’s why.
re: “The skin layer gets heated by back radiation, warms, and then radiates that heat back to space, as well as losing heat via evaporation and conduction to the wind.”
The thermal skin layer (or any entity for that matter) absorbs IR energy and warms. This entity is now at a higher temperature (the very definition of having “warmed”). Claiming that it will alter the heat flux in one direction (upward) but will not alter the heat flux in the other direction (downward) is a direct violation of the laws of physics.
Please read and study Planck’s thesis on heat radiation. If an object is radiating at 100 and absorbs 50 from a colder object, it keeps radiating at 100 and the 50 disappears immediately along with 50 original. Therefore, the object cools more slowly but it doesn’t get warmer. The only way to reverse the cooling gradient is to have the colder body become the warm one.
Why do you think Stephan-Boltzmann shows net radiation is reduced based on different temperatures instead of increased? Think of it as vectors in opposite directions. There is a subtraction involved.
Jim,
Ocean water at the atmosphere/liquid boundary absorbs IR until its latent heat allows it to evaporate. That is basically why IR only penetrates to a small distance, i.e. a molecule or so. Once in a vapor state, the water molecule will rise taking the heat with it until it precipitates back to a simple liquid water molecule. No doubt there is some radiation from the surface or adjacent to it, however, it is probably small.
That is why IR impinging on the surface of the ocean doesn’t heat the depths. It doesn’t stay at the surface. Water heated by the sun’s insolation will rise and add to the incoming IR from both the sun and GHG’s.
The last point is that when radiating, a spherical EM wave is created of the same power as what was absorbed. That means equal power in all directions. Any radiation from a water molecule at the surface would immediately be absorbed by the next surrounding water molecules. This means the surface skin would probably be some number of molecules thick but no more.
My interpretation of Wong and Minnett is that they envision the skin as being impermeable to heat from below thereby slowing the release of heat to the atmosphere. They miss the fact that the heat is carried aloft as latent heat in the water vapor rather than immediately warming the air at the surface boundary. Thermodynamics is hard. One must consider all the atomic interactions that take place and how heat is transferred.
Sorry, but this is all so incredibly wrong.
In the Willis E. reference in my post above, which Gorman obviously did not even bother to read, we are reminded of the scientific fact that the magnitude of the latent heat of evaporation off of the ocean surface is known to be much too small to remove all of the energy from the downwelling infrared. Gorman’s handwaving latent heat of evaporation nonsense excuse is so easily and so totally refuted.
“My interpretation of Wong and Minnett is that they envision the skin as being impermeable to heat from below” is also completely wrong. They acknowledge a negative temperature gradient across the skin layer, which, by definition, means there must be heat moving from below. Duh.
Absorption of IR within the skin layer reduces that temperature gradient, which, again by definition, reduces the heat flow from below, thus leading to ocean warming.
re: “Thermodynamics is hard”
Yes, it is. And Gorman sadly continues to demonstrate that he has little if any real grasp of the subject at all.
You miss the whole conclusion of their study. That the skin prevents heat from escaping thereby keeping heat in the ocean. Dubious at best considering all the other effects such as upwelling.
You have also refused to address Dr. Steele’s observation of H2O radiation having a large part of the energy leaving through the atmospheric window.
None of this explains your original assertion of CO2 “back radiation” warming the ocean. Why don’t you address the physics of your assertion in your own words. It is obvious that you have run out of studies to cherry pick from. Time to do your own scientific explanation.
MGC you are so stupid. “there needs to be some other forcing function to make that effect either increase or decrease.”
LIA : Reduce solar heating, reduced trade winds cause more El Nino like ocean conditions- less heat storage and colder oceans. Since 1850, increased solar irradiance, stronger trade winds cause increased neutral/La Nina-like conditions more heat storage. It’s really not that hard to understand unless you are a stupid troll who always tries to dismiss calling well established science by dishonestly calling it pseudo-science. Tons of studies showing deepening of thermocline during neutral/La Nina-like ocean.
re: “Since 1850, increased solar irradiance”
The Steelian grasping at straws excuses sadly continue to grow more and more shamefully feeble.
The small increase in solar irradiance since 1850 is nowhere near large enough in magnitude to have caused the observed current warming trend.
Not to mention the large disconnect over the past several decades in any correlation between the continued warming and solar irradiance. Warming has continued apace while solar irradiance has dropped off.
In fact, over the past decade or so some “skeptics” were even predicting that a “cooling trend” should have been well in place by now because of the solar irradiance decline; but of course nothing of the sort has occurred. In fact, most all so-called “skeptical” projections have been completely wrong.
Not to mention that if “increased solar irradiance” since 1850 were really a primary driver, we’d be seeing more warming during the day than during the night. But just the opposite has been observed, more warming at night than during the day.
All of this not only directly disproves Steele’s laughably incompetent “increased solar irradiance” excuse, but is also completely consistent with enhanced greenhouse effect. In fact, more warming at night than during the day is an outcome of adding CO2 to the air that was predicted 125 years ago.
These have all been very well known facts for quite some time.
Steele, thanks for once again so clearly demonstrating that your “arguments” remain little but so easily refuted pseudo-scientific gibberish.
I’m not the one who is “so stupid” here.
But you very often do not offer evidence to support your assertions while ducking his sources and requests for evidence commonly, you are avoiding a real discussion with him which is why I am now here watching to see if you go over the trolling line enough for me to start trashing your empty comments.
tommy, thank you for your interest in my posts.
In the spirit of equanimity, you should also be watching to edit the numerous egregious ad hominem attacks so routinely seen in Steele’s comments, to not only me, but to many, many others as well.
More word stupid salads , no references. Simple explanations are good only for stupid people who don’t know any science. You are sooo stupid to think that solar irradiance and the PDO should have strict linear correlations. Just stupid!
Furthermore, it was never argued that changes in solar irradiance should match estimates of the global average. Changes in solar irradiance drive the ITCZ. Southward in the LIA and northward the last 100 years, changing ocean circulation, ENSO activity. My videos have provided the references to this that you ignore The storage and release solar heat via the ENSO & PDO cause a 30 to 60 year oscillation.
Second the current warming is largely due to increasing UHI and lost wetlands for land temps. The removal of Arctic ice by freezing winds when the Arctic Oscillation changed is still ventilating heat stored for decades when the northward ITCZ drove more warm Atlantic water northward. There are many papers discussing the stored heat pumped into the Arctic from the Atlantic. You ignore all that because it has nothing to do with CO2 IR. You are such an ignorant fool MGC!
More La Nina like conditions increase solar heating by removing clouds, causing increased ocean warming by 12 W/m2 relative to El Nino -like states. Finally estimates of TSI clearly show the solar irradiance has increased greatly since the LIA’s Maunder Minimum and indeed since the 1990s it has begun to decline, approaching 1910 levels. So in the next few decades we will see the effects of the combination of ENSO and AMO and solar heating. The oceans of the northern hemisphere are already starting to cool.
Stupid people don’t realize just how stupid they are. And dishonest people lie to themselves as well as others. That’s what stupid dishonest slime ball trolls do!
re: “More word stupid salads , no references.”
Didn’t include references in the prior post, because, as stated in that post, I expected that all of that information about TSI influences should already have been very well known to anyone who genuinely takes climate change study seriously.
re: “it was never argued that changes in solar irradiance should match estimates of the global average”
C’mon. You clearly signified solar irradiance as a driving cause.
MGC: “there needs to be some other forcing function”
Steele: “since 1850, increased solar irradiance”
re: “the current warming is largely due to increasing UHI”
Oh, so now it’s supposedly a different driver? One that’s been debunked over and over and over again already? Here’s just one of numerous examples that could be cited:
On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record
https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
“we find no evidence that the CONUS average temperature trends are inflated due to poor station siting”
Not to mention that farmers and gardeners in rural areas all over the world have noted clear changes in first and last frost dates and movement of plant hardiness zones to higher latitudes. That information even more clearly demonstrates that UHI being any kind of significant contributor to the global warming trend is just a myth, plain and simple.
re: “estimates of TSI clearly show the solar irradiance has increased greatly since the LIA’s Maunder Minimum”
Oh, so now we’re back to the TSI excuse again? The one that you tried to backpedal away from earlier? My, we seem to have an awful lot of flip-flopping going on here.
The graph presented shows about a 1 W/m2 increase in average TSI from the LIA to now. But this is TSI as measured from space. The earth is a three dimensional spherical object with four times the surface area of the incoming solar irradiance. Thus a 1 W/m2 TSI change seen from space results in only 0.25 W/m2 change on the earth’s surface.
Also, 30% of solar irradiance is immediately reflected away and never even interacts thermally with the earth’s surface. So that 0.25 W/m2 increase at the earth’s surface is further reduced by 30%.
Thus the actual average TSI change at the earth’s surface from the LIA to now is really only around 0.18 W/m2 . Far too small to have caused the observed warming trend. And also far smaller than the known increase of CO2 greenhouse gas forcing. Sorry, but that TSI excuse is a total non-starter.
Again, this is all simple, basic, elementary earth energy balance 101, that should be well known to anyone who genuinely wants to study climate change.
This why I will always call you a dishonest stupid slimeball troll. I never backed away from pointing to solar changes a contributor. I was pointing to your stupid dishines remark that any change in solar must be matched temperature changes. I noted that the ENSO and PDO can cause changes in part driving by solar changes but with a lag time, stating “he storage and release solar heat via the ENSO & PDO cause a 3t0 to 60 year oscillation.”
But being a slime ball troll or perhaps due to your stupidity, you try frame it in your hateful way.
Btw, it is hilarious that you are crying to other posters about me calling you a stupid dishonest troll. Indeed newbies who dont share our history might be confused by all your lies and distortions. Others all see who you are, and accuse you of the same tings as I do. In the name of truth, I feel its important to ensure everyone is aware of your evil ways!
You should feel honored. You are in my top 5 of stupid dishonest slime ball trolls. I never react that way to people engaged in honest civil debate about our differences.
re: “In the name of truth”
So ironically shameful. It is Steele’s comments themselves that have been, regrettably, chock full of proven falsehoods. Here’s a summary just from comments to this article alone:
1- “IR can’t heat the ocean”. Totally eviscerated by WUWT’s own Willis E. Shown false by Roy Spencer’s simple backyard experiment. Mechanism explaining why it is wrong published in the scientific literature. And yet Steele still carries on with his insolent “Nuh Uh because I say so” pretending.
2- Because “IR can’t heat the ocean” is false, so is Steele’s claim that CO2 greenhouse effect “can’t” heat the oceans.
3- Also false is Steele’s claim that the contemporary warming trend driver is “TSI increase since the LIA”. It was demonstrated that this TSI increase is not only far too small to have driven the observed temperature increase, but is also far smaller than the known CO2 GHE forcing. Not to mention that warming via a TSI increase would be during the day, but observations show more warming at night.
4- Steele further humiliated himself on this point by falsely claiming that the simple earth energy balance information that refutes his TSI claims, known for decades and found in any elementary climate physics 101 textbook, is “misleading and bogus”.
5- Steele also treated us to that tired old “UHI” excuse for the warming trend, long refuted by data from a plethora of simple natural proxies and by the satellite temperature record, neither of which is subject to potential UHI siting measurement bias.
And lastly, to top it all off, Steele namecalls those who bring the correct science to bear on these topics “dishonest stupid slimeball troll”.
Such a truly sickening disgrace.
Learn the difference between sensible and latent heat. Learn what latent heat in H2O does. Think about the characteristic of cohesion between H2O molecules and what latent heat does to that. Then think about the buoyancy force on a lighter than air H2O molecule. Where do you think that H2O molecule goes?
J Gorman needs to learn that the latent heat of evaporation is nowhere near large enough to remove all of the energy of incoming IR from the skin layer. Thus incoming IR does, indeed must, warm the ocean.
ROTFLMAO Damn MGC calls himself the one “who brings the correct science to bear “ God such delusions are hilarious!
Will this stupid dishonest slime ball ever stop telling his lies and distorting everything that has been written. You all can see it! MGC hopes if he repeats the same lies often enough, someone will believe him. ROTFLMAO
[just go away. mindless credentialism and gotcha word logic are the most boring aspects of modern discourse. ~cr]
“MGC” You’ve been nothing but rude, combative, and condescending. I think you’ve reached your expiration date up there in Wappingers Falls.
You’re done. – Anthony Watts
Steele namecalls boo hoo
Furthermore researchers make different solar reconstructions. In the graph presented here, there is a 2.5 W/m2 range. Then there is your dishonest use of averages to argue solar changes at the TOA is only 0.18 W/m2. But your bogus numbers are not what affects the earth’s climate
You are tooo stupid to know, but the full force of solar changes are felt in the tropics and then drop dramatically towards the poles. That creates a temperature gradient that drives the winds and ocean and atmospheric circulation. That’s why the trade winds are pulled towards the earth’s thermal equator. Only total idiots would ignore that common knowledge!
Furthermore, that increased solar heating gets stored in the ocean, supplying the heat driving ENSO and PDO, etc. CO2 neither creates a change in the latitudinal temperature gradients nor heats the oceans as IR from CO2 doesnt penetrate deeper than a micron compared to solar energy penetrating a million times deeper. God you are so stupid!
Finally after you misleadingly averaged solar irradiance by dividing by 4, you then applied an average change in albedo of 30%, to get your final bogus number. But as I stated here earlier, La Nina conditions can increase ocean heating by 12 W/m2 by reducing cloud cover. In other words, the regions where the oceans absorb the most heat are Tropical regions experiencing LA Nina-like conditions with much higher W/m2 than CO2. See the regions of greatest heat flux into the oceans illustrated in deep reds. Heat flux into the ocean is not evenly spread across the world’s oceans as your dishonest averages would suggest.
You remind me of a stupid dishonest troll hired by LinkedIn to push pseudoscience and smear good skeptic science. His name was Dave Petterson. Did you know each other from the troll factory? He bragged that he often came to WUWT to spread his evil dishonesty.
re: “In the graph presented here, there is a 2.5 W/m2 range.”
And most of it is merely contained within the 11 year solar cycle, thus that range contributes no long term warming (or cooling) effect. If that 11 year TSI cycle range really meant something, we’d see noticeable 11 year temperature cycles. But we don’t.
Because TSI cycles back and forth in a wide range but in a short cyclical timeframe, use of a long term average, as I have done, is the correct way to ascertain the magnitude of long term changes.
re: “you misleadingly averaged solar irradiance by dividing by 4, you then applied an average change in albedo of 30%, to get your final bogus number”
This procedure is not only completely correct, but is common knowledge found in most any earth energy balance 101 primer. See for example the textbook Elementary Climate Physics by F. Taylor.
Long term average solar TSI change being only about 0.18 W/m2 from the LIA to now is simple scientific fact. Calling it “bogus” is the very epitome of willful head-in-the-sand ignorance.
re: “La Nina conditions can increase ocean heating by 12 W/m2 by reducing cloud cover”
In certain small regions of the world only. And also, temporarily only. An invalid comparison to the CO2 GHE, which is worldwide and not temporary.
And it also quite hilarious that you prefer a single narrative claiming no bias in the temperature records, despite a multitude of proven urban heat island effects, and the migration of many global temperature stations to asphalt covered airports with much exhaust heat. Poorly sited stations, like at Marysville CA, a station I knew very well for my research, clearly shows how temperature data has been biased. I am sure dishonest stupid slime ball trolls, like MGC, would think putting a weather station in an asphalt parking lot near the hot air conditioning exhaust fans, couldn’t bias the temperatures, as sbown here.
The Fall (2011) concluded, According to the best-sited stations, the diurnal temperature range in the lower 48 states has no century-scale trend. Read that paper at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD015146
Again, very simple natural proxies, such as first spring bloom dates, first fall frost dates, and movement of plant hardiness zones, conclusively prove false this “no century-scale trend” conclusion.
Changes in global Koppen-Geiger climatic zones over the past 30 years have been insignificant.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/13/5087/2021/
It’s utterly amazing how so called “skeptics” like Graemethecat get so much so ridiculously wrong.
Direct quote from the very first paragraph of Graemethecat’s reference:
“Significant changes in the Köppen climates have been observed and projected in the last 2 centuries.”
You should realize that things like first fall frost dates/last spring freeze and hardiness zones are driven by mainly NIGHTTIME temperatures, right?
They are not driven by CO2 “back radiation” during daytime, i.e. higher Tmax temperatures.
You see everything through your bias, even when the conclusion is right in front of your face. That is called FAITH, not science.
The willful Gormanian ignorance sadly continues.
The CO2 back radiation effect is most apparent at night. Although there is a daytime warming trend, enhanced CO2 greenhouse effect is why we’ve been seeing more warming at night. And of course, more warming at night still increases the average daily temperature. Duh.
And let’s not forget that this was all predicted 125 years ago as an outcome of human CO2 emissions.
Game. Set. Match. You lose.
Again. As always.
Of course higher nighttime temps raises the “average”. The point you don’t address is how that causes heat waves and excess deaths due to higher daytime temperatures. That is what you need to explain in order to justify the need for zero carbon dioxide growth.
As Dr. Steele pointed out, averages just don’t work in the real world. Billions if not trillions have been spent on trying to justify CO2 causing raised temps using software with average parameters. No one has proved anything experimentally nor come any closer to deriving actual functional relationships for the multitude of variables driving the earths varying atmospheric phenomena.
Your attribution of using a flat earth to derive “average” values fails from very beginning. Why don’t you provide some actual mathematics that explain the temperature differential because of varying power absorption. Even Planck and Stephan-Boltzmann derivations assume equilibrium, i.e., a small, small point in time in order to reduce gradients to algebraic terms.
Still waiting for your response to Wong and Minnett missing the amount of near IR direct from the sun.
Check the responses to your post of:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/21/the-european-heat-wave-and-global-warming/#comment-3562073
You don’t even understand what the Wong and Minnett study postulated. You cherrypick stuff out of a study that doesn’t support your assertions.
This study simply attempts to prove that the extremely thin skin heated by GHG emissions prevents water heated by the sun’s insolation from losing heat.
My perusal of the study indicates that it does not consider the warming by near IR from the sun. It attributes all IR to GHG’s “back radiation”. Look at the attached diagram that appears nowhere in your referenced study. This is near IR that is absorbed by water directly, without any GHG effects.
A study that doesn’t include this IR from the sun that is absorbed by H2O is factually incomplete.
Try again.
Still waiting for your response on how Wong and Minnett failed to include near IR from the sun in their study on skin effect.
Why didn’t you read this study with proper understanding of the sun’s insolation? Do you not have an explanation for the study missing an important piece of the puzzle?
You need to learn about the “heat of vaporization” in water. It is latent, meaning not sensible by measuring. But the heat does exist. Latent heat occurs when water abosorbs IR from whatever source and it results in vaporization, that is, evaporation in case you didn’t know.
Here is a section from Wiki that describes what happens when water vapor condenses at altitude. You need to research physics much more deeply than you currently have. Your assertions tell folks you know little about physics and how the world works. You can cherry pick all the studies you want, but unless you are able to judge accurately what they are telling you, you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
Electromagnetic absorption by water – Wikipedia
Some of us spent our years at university learning the vector calculus necessary to deal with the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation that contain the energy that quanta (photons) are made of. I sincerely doubt you have the ability to do so. Otherwise you would be familiar with Planck’s thesis on heat radiation and have the ability to understand the calculus used in his thesis. You obviously don’t understand what IR consists of and how it is absorbed/emitted by molecules like water.
Yet another comically irrelevant “reference” by J Gorman.
The discussion here is about IR absorption in ocean water. How laughable that Gorman provides a reference about water vapor in the upper troposphere and somehow imagines that it is “relevant” to this discussion. SMH in disbelief.
I’m most certainly not the one here who is having an issue with “accurately judging” what particular pieces of information will tell you.
You truly don’t have a clue. Where do you think the water vapor over the ocean originates from? The ocean itself, dummy. It evaporates and takes off to altitude.
Dr. Steele is trying to educate you and you act like you are smarter and have knowledge that he doesn’t have. What a joker!
You have space here to delve into the physics that you believe happens that can refute Dr. Steele. I suggest to you that is a better way than all the ad hominems you enjoy using.
Tell us your theory and include the necessary low level (atomic & EM) information that drives your theory.
Still waiting on your response describing the physics that refutes Dr. Steele’s explanation.
Are you having trouble finding a study to cherry pick a response from?
MGC AND LOYDO’S UNDERSTANDNG OF HOW CO2 IS WARMING THE OCEAN. SUCH STUPID TROLLS
During the Ordovician Glacial Epoch accumulated ” modest enhancements ‘ of atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded 2000 ppm and did not return the Ordovician ice age to warm climatic conditions Your parabled frog would have frozen to death We know from ice core studies that rising carbon dioxide concentrations lagged – that is followed – Pleistocene temperature proliferations in the order of centuries to millennia …. None of the Pleistocene warm interglacials such as the Eemian [ like the Holocene Thermal Optimum a period warmer than today accompanied by atmospheric CO2 levels 280 – 290 ppm ] endured or spiralled into ‘runaway global warming resulting from incremental ‘modest enhancements ” of carbon dioxide …….We have been told ‘decade after decade after decade – the last 50 years at a minimum – that the surrogate religion of global warming would drown low level islands and cities , extinguish snowfall , render the Arctic ocean ice free , increase the frequency and severity of super cyclones ., dessicate entire nations with perennial droughts …….And decade after decade after decade – none of these apocalyptic prophecies have materialized………. But wait – there is a sign , a portent – a hot 40C temperature high lasting a few hours in England !! Do you ever pause to reflect on how much your ‘ foreboding rhetoric resembles the old millenarian doomsday cults? ……………………… Cliff Mass – unlike you – is a respected , intelligent climatologist who totally demolished the ‘cold wave’s / polar vortex pseudoscientific scare promulgated by Mike Mann , Obama’s science adviser John Holdren and others .. I can appreciate that because here in Australia we are witnessing precocious snowfalls , saturating rains , floods and cold weather 15 -16 years after we were told the rains that fall would never fill our dams and rivers [ Tim Flannery ] and the millennium drought could be envisioned as “our new normal ” [ the Bureau of Meterology’s David Jones ] . So much for that voodoo science …As for the frog in the simmering pot parable it can be applied to any foolish proclivity to not see what is looming on the horizon or in Orwells words ‘ the evidence of your own eyes and ears ” …..Like the dangers of crazy utopian green ideology we see playing out in Sri Lanka [ with the nations insane Lysenkoist experiment in organic farming ] the Netherlands , California and the United Kingdom
re: “During the Ordovician Glacial Epoch … atmospheric carbon dioxide exceeded 2000 ppm and did not return the Ordovician ice age to warm climatic conditions”
Thanks for demonstrating, Stuart, that your so-called “skeptical” sources of “information” presented you with only half the story on this topic. Gee, what a surprise. Not.
Here’s the whole story:
Royer 2006
CO2-forced climate thresholds during the Phanerozoic
“during the Late Ordovician surface conditions were different, most notably in having a 4% lower solar constant. A consequence of this decreased luminosity is that if all other thermal forcings were held constant, the CO2 threshold for initiating a glaciation would be higher. A simple analysis of radiative forcing suggests that if the CO2-ice threshold for the present-day Earth is 500 ppm, the equivalent threshold during the Late Ordovician would be 3000 ppm.”
In other words, because of the lower heat input from the sun at that time, even 3000 ppm CO2 would have been barely enough to stave off ice formation. Thus it is not surprising at all that there was a full blown ice age during the Ordovician even with 2000 ppm CO2.
Now Stuart, your “skeptical” sources of “information” never let you in on these crucial little details about the Ordovician, did they? No, of course they didn’t. Doesn’t jive with the pseudo-scientific ideological agenda.
This “Ordovician Ice Age” story is one of those oft-parroted talking points that routinely bounce around the “skeptical” pseudo-science echo chamber. These stories, as we’ve just seen, deliberately misrepresent by telling only half the story. Most “skeptical” folks, like Stuart, probably don’t even realize that they’ve been duped by these deliberate misrepresentations.
Pretty much all the rest of the talking points that Stuart has parroted are cut from the exact same mold: only half the story is presented, leading one into accepting patently false conclusions.
“rising carbon dioxide concentrations lagged Pleistocene temperatures”
“ice free Arctic”
“drown low level islands and cities”
“perennial droughts”
All half-the-story misrepresentations. Every single one.
rising carbon dioxide concentrations lagged Pleistocene temperatures”
“ice free Arctic”
“drown low level islands and cities”
“perennial droughts”
All absolutely true.
These brief Saharan plumes are dependent on negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, with three strong plumes in summer 2019. Climate circulation models predict that rising CO2 will increase positive NAO conditions, that in theory should inhibit the Saharan plumes. I predict that the Saharan plumes would be more common during low solar periods when negative NAO summers are more likely.
The UK Met Office use the same circulation models to predict warmer and drier summers for the UK with rising CO2 forcing. But our summers have become on average wetter since 1995, with an increase in negative NAO summers. That would be down to the weaker solar wind states since 1995.
IPCC, 10.3.5.6 Annular Modes and Mid-Latitude Circulation Changes
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Very instructive, thanks Cliff.
As noted i’m on a 3 week England vacation, currently staying in Hastings.
Tried to get to Dover today but with the French screwing up the port that was impossible, we only made it as far as FolkStone, quaint town 15 miles from Dover, with an ossuary.
However, I also note they are building a massive new sea side hotel below the cliffs so I’m curious why they had not heard of the climate emergency or the catastrophic accelerating sea level rise?
So I got to thinking about Anthony’s recent project getting readers to post info on weather station sites.
Maybe he can do the same but get readers to feed back info on all the coastal palaces being built in their areas?
Woke countries only, USA, canada, Britain, euro area, Oz etc.
Would be interesting compilation.
Let mine be the first entry
Well Obama bought coastal palaces at Martha’s Vineyard and Hawaii only because when he got the Democrat nomination for the 2008 presidential election, he said that “this is the moment the seas stop rising”.
(but he forgot to send his directive to NOAA)
Yes, but that horse has been beaten to death and then eaten.
I’m talking about today, new ground broken for new infrastructure for the next 100 years.
Were any high records set in long term rural locations or were all records in urban settings?
Knowing little about how temps are recorded and adjusted, it seems to me that urban settings would be affected by UHI. The thing with that is that the warming from UHI should increase over time as urban areas become more urbanised and mechanised. Without offsetting recorded values by some sliding scale to reflect the warming of those urban settings it seems odd to compare a modern record with one from 20, 50 or 100 years ago.
This is a side question but right now in the West we are experiencing our hottest July on record. Strangely, July 2017 and July 2021 held the record before this year? I know you guys question the idea of CAGW (I do too) but wtf? This trend is kind of scary and I’ve tried to keep my cool but I’m worried. I’m pretty sure this is not normal. Could this have something to do with the record cold in the Southern Hemisphere?
https://www.ksl.com/article/50232963/despite-august-cooldown-salt-lake-city-ties-record-for-hottest-summer-on-record
Warmer periods occur same as cooler ones. I think it all balances out and we had a really cool spring and early summer.
Besides it’s very likely your 2017 and 2021 records were due to adjustments cooling the real records from the 1930s, all unadjusted records for the continental USA show it much warmer then.
But the Adjustment Bureau has a mission
You to can do the research. James Hansen published a paper in 1998 that showed a graph on the first page of the USA mean temps from 1880 to 1998.
You can go to the NOAA website with the GISS data and graph the same values today (5 year mean temps 1880-2000) and you’ll see 1930’s cooler than late 90’s.
In 1998, the 1930’s showed as hotter.
And that’s how it works
I agree regarding temperature data. It is adjusted to represent a level playing field, allowing modern data to be compared to older data. However the record is then no longer a true record but instead an artificial artefact. Maybe we can have faith in the science but I am a little sceptical. That said, yeah… more GHGs should mean a warmer atmosphere so you’d think the trend should be to warmer averages and perhaps greater extremes. But there are so many other factors, not the least of which is how human changes to land cover and use accumulate over time and affect regional climates. I think things are warming up. Whether by very much I don’t know.
You miss the thermodynamic implications of what you are saying. In the earth’s system there are basically two bodies, the surface (land and water) and the atmosphere. The surface is warmed by the sun and then it warms the atmosphere.
As the atmosphere absorbs heat from the surface its temperature rises. However, it can only rise to the temperature of the surface since climate science basically deal with radiation.
Have you ever wondered why the surface temperatures are never analyzed? They would present a much better picture of what the insolation from the sun actually is. We do get SST temperatures but they are so averaged it is hard to get a picture of the sun’s changing insolation.
UAH gives a much better picture of what overall temperatures are doing than what land temperature stations provide.
The more extreme a climate or weather record is, the greater the contribution of natural variability and the smaller the contribution of human-caused global warming. This is not so much wrong as meaningless. You can’t measure the contribution of human-caused global warming to a heat wave by comparing the 1.5 degree global average increase to how much above the local average at this time of year the temperature is. That’s like trying to measure the contribution of increased national car ownership to the size of a traffic jam. A much more sensible way of looking at it is to look how much AGW has increased the probability and therefore frequency of such extremes. And the answer is a lot.
A much more sensible way of looking at it is to look how much AGW has increased the probability and therefore frequency of such extremes. And the answer is a lot.
Really? Do you have any evidence for that? I thought that the frequency and violence of tornados and hurricanes in the US at least had actually decreased in recent decades, as had extreme heatwaves.
Global warming should diminish the frequency and severity of storms by reducing the thermal gradient between the Tropics and the Poles.
Sorry – I should have been clearer. I was referring to extremes of temperature not extremes of storms and for the world not just the USA. There are plenty of recent extremes of temperature round the globe. See here for a list and here for a scientific discussion. My broader point was that it is meaningless to try and isolate the AGW component of any particular temperature extreme.