Greenland has not warmed (net) in the last 90 years.
From 80,000 to 20,000 years ago Greenland warmed by 10-15 Kelvin within a span of “a few decades” 24 times (Kypke and Ditlevsen 2024).
These abrupt warming periods occurred without concomitant CO2 concentration changes. And, of course, without human interference.
Image Source: Kypke and Ditlevsen 2024
In contrast, Greenland has not warmed (net) since the 1930s, or since CO2 levels rose from 310 ppm to 425 ppm (Mikkelsen et al., 2018).
Image Source: Mikkelsen et al., 2018
And Greenland warming is “not evident during the last two decades” either (Matsumura et al., 2021).
Image Source: Matsumura et al., 2021
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And the Greenland icesheet was always considered the canary in the coalmine. It hardly gets a mention nowadays..
Salute!
So right up front when seeing use of deg K I was thrilled. But then the anomaly crowd seems to have ruled.
I must be more like Willis, and just show the K deg graph and I can see trends without using fancy equations, and I can use the data file and do my own trends and try to back in variables to see if there is correlation and so forth.
I do not mind an anomaly plot for very short periods, but simply put up the temp or sea level based on “x” year and I can do the rest.
————–
In any case, it is good to see some of the “scientists” look back and use absolute values and let us do the charts and graphs.
Gums sends…
Indeed those worried about beachfront properties should know that glacial periods are much more unstable than interglacial periods.
”without concomitant CO2 concentration changes”
CO2 has no influence on climate and never had. It is impossible for back radiation from CO2 to warm the oceans so it can not change the climate. Only direct sunlight can warm the oceans. It is highly possible that the sun is capable of much higher energy outputs than a Carington event or what we have seen this year during longer time periods changing all kinds of circulation patrons.
There seems to be a view that any changes to climate, even over several decades, are, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous.
Surely there are decade or century or even millennia long lags that haven’t been accounted for or possibly even detected.
Greenhouse gases such as water vapor and CO2 do not warm the ocean, or the land, that is true. They can only delay cooling.
As you said, only the sun warms the ocean. But if there is less cooling at night then the temperature at sunrise is higher than it would otherwise have been. If the day starts off warmer, by the end of the day it will end up warmer than it otherwise would have been. That cycle repeats until the surface temperature is hot enough to drive enough radiation to bring about a balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere.
So it’s plainly wrong to claim that CO2 has no influence on climate. It helps enable the sun to warm the surface to some minor degree.
Denying the greenhouse effect when that is sound science is a mistake. We need to be emphasizing that the enhanced GHE due to fossil fuel emissions is a minor and net-beneficial warming. There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Deny the emergency not sound science!
“Deny the emergency not sound science!”
It may be science, but it’s not sound science since we don’t know just how minor is the effect. If we knew precisely, then it would be sound science. As of now, it’s mediocre science at best- preliminary science- a science taking its first baby steps- not sound science. And certainly there is no emergency, which I hear about all day every day here in Wokeachusetts, the Mecca of the emergency fantasy, in my opinion- what with all the elite universities here- all of which propagate the cult. And of course, a state government now in control by a feminocracy. (women run almost all state agencies now)
Sound science is the study of well-designed experiments, and analysis of their results. Many of the problems in so-called ‘Science’ come from unsound conclusions that are made from them.
A scientist is studying a flea.
He yells, “JUMP!
The flea jumps and the scientist measures and records the distance. 6 inches.
He pulls of a leg and again yells, “JUMP!” 5 inches.
One more leg, 4 inches.
Etc.
Pulls off the last leg, 0 inches.
The scientist concludes, “No legs left. Flea can’t hear.”
Very clever illustration of a speculative hypothesis that is consistent with observations but wrong.
Some of you are apparently invested in the belief that there is no enhanced greenhouse effect—catastrophic, minor, beneficial, or negligible. You’re not satisfied unless I bend the knee to there not being any such thing.
Well, I don’t give a rat’s tail about the question quite frankly. I don’t accept that there’s a catastrophic effect, based on observations. I accept that logically there should be some effect. If there turns out to be a significant net harmful effect, I say that our only practical move is to adapt. My gut feeling is that it will be a relatively minor beneficial effect.
What I care about is not freezing in the dark in a Connecticut winter with my retirement savings depleted and my children facing a hopeless future because of insane climate policies that are all pain and no gain. So what I care about is persuading persuadable people that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
The flea thing has been around for decades.
The odd thing is, many insect’s “ears” ARE on their legs.
Not sure about fleas, but no ears isn’t why the flea couldn’t jump. 😎
PS Watching this, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/10/moncktons-schenectady-showdown/ , was when I first accepted the idea that, “OK. Man’s CO2 might raise temps a bit” but also “but, even so, it’s not a problem.”
We know the specific heat of CO2. CO2 has a minor affect on atmospheric temperatures. That is science.
We also know a lot of the consensus is political bullshit.
We also know there is no impending apocalypse.
The specific heat of CO2 is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether CO2 has an impact on climate. What matters is the impact CO2 has on the various flows of heat in the climate system.
That is true, but a minor amount of energy is absorbed by CO2 in the form of kinetic energy, which elevates the temperature per mole of air by an itsy bitsy amount. A minor effecc.
I think it’s extremely sound science that there is a natural greenhouse effect, JZ. It’s mostly H2O, but denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or denying that the natural greenhouse effect (GHE) exists is what I am pushing back on. I am a climate realist, extremely skeptical of (essentially denying unequivocally) the bogus propaganda of a climate emergency.
I push back on the errant claims of my allies in the skeptical community because if some of us are seen to be denying sound science, the adversaries who are trying to destroy western civilization and capitalism will use that to convince persuadable people that all skeptics are anti-science and should be ignored or worse.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that the ENHANCED GHE due to adding CO2 to the atmosphere is poorly quantified and tentative. Lewis and Curry have done some work to quantify it though and the up-shot of it is that even if all the modern warm period is driven by anthropogenic CO2, it’s not going to exceed 2° per doubling of CO2 in all likelihood.
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
“If the day starts off warmer, by the end of the day it will end up warmer than it otherwise would have been.”
Really? How do we know this? Radiation is an exponential. If the temp is higher at sunrise the radiation from the Earth will be higher by T^4. In other words, the cooling is an exponential. The higher the temp the higher the cooling. The Earth continues to radiate and cool even during the day. As the sun warms things up the radiation during the day goes up by T^4. The rate of radiative cooling is actually higher during the day than it is at night.
If the temp is higher at sunset than expected then the rate of radiative cooling will also be higher.
The amount of cooling done through radiation can only be determined by integrating the T^4 radiative curve over a time period (24hrs ?). Has anyone actually done that?
Yes, Tim. That’s what I said. The longwave radiation from a warmer surface has to increase (which is proportional to the fourth power of absolute temperature as you said) in order to restore an energy balance. It is because of that fact that ‘warmer at sunrise therefore warmer at sunset’ doesn’t become a runaway heating.
As far as integrating over the whole surface and over time is concerned, let’s not lose sight of the fact that although 100% of the heat lost to space is ultimately by radiative transport, the surface loses heat by convection and in latent heat of evaporation and even conduction. Most of the radiative transport from the surface is to the atmosphere not to space. Then perhaps re-radiated, further convected, advected to another location by winds and ocean currents, released by condensation, etc., etc., before somewhere high in the troposphere it radiates to space. But some radiates directly to space. It’s a complex system as always with things climate.
It’s a mental trap that some of my skeptic allies tend to fall into that we can somehow win the argument by simply asking how do we know that? We would like that data be measured to “prove” certain things. But the system is too complex and physically large to be able to run a controlled experiment. The most that can be done is to ask if observations are consistent with a hypothesis. If observations appear to be inconsistent unfortunately we can’t totally falsify the hypothesis in a lot of cases because we can’t control for all of the factors.
Climastrology is a religion that assumes that fossil fuel burning causes dangerous impacts and works backward from that to make non-falsifiable claims that we could be maybe possibly heading to a dramatic and catastrophic problem. The attempt is to make us accept the speculative and improbable if not impossible claims just because it’s true that there’s a mild warming trend, that CO2 concentration is rising, and other such facts that should just cause us to shrug and say so what?
I am focused on how to persuade the persuadable to vote against policies that will harm our standard of living without avoiding any actual harm. Skeptics denying solid science such as the existence of the natural greenhouse effect are ineffective at persuasion. It discredits the realist view that there is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!
Deny the emergency, not sound science.
You say that CO2 causes some amount of warming due to radiating back towards earth retarding cooling.
What is the emissivity of CO2 at various temperatures and pressures from surface to 30000 feet?
I don’t find much to argue with in what you say. You are basically saying the same thing I am – we don’t know enough (and maybe never will) to make pronouncements from on high!
If the amount of heat being put in is fixed, then having a warmer starting position means that the end position will also be warmer. Yes, T^4 means that at each point during the day, there will be a tiny increase in the amount of heat that is radiated. That is a negative feedback, however the temperature must be actually warmer, for T^4 to play a role.
Also, T^4 only applies to the top of the atmosphere (TOA). CO2 means that the amount of heat reaching TOA is smaller. The ground has to warm up in order for the heat flows to return t what they were prior to the increase in CO2.
How much warmer is still being argued over.
Why is the CO2 added to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels a problem, but the heat produced by all that burning is not?
CO2 is taken up by plants and carbonate-producing animals. Where does all that heat go?
“CO2 means that the amount of heat reaching TOA is smaller. “
Why? If it never reaches the TOA and gets radiated to space then the Earth would have become a flaming rock eons ago.
“CO2 means that the amount of heat reaching TOA is smaller. “
That is total nonsense. !
The energy gradient with-respect-to atmospheric density is totally unaffected by CO2.
Nothing is being blocked.
That is AGW fallacy that too many people “believe”.
Stop regurgitating AGW fallacies.
Stop posting such nonscientific nonsense. Here’s the Earth’s radiance spectrum at the ToA:
See that large ‘notch’ labelled CO2, that shows the amount of IR that is absorbed by CO2 at the lower altitudes and therefore is prevented from reaching the ToA.
No, not “prevented”. Just changed to something else. Thermalization to N2 and O2 doesn’t prevent the heat from escaping to space, it just changes the frequencies at which it happens. N2 and O2 *do* radiate and/or transfer kinetic energy back to CO2 and H2O which can then also radiate it away.
If this didn’t happen then the Earth would have long ago become a minor sun as the “trepped” heat just kept building up.
Yes the much of the IR in the CO2 spectral range is prevented from reaching the ToA. N2 and O2 don’t significantly radiate in the IR spectrum. The collisional transfer from CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere increases the temperature of the atmosphere which causes the IR emission to increase and the increase in temperature continues until incoming balances outgoing.
The collisions between CO2 and the rest of the atmosphere, like N2 and O2, causes IR emission.
Yet you say N2 and O2 don’t radiate IR. What else does CO2 collide with that radiates significant IR?
Any solid particles (dust), water droplets will emit black body radiation, any increase in surface temperature as a result of the increase in the atmosphere’s temperature will cause an increase in BB radiation.
The issue is “the science” as respects CO2 assumes “all other things held equal,” which they have never been, are not now, and will never be.
The feedbacks are negative, offsetting feedbacks, and that’s why CO2 has no demonstrable effect on climate.
You can’t show that the greenhouse effect is “enhanced due to fossil fuel emissions,” because you’re not measuring water vapor or CO2 from natural sources. It’s nothing but estimates and assumptions.
You threw water vapor in there but then you ignore it and go back to the CO2 has an effect as if nothing else changes to counteract any minuscule effect of adding some CO2 from whatever source. The infrared absorption would take place even without the added CO2 because water vapor will absorb it anyway – its absorption bands overlap most of CO2’s absorption bands.
I’m fine with the assertion that CO2 has no catastrophic effect and also think that it’s definitely possible that it has no significant effect. I am persuaded that it probably has a small but measurable effect but that the effect is beneficial to the extent that it is at all significant.
I am not down with saying it has NO effect, especially if that unsupportable assertion is justified by denying the natural greenhouse effect.
The fact that CO2 absorbs IR makes it logically a necessity that it has some effect. The fact that there are offsetting effects is absolutely true and in no way doubted by me. The dynamic and emergent phenomena that characterize the climate systems are extremely complex. Water vapor dominates and is responsible for most of the 33° of warming that the natural GHE provides.
However, it’s not likely that CO2’s effect on delaying cooling is always and everywhere perfectly offset by some negative feedback.
I have never said that there is any catastrophic effect from fossil fuel burning. I reject that notion categorically.
Why I disagree with those who claim that there is no natural GHE or that CO2 is not a GHG that can enhance the GHE is in no way because I think that the enhanced GHE is significant and dangerous. It’s not even because I just think it is significant.
It is because denying sound science discredits the climate realist argument. The only thing I care about in this regard is that we skeptics can be effective in persuading the persuadable to vote against insane climate policies.
It is also impossible for a negative feedback to completely counteract the affect that causes it. There will always be a small change, even if it is, an extremely small one.
Based on that statement, it appears you have never experienced the passage of a weather cold front during daylight hours. Congratulations!
Or even a transient cloud.
Don’t be such a retard, KnowItAll.
I’ve said a million different ways that the climate (climates actually) are extremely complex. And advection will move heat and mass around the planet, sometimes causing air temperatures to be colder at sunset than at sunrise in a particular place. But not on average, over the whole globe.
People are older at the end of the day. Not if they die at noontime. That’s essentially the depth of your juvenile nitpicking.
Thank you, Rich Davis, for demonstrating for all to see the wisdom of Socrates who said:
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
I thought we agreed long ago that we were not going to talk to each other? For some reason you need to be a contentious jerk puffing yourself up with pointless arguments instead of talking sensibly about relevant points. I won’t waste any more of my time with your crap. So congratulations to you troll, you managed to get my goat today. But I’ll revert to ignoring your worthless drivel going forward.
Unfortunately, he is not the one losing this debate, by lying about the points your opponent has been making, you have already lost it. He already dealt with the inane argument you made in the above post.
You too, MarkW? Please cite the specific instance in which you assert I lied.
Either that, or take to heart what Socrates said.
Crickets, eh? It figures.
The earth is not a closed system so use of greenhouse in any discussions is invalid.
It’s irrelevant that the effect is horribly badly irrationally stupidly named. It is a real effect that cannot be refuted through semantic games.
True, but completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter what you call it, the effect is still the same.
Ummm . . . a greenhouse is NOT a closed system as long as it has a transparent or semi-transparent roof and/or windows.
A green house is not a PERFECT closed system, but it is much more of a closed system than earth.
” . . . but it is much more of a closed system than earth.”
I think not.
Earth (including its gravitationally-bound atmosphere) loses heat only by radiation to surrounding space.
On the other hand, a typical greenhouse sitting on Earth’s surface loses heat by convection to surrounding atmosphere, by conduction to underlying soil or concrete as well as to the atmosphere, and by radiation to surrounding atmosphere/sky and nearby plants and other structures. To the extent a greenhouse is not hermetically sealed, it can also lose heat via direct exchange of internal air with external air (aka, “drafts” and even double-doored entry/exit ways).
As any good physicist knows, for relatively small buildings atmospheric convection is orders of magnitude more effective in heat exchange than is radiation from surfaces with temperatures in the range of 0-40 °C.
As far as air movement goes, a good greenhouse IS a closed system.
As far as air movement goes, we sometimes even call them office buildings.
Actually the Earth and its atmosphere can be described in Thermodynamics terms as a ‘closed’ system, i.e. one which exchanges energy with it’s surroundings but not mass.
Actually, that occurs when seasons change from fall-winter/spring-sumer. People seem to forget that the earth’s soil is a heat sink just like the oceans. Just like the oceans, fewer clouds will cause heat storage increase in the soil. If it soil didn’t heat following winter we couldn’t grow crops as the “earth” warms in spring. We wouldn’t need frost line depths to prevent heaving of foundations.
The earth’s surface doesn’t “slow” cooling, it stores heat for later release, until the sun’s insolation can no longer maintain the heat sink temperature. It is one reason why CO2’s effects are overstated.
Well . . . yes and no.
It is not back radiation from CO2, but rather from the composition of gases in the whole sky (mostly nitrogen and oxygen molecules), that warms the Earth under the so-called “greenhouse effect”.
CO2—as well as water vapor, but unlike N2 and O2—is a strong absorber of LWIR radiation from Earth’s surface that is associated with its average surface temperature. The LWIR energy temporarily absorbed by these molecules is stored in vibrational, rotational and translation modes of mechanical energy (NOT in elevated electron states) and therefore they equilibrate this energy by molecule-to-molecule collisions with other constituents of the atmosphere, 99% of which are non-IR active O2 and N2, with such collision rates occurring between 10^6 and 10^9 times faster than those excited molecules can re-emit a LWIR photo (aka their “photon relaxation” time constant).
It is the omni-direction thermal radiation of N2 and O2 molecules in the atmosphere (because they have temperatures above absolute zero), which have been directly warmed by LWIR-energized water vapor and CO2, that accounts for “back radiation” (about half of the omni-direction radiation) returned to Earth’s surface that is the basic explanation of the greenhouse effect actually affecting Earth’s climate.
Indeed, such back radiation does not actually “warm” the planet as much as it effectively reduces the total heat loss to deep space that would otherwise occur.
Back radiation is another hijacked term. Back radiation is radiation with a vector back to the source. In the case of earth, back radiation is towards the sun.
Hmmmm . . . I wasn’t aware that the Sun radiated much LWIR toward Earth. See attached graph. The preponderance of LWIR in Earth’s radiation budget comes from land, sea and ice/snow-covered surfaces, headed toward space through the atmosphere.
The source of IR is the earth. The sun produces almost entirely short wave radiation.
That is true, but the term back radiation has a scientific definition that has been hijacked by the climate cabal.
“(about half of the omni-direction radiation) returned to Earth’s surface”
Why half?
(why not 42%?)
Can’t tell if that’s a serious question or a troll, but here goes:
1) Because the Earth is a near-sphere, the view factor to space from any molecule at a height above Earth’s local average surface elevation is more than 50% of 4*pi steradians (i.e., slightly more than a hemisphere).
2) It can’t be just 42% (a fixed number, albeit close to 50%) because we are considering altitudes in the sensible atmosphere (that portion dense enough to produce meaningful radiation) varying from 0 to, say, about 22 km, where the atmospheric density is about 5% that at sea-level.
3) If you care about the math, see the attached formula and consider that for the average radius of the Earth (= R) being 6,367 km and being at a height of 22 km above that (d = 6,367+22 = 6389 km), the solid angle subtended by the Earth will be 2*pi*0.917 steradians. Since 2*pi steradians would be exactly half of a sphere, at 22 km altitude the Earth will appear to be only about 92% of a hemisphere.
92% of 50% is 46% . . . one would have to be much higher for Earth to appear to be 42% of a hemisphere.
(note: click on the image to make it clear)
I’m not sure what you are doing there in #3, and why elevation matters.
Appears that you are trying to simplify a 3d into a 2d and leaving out enuf that creates model flaw.
Try it again with simple particle in a 3-D; where elevation & radius don’t matter.
My only mistake was in the paragraph below #3 where I made this statement, corrected here:
“. . . one would have to be much higher for Earth to appear to be 42% of a
hemisphere4*pi steradian view.In my first paragraph I specifically referred to the view of a molecule looking outward at height above Earth’s surface. For all practical purposes, (a) a molecule can be considered as a “simple particle” and (b) “view factor” specifically refers to 3-D space.
If it can’t absorb IR, neither can it radiate it. Read Kirchoff’s Law.
In brief terms, if it can’t absorb IR, then it can’t radiate IR either.
At best, N2 and O2 are heat sinks just like soil. They delay the release of heat until insolation disappears and a cooling gradient exceeds the heating gradient.
And you need to understand that Kirchoff’s Law applies only to “arbitrary bodies” that absorb and radiate energy energy in a continuous spectrum, such as a theoretical “blackbody” or, practically, as “greybodies”. The term “greybody” can be applied to solids and liquids at any temperature. Gases, on the other hand, absorb and radiate energy in distinct spectral lines, NOT across a continuous spectrum, and thus do not obey Kirchoff’s Law. Period.
Yet when you look at the earth’s outgoing radiation spectra, the “dip” that occurs due to CO2 absorption is the same frequency as the spectra of emission isn’t it? Funny how that works!
Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer – PMC (nih.gov)
Carbon dioxide (nist.gov)
The energy that warms the oceans comes from the sun, but back radiation from the atmosphere can reduce the flux of the sun-energy from the oceans to the atmosphere, forcing the temperature higher.
and then evaporation, cloud, precipitation and wind counter-act any temp increase.
Ever lived in tropical maritime climates?
True, but also irrelevant. That there is more than one way for bodies of water to lose energy does not refute the point that warmer air temperatures cause bodies of water to warm up so that they can continue to lose all the heat the sun puts into them.
Alan I have searched my heat transfer book and can find no equations showing a feed back loop from T low to T hi forcing T hi to go higher. Can you please provide one?
To maintain thermodynamic equilibrium, the ocean must balances incoming and outgoing fluxes of energy. The net flux of IR out of the oceans is always from the ocean to the atmosphere. Increasing the downward IR flux from the atmosphere is equivalent to reducing the upward IR flux from the ocean. To move back to equilibrium, the ocean is forced to warm. This is consistent with the equations in your heat transfer book.
Total scientific gibberish and nonsense….
And totally disobeying SB radiative transfer laws..
Net flux is based on temperature difference.
Show us where CO2 causes a change in the atmospheric temperature gradient.
You are totally clueless. !!
But you can’t say how.
But you can’t say why.
The net flux is based on the incoming and outgoing fluxes.
That isn’t the subject under discussion or the claim being made.
Somebody here is.
“But you can’t say why.”
Again, put the SB radiative law into a differential gradient form that includes time. What occurs at time t1? What occurs at time t2, and so on?
In your description, des the cold body increase in temperature from time t1 to t2? If so, then “back radiation” will increase and Tₕ will also increase in temperature won’t it? Then from t2 to t3 the cold body will increase in temperature again, causing increased “back radiation” making Tₕ hotter yet, right?
Where does this all end? Where does the increased energy to keep increasing temperatures come from?
The sun. In case you weren’t aware, it doesn’t turn off.
This is a simple concept that you all have gotten yourselves wildly confused about because you want it to not make sense in your heads.
At equilibrium, fluxes have to balance. If fluxes don’t balance, T changes in response until they balance again (because emitted flux is proportional to T). Increase incoming flux and you have to proportionally increase outgoing flux, and the only way for that to happen is for T to increase.
If you have a tub of water, with a drain at the bottom where water flows out and a tap at the top constantly filling the tub, the rate of drainage will be proportional to the height of the water in the tub (due to pressure). If you increase the rate of flow from the tap, the water height will rise until the outward flow is balancing the incoming flow. Shrink the diameter of the drain, and the water will also rise until equilibrium is reached between incoming/outgoing.
What you all I think we’re saying is that the enhancing the greenhouse effect is raising the “water level” (temperature) of the tub by reversing the drain flow and putting water back into the tub, when in reality it is exactly analogous to shrinking the diameter of the drain, forcing the water level higher. The water is always draining out of the tub, as it must, just a bit more slowly, until the water level rises to regain equilibrium. And there is always water coming from the tap (sun) to make raising the water level possible.
This applies to the oceans exactly as it does to land surfaces (also opaque to IR) and the near surface air temperature.
You have a giant mistake in your conclusion. You really do need to read Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation.
Tₕᵢ radiates a given amount because of its temperature. Absorption of “back radiation” does not change the Tₕᵢ bodies amount of radiation, it only reduces the “net radiation” between the two bodies. If the Tₕᵢ body actually warmed and increased radiation because of “back radiation” then the SB two body equation would never work.
There could never be equilibrium. The result is a never-ending increase of radiation and of entropy. In other words, a perpetual increase of temperature.
You need to move from algebra to gradients with differentials and integrals that include time as a variable. Equations like SB are only applicable to equilibrium or an infinitely small increment of time where an equilibrium assumption can be made.
When equilibrium isn’t satisfied, the temperature is changing. You have summarily undermined your own position.
Thanks for that. Until now I had mistakenly taken the Planck function, Wien’s law and 2nd law as gospel.
There is no evidence of CO2 back radiation warming anything.
You are chronically mal-informed.
Increased heat at the millimeter depth will increases evaporation which means increased cooling. That is, no change in temperature due to CO2’s IR. Only if the amount of absorbed IR from CO2 was so small that no increase in evaporation occurs would there be a slight imbalance between a cooling gradient and a warming gradient. That also means that any change due to CO2 would also be so small as to be undetectable. Warming of water occurs because of the sun, not because CO2 decreases the cooling gradient at the surface.
The rate of evaporation is a function of temperature. The evaporation increases because the temperature increases. Again, undermining your own position with characteristic bravado.
Warming the oceans due to increased solar input would also increase evaporation at the surface, but this doesn’t seem to cause you any trouble conceptually.
Nobody claims that back radiation directly warms the oceans. Back radiation warms the atmosphere, and a warmer atmosphere slows down the rate at which the energy that the sun is putting into the oceans, can escape.
CO2 doesn’t get a chance to radiate anything below about 11km altitude.
This conjecture of slowing down radiative loss is pure AGW mantra non-science.
Let’s look at this a little differently. Where does the radiation originate that warms CO2 over the ocean? The ocean? H2O? Collisions with evaporated H2O molecules?
I believe it all originates from the sun. The ocean is a hot body and the atmosphere is a cool body. Somehow, we need proof that a cold body can increase the temperature of a hot body that is in equilibrium with its source.
Because the atmosphere contents change the efficiency of the surface transfer to space, changing the atmosphere composition to reduce the efficiency causes the surface temperature to increase and reestablish equilibrium.
The oceans is what we were discussing. H2O only radiates when it changes state from vapor to liquid. I don’t think there is much of that at the “surface” of the ocean. Lots of evaporation goes on which cools the surface. Additional, “back radiation” from CO2 would only cause more evaporation and more cooling.
Sea water has an emissivity of ~0.99 so plenty of blackbody radiation from the ocean surface, nothing to do with the ‘change of state’ you referred to.
Except all evidence is the oceans are warming atmosphere not the other way around. The oceans started warming before the Industrial Revolution not after.
Climate alarmists want everyone to focus on what’s happened on Earth since the start of the Industrial Revolution—when mankind started substantial use of fossil fuels—that occurred around 1760 AD, at the earliest. That’s a span of about 260 years.
Compared to the time span since Homo sapiens first appeared on Earth (around 315,000 years ago), that period of fossil fuel use represents just 0.08% of time humans have experienced climate.
Climate alarmist see no purpose in looking further back in time previous to the Industrial Revolution because “obviously” there is nothing to learn from paleoclimatology when humans weren’t around.
Climate alarmists do nothing if not cherry-pick the time intervals for setting temperature “records” and rates of global warming.
Good point. Additionally, don’t forget the Industrial Revolution coincided with the waning of the Little Ice Age, accentuating the apparent warming since then.
Also, deforestation is a proven contributor to global warming that is mostly ignored these days, and the settling of the New World contributed significantly to that process within the same time frame.
The apocalypse cabal use the mid-1800s are the time of the modern industrial revolution.
Why?
1859 was the date of the first oil well drilled.
Starting in 1860 there was a significant uptick in industrialization as the US was transitioning to a wartime economy.
Coal was being used as an energy source much earlier.
Mass production concepts were first developed in the min-1700s.
China started burning coal in significant volumes 2000 years ago.
Mining and metallurgy date back millennia.
In other words, one can arbitrarily pick a date and not be totally incorrect.
So, IOW, picking a date that is 99.9% incorrect is therefore acceptable? 😳
I said nothing about acceptable. 🙂
It is interesting the start date picked without any explanation except since industrialization.
Using their definition, one could pick a date thousands of years ago and not be totally incorrect.
The D-O events were distinct in proxy records, yet we do NOT have a sound theory of what caused them. This does not bode well for our present knowledge level of climate phenomena.
A lot of studies in orbital mechanics and solar system cycles are starting to show levels of correlations.
We do not know what caused them. We are still learning.
Speaking of Greenland, it’s also true that Vikings farmed where there is now permafrost.
I’ve seen people argue that Greenland being warmer was “just” a local thing. Even if that’s true it tells us radical changes in local temperature can dwarf global trends.
Reminder, for those who need it, that Greenland is not the globe.
and climates are not one global entity.
There’s hundreds if not thousands of the buggers.
All with their own characteristics and unique behaviors.
Right, and when we talk about the rate of global warming, we mean the mean rate of warming across all of the globe’s regions, not just Greenland’s.
Nonsense. You never talk about the fact that the southern hemisphere and the northern hemisphere have different rates of warming, or that different rates occur within hemispheres.
CO2 is a well mixed trace gas in the atmosphere. This means it is already averaged everywhere in accordance with gas laws. If it was indeed the thermostat, different warming rates would not happen, because they couldn’t happen.
This simply isn’t true at all. Most of the earth’s landmasses are in the northern hemisphere, and land warms differently than oceans in response to greenhouse gas forcing. Not to mention the myriad other factors, from land use to volcanic emissions, that affect local responses.
The point is that the mean global temperature is not necessarily higher than today or warmer faster than today during D-O events simply because there was a large and sudden temperature change in Greenland.
More nonsense. A thermostat is a thermostat. It either functions as the noun is described or it doesn’t. You picked the use of the term global warming and insisted that the rate of warming was the same across all the global regions measured.
When shown that your analysis was incorrect, you shifted the measurement domain to oceans and landmasses instead of the atmosphere where the CO2 resides and the data is measured. No one measures global warming of the earth in the dirt or the depths of the oceans. It all happens in the atmosphere.
You need to learn how to argue your position better. It’s obvious from your shifting of goalposts that you can’t keep your data domains straight.
They can’t even tell you whether the “global average” is going up because of higher minimums around the globe, higher maximums around the globe, or a combination of the two. They *never* calculate the variance of any data set they use, be it a base measurement or somewhere in the “averaging” hierarchy. All they ever give is the statistical descriptor (which is *not* a measurement) known as the mean. Never the median, never the minimum value in the data set, never the maximum value in the data set, never the 1st quartile value, or the 3rd quartile value. They have absolutely no idea if the data is multi-modal, skewed left, skewed right, or even what the kurtosis and skewness values of the distribution are.
Since colder temps have higher variance than warmer temps, even the anomalies could be multi-modal (i.e. southern hemisphere and northern hemisphere having different medians) but they never bother to check.
It’s always the same meme: every thing is random and Gaussian. Even measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and it all cancels out so the stated values are 100% accurate.
According to NASA measurements, CO2 is not uniformly mixed. There are pockets and eddies and swirls and urban areas tend to +10 ppm (above) and rural -10 ppm (below) the stated average.
Otherwise your points are valid.
If you want to talk about the entire globe, we will have to limit our discussion to the post 1970 time period. Prior to that we were unable to measure the entire planet. Not even close.
Wait a minute you missed something in your logic chain.
Greenland warming/cooling is not indicative of the globe.
Globe is indicative of all points on the globe.
You can’t have it both ways dude. Try again.
Funny how the troll wants to reject Greenland data because “Greenland is not the globe”, yet he keeps showing us a chart that uses proxies, many of which only cover a tiny sliver of land, for a small period of time, For much of the graph, there is only one or at most two proxies, which cover only a small portion of the globe.
You can’t expect honesty from an alarmist.
I’m not saying you should reject the Greenland record, on the contrary it is an import element of the climate history during the last deglaciation. I am saying you cannot make the claim that historical natural warming rates dwarf the modern global warming by using a singular location.
Global climate reconstructions are compiled by extracting the common signal from all of the proxies (i.e. the global signal), which by design reduces local or regional influences. And thus even where records are sparse, you are still isolating the signal only to the globally shared component. You would need to use such a global reconstruction if you wanted to claim greater rates of global warming for some time in the past.
What AJ misses is that if one piece of the globe is cooling or staying stagnant then some other part has to go up MORE in order to raise the average.
That means that some places on the earth have to be going up MORE than just enough to offset the cooling at other places, it has to go up even MORE to raise the average. An offset won’t increase the average.
Where on the earth are we seeing such an increase in temperature? Are the oceans actually boiling?
“Reminder, for those who need it, that Greenland is not the globe.”
So, you don’t think Greenland revolves around you. Got it.
Nor are urban thermometers.
This validates the late 1930s early 40s 20th century temperature highstand for the globe. Note the all time high for the century in Greenland and even for southern Africa. The difference from official global is the jiggering done, first by Jim Hansen of GISS and then the rest of the scoundrels. Shame on you all!
.
Indeed, the globe hasn’t warmed in 80 years! Greenland (the poles to be more general) is the exhaust end of global heat engine. I noted in another thread South Africa’s longterm temperature series is the same as that of the US, Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia, and from Paul Homewood’s blog of a decade or so, the same pattern in detail in Paraguay and Ecuador. – Paul if you are reading this, can you dig out your old post on this. I searched your site and the graphics are gone.
Here is Capetown again.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/clip_image0022.gif
Note this goes to 2011 and it still, like Greenland, doesn’t exceed the century high.