From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
While the BBC is trying to persuade the public that weather is getting more extreme because of global warming, in 1974 scientists were genuinely concerned about the very real effects of global cooling.
So much so that the CIA prepared this study for the Government:
.
In the section about the Earth’s atmosphere, they note:
Back in the 1970s, scientists and politicians were not worried about global temperatures per se, they were worried about the very real impacts of global cooling on weather and agriculture.
They also recognised that the first half of the 20thC marked the best agricultural climate since the 11thC, and that the Little Ice Age was time of drought, famine and political unrest.
Theirs was a very real fear that the world’s climate could return to that again.
.The full report is below:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
NOAA as well.
Note.. graphically altered to join the text section together and put the magazine name at the end.
Thanks for that. Inspired me to go on a mission to find the whole article. Doesn’t seem to be findable on the NOAA website any more. Found it in a roundabout way in a link to the author (Paul Homewood) of this CIA article.
Raw data still makes the early to mid 30’s as possibly warmer than today (23 of the 50 states current high temperature records were set in that period). A few more rounds of homogenizations will completely kill what’s left of the already diminished peak. Haven’t got an algorithm “correcting” record highs, at least yet.
First of all, there is no global average temperature of the earth. It is just a contrived number series. However, there are various numerical signals that contribute to this number series. These include the 60 year cycle from the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the (linear?) temperature recovery from the Little Ice Age, short term peaks from the ENSO (teleconnection), urban heat island (UHI) effects, changes to the weather station database (number of stations and urban/rural mix) and data adjustments (homogenization). The temperature trend depends on the period of record. In 1938, Callendar claimed CO2 warming, but instead he was observing the 1910 to 1935 warming of the AMO. Douglas claimed cooling in the 1970s, which was the 1940 to 1970 AMO cooling phase. The warming since 1975 has been produced by the AMO warming phase, plus UHI and ‘adjustments’. For a more detailed discussion see ‘A Nobel Prize for Climate Modeling Errors’, Clark 2024. (Fig. 41 shown here)
“The temperature trend depends on the period of record. In 1938, Callendar claimed CO2 warming, but instead he was observing the 1910 to 1935 warming of the AMO.”
In regard to Callendar’s attribution of reported warming, I consider Professor David Brunt’s comment at the time to be particularly insightful:
““Prof. Brunt agreed with the view of Sir George Simpson that the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
In other words, expecting the static radiative effect to be capable of forcing absorbed energy to accumulate down here as sensible heat gain under a dynamically responsive atmosphere was too narrow a view of it all along.
More here from an Open Thread comment in 2023. This includes a link to a pdf of the original Callendar paper (with comments included) published by the Royal Meteorological Society.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/02/open-thread-52/#comment-3703255
“….urban heat island (UHI) effects…. and data adjustments (homogenization)”
No, they were (correctly) applied, as USCRN vs USHCN shows …
“In 1938, Callendar claimed CO2 warming”
He did, but that was before the period of “Global dimming” when industry ramped up after WW2, and which swamped the GHG forcing.
“Douglas claimed cooling in the 1970s, which was the 1940 to 1970 AMO cooling phase”
Eh ? The AMO was in a warm phase during that period?
“The warming since 1975 has been produced by the AMO warming phase”
Again the AMO was in a cool phase from ~ 1965 to 1995.
Did you mean the PDO, and not AMO?
Even so, globally their effect would be near zero-sum as they were largely in opposition.
I can’t think cyclones were counted with the same accuracy in 1880 and 2020.
OMG the bantam chook still doesn’t realise that before 2005 there was no USCRN for them to adjust the urban data to get a match.
You have NOT shown USHCN
You really are one of the most clueless chooks on the roost !
No kidding, my childhood home was farms and woods with a tiny town. Today it is replaced with concert and asphalt. The woods and farms are gone.
Your home is not the world.
71% of which is ocean.
It’s just like a comment I had as a forecaster when taking about an area forecast.
”but it’s not raining here”
And 71% is not measured even remotely adequately, certainly not before 2005.
But you are well aware of that fact.
You are well aware of that most of the data is basically FAKE,
Yet you still use it.
That means you are DISHONEST and CORRUPT.
And you say you worked for the Met.
That explains many things.
They are also DISHONEST and CORRUPT.
+1000
He’s also an arrogant bully with an inflated ego.
Says the man who follows on the coat tales of the most arrogant bully on here, with echoing ad homs and hand-waving denial.
“And 71% is not measured even remotely adequately, certainly not before 2005.”
Missed the point again…
I was replying to “my childhood home was farms and woods with a tiny town. Today it is replaced with concert and asphalt.”
AS in the oceans, which are 71% of the planet do not have “concert (sic) and asphalt” put on them.
And you object to satellite obs of SST, do you ?
But it’s OK for UAH to make Sat obs from satellite?
lol…we are now over 8b people;)
Am I missing something? Your graph shows aerosol forcing declining after 1940, not “ramping up” as you claimed.
You are Emily:
No, the graph shows -ve RF (radiative forcing). Negative, which means aerosols increased, and so blocked out some of the Sun’s energy.
See the line is turning down into larger -ve values on the y-axis.
“which was the 1940 to 1970 AMO”
No it was heavy aerosol loading from the ramp up in industry during and after WW2 and followed by the subsequent lowery of aerosol load wit the introduction of clear air acts.
A period known a “Global dimming”
https://news.agu.org/press-release/aerosol-pollution-caused-decades-of-global-dimming/
“From the 1950s through the 1980s, researchers saw steady declines in the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface, in a phenomenon known as “global dimming.” This trend mysteriously reversed in the late 1980s, when the atmosphere brightened again at many locations and surface solar radiation increased.”
“In this new study, they were able to show that rather than these fluctuations being due to natural changes in the cloud cover, they are instead generated by varying aerosols from human activity.
“In our analysis, we filtered out the effects of cloud cover to see whether these long-term fluctuations in solar radiation also occurred in cloud-free conditions,” Wild said. the decadal fluctuations in the sunlight received at the Earth’s surface were apparent even when skies were clear.”
“The warming since 1975 has been produced by the AMO warming phase, plus UHI and ‘adjustments’.”
No, by the reduction of “dimming”aerosols and the overtake of GHG forcing as the aerosol load diminished. (See graph)
In 1940 total RF was ~ 0.5 W/m2 and in 1990 had risen to ~ 2 W/m2 (a trebling of RF).
“data adjustments (homogenization).
No, as USCRN vs USHCN shows ….
“These include the 60 year cycle from the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
Err, but the PDO cycle was in direct opposition throughout that period and therefore canceled eachother out….
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO_AMO_files/image002.gif
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/PDO_AMO_files/image001.jpg
“In 1938, Callendar claimed CO2 warming”
He did and there was some but post 1940 it was swamped by the -ve forcing of aerosols.
“The warming since 1975 has been produced by the AMO warming phase”
Eh? – the AMO was in a cool pahase until1995 !
Thought I’d lost this version !!
It was unready to be posted.
Opportunity for a snide remark no doubt ?
The green GHG line is totally BOGUS. As I’m sure you know.
FAKED from erroneous ant-science conjectures.
Only gas that has any effect in the atmosphere is H2O
“The green GHG line is totally BOGUS. “
It is calculated from the ppm concetration present in the atmosphere via a line-by-line integration
Try telling thes scientists that designed/made ModTran and HiTran.
I’m sure they would like to know all their learning/expertise was to waste and all the engineers who use it are being lied to,
It cannot change the temperature gradient…
… so cannot change the net radiative flux.
“Forcing” is a FAKE word.
There is FAR more going on in the atmosphere than radiation.
I didn’t say it could.
The same LR (temp gradient) remains.
However it is maintained at the EEL (effective emission level) and from there to the surface, thereby raising the surface temp.
Do try hard to read and inwardly digest.
The net RF is indeed changed via imbalance, as the raised surface temp radiates at a higher rate (SB law) in order to exit to space.
I think you will find that “Forcing” is not a “fake word”.
You will find it in any dictionary.
There is convection, and there is conduction as the GHG molecules are excited by terrestrial LWIR, and conducted to adjacent molecules.
Very little conduction takes place at the surface (air directly adjacent the ground that is – as air is a very good insulator). Surface air gets warmed very close to the surface more by LWIR which then sets convection and turbulence to allow that air to rise.
The thing you seem to miss is that the only way Earth’s energy (gained from the Sun) can leave to space, is via radiation – LWIR.
The net radiative flux is TSI absorbed – LWIR out .
That is a small -ve number – so as I said above, in order to do that is via the SB law and so the atmosphere gets hotter.
Do you even know what the “TRAN” means in these names?
Ans: blanton has no clue as usual.
Simple projection.
What do you think a phrase like “radiative forcing” means, Anthony? And what do you think “radiation” means?
From the last load of bollocks I responded to, you wouldn’t accept the answer in any case.
You seem clueless that radiative forcing is a “bogus” terminology.
Tell us all , what does SB say about net radiative flux between two points ?
Or is basic energy transfer beyond you. !
There is no “forcing” from atmospheric CO2 period., whatever you want to claim “forcing” means.
It is a LIE, based on ignorance of what happens in the atmosphere.
It is the 2 LoT that describes that – that a cold body can transfer RF to a warm body, and in doing so slow the warm bodies cooling.
It it is the NET flow of RF that matters and a cold body can never make the warm body further.
That the SB Law relates E + const T^4 merely ells us that a hot body radiates more strongly than a cooler body.
It does not stop energy being absorbed by the cooler body in an exchange.
Do you expect the cool body to reject the photons fom the hot body by it somehow recognising that they are not allowed due coming from the hot body ?
By the way. that is how the GHE works – by radiating more weakly at the colder temps aloft at the EEL than they would have done lower down at a lower CO2 concentration.
“slow the warm bodies cooling.”
That’s not the same as “warming” though.
“NET flow of RF”
Where did you get that phrase from? It doesn’t come from standard physics, that’s for sure. What do you think “flow” means?
Follow the logic. If a cooler body transfers RF to a warmer body, the warmer body is emitting lower RF than it would in the absence of the cooler body. For a planetary body, a state of equilibrium between the body’s RF to space and the solar irradiance received will be tended towards. How can equilibrium be reached if the warmer body is emitting lower RF? Physics tell us that RF is proportional to T^4. How can RF increase then?
“If a cooler body transfers RF to a warmer body”
What do you think “RF” means, Alan? And what do you think “transfers” means?
Radiative flux is the energy emitted by a body in the form of electromagnetic radiation per unit area, and its intensity depends on the body’s temperature. This radiative energy is exchanged between objects; each emits and absorbs radiation. The colder object emits radiation with lower intensity than the warmer object, so the net energy flow is always from the warmer body to the cooler one. However, there is still energy being transferred from the cooler object to the warmer one, which reduces the rate of heat loss from the warmer object. This transfer would not occur if the cooler object were absent.
Let me know if you need further clarification or if this sufficiently addresses your concern so we can refocus on the main discussion.
Steve see if this helps conceptually.
A meteorological example you can observe yourself ….
On a morning when there has been a hoar frost.
Find a location where the are trees at the side of a road.
Look where the hoar frost has formed most thickly.
You will find that where the trees overlie the road there is much thinner HF – in fact often none.
Why?
Because although the tree is colder than the road (the radiating surface) it is warmer than the sky.
So in comparison the road away from the tree cover can radiate to space (colder) and under the trees, partially at least, blocked by the branches, not so cold.
A colder object “warming” a warmer.
Due to a reduction of cooling.
The reason that happens is as well as the above, is that there is a heat flux coming up to the road surface from below that will reach an equilibrium at a warmer temp under the branches and hence not get cold enough for the HR to form.
Hope that helps.
Also there is this fact, one you could not observe unless you were to monitor road surface temps closely as well as the state of the sky – both of which I did for many years in my job as a forecaster informing local councils of winter road conditions.
It can be seen that even a small amout of Ci (Cirrus cloud) at a height of 30,000ft and a temp of -30C can *warm* a road surface.
The road needs to be already below zero but indeed Ci can halt or slightly increase the roads temperature.
Now that is an example of a cold object *warming* something warmer.
The same thing happens with WV and O2/CH4/N2O.
I’ll borrow an analogy that provides an almost 1:1 comparison to planetary radiative equilibrium/GHE. If you follow this analogy you can exactly follow the mechanism by which the atmosphere maintains a higher surface temperature for earth.
Take a bucket being continually filled from a tap. The bucket would fill until it overflows the top, except there is a hole in the bottom where water runs out. Now the bucket will only fill until the rate of water draining out the bottom matches the rate of water coming from the tap.
What sets the rate that water drains from the hole? It is the water pressure, set by the height of water in the bucket. Thus, when equilibrium between inflow and outflow is reached, the water height in the bucket will remain constant.
What happens if we increase the flow from the tap? The water level will start to rise, until the pressure is great enough that a new equilibrium is reached. Similarly, what happens if the diameter of the drain is made smaller? The rate of outflow is reduced, so the water level will rise until equilibrium is regained.
In the second case, was it ever required that shrinking the drain hole added water back into the bucket, reversing the direction of outflow? Or did it merely slow the rate of outflow, forcing a new equilibrium height?
This is exactly analogous to the situation with a planetary atmosphere. The height of the water being the planet’s temperature, which influences the rate of energy outflow via the Stefan-Boltzmann law (hot things radiate with greater intensity than cold things). The diameter of the drain hole represents the concentration of absorbing gases.
Connecting the dots, if you can see why “lower rate of outflow” leads to “higher water level” you can see why “lower RF” leads to “higher surface T”.
The water analogy is a standard one, and there’s nothing wrong with it as far as it goes. But that’s not what the Climate Scientists are claiming, is it? They claim that “water” (energy) is actually flowing “uphill” (against the entropy gradient). They are lying.
It is exactly what climate scientists are saying. You’re arguing against a position nobody has taken, i.e. arguing against your own misperception.
No, I am arguing against what the Climate Scientists literally say. They say positive power is being developed from the atmosphere to the surface. That is analogous to water flowing uphill.
This is closely related to your failure to explain your earlier nonsensical claim that radiant energy should be measured in Watts. Who told you that? Because that is analogous to measuring the height of your water reservoir in gallons per minute.
“That is analogous to water flowing uphill.”
No, the water still flows downhill, but less freely. It’s as if you put a dam in the way. The water still gets through, but the level rises behind the dam.
Scientists do not say this, they say that adding GHGs to the atmosphere reduces outgoing power until equilibrium is regained, not that it reverses it.
Yes they do say this. I posted the image in which they say it, a few comments down below, as a response to Anthony’s comment. Let me know if you can’t find it and I’ll repost it for you here.
Looking at the diagram, energy loss from the surface to the atmosphere via thermals, evapotranspiration, and radiation is 452 W/m^2, energy input to the surface from the atmosphere 324 W/m^2, the power from the atmosphere to the surface is negative.
Add more GHGs and it will be slightly less negative until equilibrium is restored.
“energy input to the surface from the atmosphere 324 W/m^2”
No it isn’t. Where did you (or they) get that number from? Because it’s fictional. It violates the 2nd Law. The surface is warmer than the atmosphere, therefore energy cannot flow from the atmosphere to the surface.
From the diagram you posted. Energy is not shown as flowing from the atmosphere to the surface, it is shown flowing from the surface to the atmosphere. 454 > 324. The net is 130 W/m^2 from the surface to the atmosphere.
Double CO2 and this would drop to about 126.3W/m^2 until equilibrium was established. At no point would it flip negative.
“The net is 130 W/m^2”
What do you think “net power” means? Can you give me a definition of that term? Because it’s not in any of my textbooks. Better start with the definition of “regular” power first, so that I know that we are talking about the same kind of standard physics.
Sure, let’s work through it together. Power is the amount of energy transferred or converted per unit time, measured in joules per second, or watts. These energy budget diagrams show energy transfer per unit area, or watts per meter squared. Every second, each square meter of the earth’s surface transfers 454 joules of energy to the atmosphere. Each second, each square meter of the surface receives 334 joules from the atmosphere. The net energy exchanged each second is thus 130 joules per square meter of surface area to the atmosphere.
If I throw away two dollars every second, and you hand me back one dollar every second, I am losing dollars at the rate of one per second. I am getting poor more slowly than I would be without you handing me dollars back. Your presence doesn’t mean I am getting richer.
“Every second, each square meter of the earth’s surface transfers 454 joules of energy to the atmosphere.”
If the surface transfers 454 joules of energy to the atmosphere, it must get 454 joules colder, while the atmosphere gets 454 joules warmer. That’s what “transfer” means in my dictionary. Can we observe that taking place with our thermometers? Or is it a completely fictional idea?
In other words, let’s say instead of you throwing away 2 dollars every second and me handing back one of them to you, what if you throw away 3 dollars every second and I hand you back 2 of them? Can anyone at all tell the difference between these two scenarios? And if they can’t, which one is the “real” one? By what reasoning would you prefer one over the other? (note that there are actually an infinite number of combinations that all result in you losing 1 dollar per second, not just two possibilities as I described here)
The atmosphere is simultaneously transferring energy back to the surface, and to space. So on net it doesn’t gain or lose energy. The surface is continually receiving energy from the atmosphere, and from the sun. On net it is not gaining or losing energy. This is the state of equilibrium, toward which the system will tend whenever it is perturbed.
There is no difference in the net exchange in both scenarios. There is of course a difference in the magnitude of the bidirectional exchanges. You can measure the number of dollar bills passing from hand to hand.
Take the analogy a single step further and we will arrive at the actual situation on earth. I pass you two dollars a second, you pass me back one dollar a second. Also, the bank passes me back one dollar a second. Now I’m never losing money.
But I have a peculiarity, I insist that my wealth is never going up or down. I don’t care about its magnitude, but if I notice myself getting richer, I start passing out money faster.
You decide to start passing me back two dollars a second. Now every two dollars I throw away, I get two back, so I never lose them. But the bank keeps giving me a dollar every second. My wealth is going up by a dollar a second.
I have to speed up and start throwing away three dollars per second. I get two dollars back from you and a dollar from the bank for every three dollars I throw away, I am satisfied. But now every second the number of dollars I possess is three, so reservoir of wealth is higher, but the system is in equilibrium.
And never once did you produce wealth from nothing, never once did you hand me back more dollars than you are receiving from me.
“The atmosphere is simultaneously transferring energy back to the surface”
No it isn’t. There is no “back and forth” in the concept of “energy transfer”, i.e. “work”. Whoever said that to you was either lying, or deluded. It certainly wasn’t a physics professor, and you never saw that idea in a physics textbook either. This is the entire point of the Second Law, the part of your physics class that you must have slept through. Work is only performed in one direction, namely the direction of increasing entropy. In thermodynamics, that means thermal energy is only transferred from hotter objects to colder ones. Never the other way around. There is no “back and forth”.
Can you tell me the name of your physics professor? I would like to have a chat with him, because he did a terrible job of teaching you the fundamentals. In fact, it was such an awful job that you should probably ask for your money back.
“You can measure the number of dollar bills passing from hand to hand.”
Yes, in the case of dollar bills you can film them with a camera and everyone watching the film would be able to count them and agree on how many are being passed back and forth. That’s because this particular analogy breaks down at that level. What would be the equivalent measurement for the energy being transferred from the atmosphere to the surface? How are we to measure it and assure ourselves that it isn’t fictional? No one has managed to do this yet. Therefore I, and every other physicist, concludes that this quantity you refer to is, indeed, fictional. Naturally, you are welcome to imagine all the fictional quantities you like. Just don’t call them “physics”, that’s all.
You’ve conflated the concepts of net energy transfer and the individual exchanges that occur during radiative energy transfer. The second law of thermodynamics states that the net transfer of thermal energy must be from a hotter object to a cooler one, which is entirely correct. However, this does not preclude individual photons emitted by a cooler body from being absorbed by a warmer one. In fact this must be the case, unless you’re saying that photons carry information about the temperature of their source that can be read by objects they encounter. Which would be quite a discovery.
“net energy transfer”
What is “net energy transfer”, Alan? That one isn’t in my physics textbook either.
“The second law of thermodynamics states that the net transfer”
No it doesn’t. Where did you see that definition?
“individual photons”
That’s the quantum realm. We’re talking about classical thermodynamics here. The Second Law doesn’t apply to quantum physics, because there is no concept of entropy in quantum wavefunctions. It only applies at the classical scale. But you knew that, right?
No, you don’t get to natter on about photons until you’ve got your classical thermodynamics figured out, and you’re not there yet. Not even close. For example, what units do we measure “energy” in, Alan?
Going back to your water analogy, which is a better one than dollar bills, how many gallons per minute of water are flowing uphill in any given stream?
The second law of thermodynamics governs the net transfer of energy, which is always from hotter to cooler. This does not preclude bidirectional radiative exchange, which necessarily occurs because all objects emit radiation in all directions, regardless of the temperature of their surroundings. Your position implicitly requires either that this does not happen or that matter possesses some magical property allowing it to reject radiation emitted by a colder object. Neither claim is supported by physics. The net flow of energy ensures entropy increases, fully consistent with the second law.
The second law emerges from the quantum behavior of particles and fields when averaged over a macroscopic scale. Radiative heat transfer involves photons, which are adequately described in both quantum and classical frameworks. Planck’s law bridges classical thermodynamics and quantum mechanics by describing the quantization of energy and its relationship to temperature.
You don’t get to dictate the scope of my responses, and your conceited attitude is not conducive to productive debate. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest approaching it with openness to evaluating your own understanding of these concepts.
“The second law of thermodynamics governs the net transfer of energy”
No it doesn’t. Who told you that?
“bidirectional radiative exchange”
What do you think “radiation” means?
“The second law emerges from the quantum behavior of particles and fields when averaged over a macroscopic scale”
No it doesn’t. Who told you that?
“You don’t get to dictate the scope of my responses”
I am pointing out that your responses are nonsensical, and always have been. Instead of simply repeating the same nonsense over and over and hoping it gets better with age and repetition (it doesn’t), why not try acting like an adult for two minutes and answering some of my questions? Here are two of them:
1) What units should we measure energy in?
2) Who taught you this nonsense about “net work”?
“openness to evaluating your own understanding of these concepts”
I’m not the one who’s trying to measure energy in Watts, am I? Are you sure I am the one who needs to re-evaluate my own understanding?
You persistently focus on semantics and pick apart individual words instead of addressing the substance of the arguments presented. This is not conducive to respectful and productive debate. If you wish to have my continued engagement, you need to actually address the central point of the argument. I will state it one final time:
All objects emit radiation in all directions, regardless of the temperature of their surroundings. Your position implicitly requires either that this does not happen or that matter possesses some magical property allowing it to reject radiation emitted by a colder object. Neither claim is supported by physics. The net flow of energy ensures entropy increases, fully consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.
If you cannot directly engage with this central point and instead resort to further semantic arguments or diversions, that will signal the end of our exchange.
“You persistently focus on semantics”
That’s how science works.
“All objects emit radiation in all directions”
What do you think “radiation” means, and what units should we measure it in?
I was pretty clear in stating that I needed you to directly address the substance of my argument in order to continue the discussion. You’ve evaded again.
Before I can address the substance of your argument, you need to tell me what you think any of those words mean, because you aren’t using them the way physicists do. You are just making things up, so there is no argument to address. Why can’t you just answer a simple question, such as “what units should we measure energy in”?
What’s the matter, Alan? Ran out of stupid things to say? Are you being just as hypocritical as Anthony by demanding that I directly address the nonsensical “substance” of your argument while refusing to address my physics questions? That’s not how science works, nor how intelligent and respectful adults behave. How old are you, anyway?
“That’s not the same as “warming” though.”
That’s why I said it.
“warming” means getting warmer.
It doesn’t it – just cools at a slower rate.
Sure, nothing wrong with that statement from a thermodynamics perspective. But that’s not what the Climate Scientists claim, is it? They claim actual power being developed from the atmosphere to the surface. That means energy being transferred in the wrong direction.
I am not aware that is the case.
Ah. Well let me help you then.
First, what exactly did you mean by “downwelling IR” in this quote of yours: “Then IR radiometers are wrong when they show that indeed there is downwelling IR from a clear night sky?”
In particular, are you referring to downwelling Watts of IR?
If that doesn’t jog your memory, try this image, with my focus of attention highlighted by the red arrow I drew in the bottom right corner. The 324 W/m^2 of “back radiation”.
Steve,
Like Gorman, you seem to be getting caught up in semantics.
GHGs absorb terrestrial LWIR and either warm adjacent molecules by collision or emit the gained energy as a photon which can go in any direction.
Obviously that means half can go up and half go down
(don’t come back with “sides too” please).
Those photons comprise the “downwelling IR.
Is that any clearer?
If you want to talk about a flux of IR then, yes it is simply energy (Joules) x time.
J/s = Watts (power).
Semantics, semantics…..
As my dear departed Dad used to say “speak by the card or equivocation will undo us”.
(Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1).
“caught up in semantics”
I do believe that the meanings (semantics) of words are important, yes. Especially in the “hard” sciences. By contrast, are you just making stuff up and hoping for the best?
“Those photons comprise the “downwelling IR.
Is that any clearer?”
No it isn’t, not yet, because it’s still ambiguous, but let’s keep going…
“flux of IR then, yes it is simply energy (Joules) x time”
Okay, so now we are definitely talking about Watts, as shown in the diagram I posted. Which is why I said “they claim actual power being developed from the atmosphere to the surface”. And then you lied that they claimed no such thing.
Which part did you not understand?
“you seem to be getting caught up in semantics”
No answer to my previous message? Ran out of dumb things to say?
One of us is very confused here, Anthony. Are semantics important, or not? If they are, why are you complaining that I am “caught up” in them? And if they aren’t, why are you quoting that Hamlet passage at me? Did you even read it? Maybe you should read it again. Several times. Because your dear departed Dad was looking at you when he said that. Not me. I choose my words very carefully indeed, and I know what they mean. You obviously do not. Are you being a bit hypocritical?
And why did you lie that climate scientists do not claim downward power developed from the atmosphere to the surface? I showed you where they did claim that. Then you ran away. Are you also being a coward?
What did your dear departed Dad say about lying, and then running away when you were caught? Or insulting folks who know better than you do? He sounds much smarter and wiser than you. Maybe you should have paid closer attention to him. Did he teach you anything about humility, and politeness?
I am trying to teach you the difference between “energy” and “power”, and what “radiation” means, as my own dear (not departed) Dad taught it to me. Are you going to pay attention, or just continue to be an arrogant ignorant egotistical fake know-it-all?
None of this is an “American” thing vs. a “British” thing. It is a science thing, and a gentlemanly thing.
And if the only two people around here in your corner are AlanJ and Warren Beeton, you may want to have a careful rethink about your life choices. Those two are not the sharpest tools in the shed, if you catch my drift. The elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top. The lights are on, but no one’s home. They’re a few sandwiches short of a picnic, a few cans short of a six-pack, and a few bricks short of a full load.
In other words, I don’t do my own research so I just make up assertions that contradict your statements.
From:
How Exactly Does Carbon Dioxide Cause Global Warming? | Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Please note “half returns to Earth as heat”. That means the surface warms from that heat. The implication is that this flux increases the temperature of the surface, the “greenhouse effect”. This is from an educational organization. No wonder “science” is being perverted to pseudoscience.
There are sites all over the internet that describe the GHE in this manner. Your inability to find them speaks loudly about your research capabilities.
“In other words, I don’t do my own research so I just make up assertions that contradict your statements.”
Is this an American thing, where you take a phrase so literally?
What I said ….. “I am not aware that is the case.”
Means …
“No that is not the case”.
In English, English ( should really say British English).
We have a way of using the language with more nuance.
“Please note “half returns to Earth as heat”. That means the surface warms from that heat. The implication is that this flux increases the temperature of the surface, the “greenhouse effect”. This is from an educational organization. No wonder “science” is being perverted to pseudoscience.”
Again, why do you take such word usage so literally ??
The author is one Sarah Frecht
A science writer and not a climate scientist at all.
She is trying to get the science over to the general public who have no skin in the game of semantics as you do.
To you it may mean “increases the temperature of the surface”.
But rest assured it doesn’t.
Try complaining to the journalists union not whinging about inconsequential things to people who know what the science says …. And so do you now. If you learn.
Hmm. So would you say that your position is that being scientifically correct doesn’t matter because the public wouldn’t understand it anyway?
Jo Nova tried to make this case to me too. She is also supposed to be a “scientist”. But that’s not how I was taught to do science. That’s why the general public is the general public and we are highly trained scientists. Well, some of us are… obviously not you, though.
Instead of asking me and Jim to complain to journalists who are paid to lie, why not try telling the public the scientific truth, instead of lying to them yourself just because you think they are idiots?
Why don’t you give me an answer, and we’ll see?
Above.
I don’t live on here, and I’m in the UK.
What is your time zone?
Fair enough, I’m on Eastern Standard Time over here.
“No, as USCRN vs USHCN shows ….”
And then posts USCRN vs ClimDiv… dopey bantam.
A change of name for the same data series.
A typical deflection from the point I was making – that directly refuted the assertion that UHI wasn’t accounted for, and was somehow fraudulently allowed to warm the data.
Anything to score the “win”, as eventually, as I have a life, and am not wedded to WUWT, the win will come by dint of his thread-bombing.
No doubt this time will be no different.
Be my guest.
As it will only be more bollocks and ad hom, that merely damages the “sceptic” cause.
Again, the bantam chook sqwarks mindlessly .
No, ClimDiv is not the same as USHCN.
ClimDiv is homogenised to KNOWN pristine sites at the region scale.
The old USHCN was a totally bogus, mal-adjusted agenda-driven creation, rife with urban warming from un-fit-purpose or shoddy surface sites.
All you produce is bollocks…. because that is all you can allow yourself to be aware of..
“the CIA prepared this study for the Government”
In fact the CIA sent a junior staff member out to report,and he tried to cover all points of view, but spent too much time listening to the Kukla’s. But as for “CIA prepared”, Paul did not note this on the front page:
Real scientists will assert that ‘climate models are very much a work in progress’.
(just paraphrasing your comment).
Even the London Times had a front page article saying we were in for 20,000 cool years.
You can see a copy of that front page at the bottom of this link:
https://www.climatecatastrophefund.com/
__-
The Times didn’t like me reminding them of that – so they banned me from comments !
The Times was describing a Science article by Hays et al which set out a relation between glaciations and orbital variations. But it left an important caveat on their prediction:
Brown University.
And of course Schneider was well into the cooling scare !!
His wipeout can’t be emphasized enough, where he at least offered one item of common sense: geoengineering to stop global cooling might have unintended consequences,
CO2 has zero effect on climate…
… it is not an anthropogenic effect, because it no has effect.
Their “predictions” have always been totally BOGUS, just like they are now.
Nick
are you saying scientist, governments and media were not saying that we were likely had to a new ice age in the 70s?
if so you are wrong, the scare of that in schools was only second to the nuclear war fear. Pumping fear into people is the oldest trick in the book. I remember friends of mine petrified of the coming ice age. Later they were sure we were going to war in Iran and then Poland. Locally the big thing by me was “Dump the Pump” which was a pump for taking water from the Delaware river for the new Limerick reactor. Was going to destroy the entire eco system and if we didn’t stop it Bucks counties entire wild life and agriculture system would collapse. Creating fear in schools and Media is never ending and just getting worse. It’s all a scam, get people scared and angry then you point them at your enemy.
I recall reading a detailed white paper produced by the EPA in the late 1970s on all the terrible things that would happen if the trend to acid rain were not reversed. Dead bald eagles because all the fish would die, lots of other dead wildlife, dead crops and famine, etc. etc. All to happen within 10 years. Wish I still had a copy of that document.
The global cooling hysteria was so pervasive that it infiltrated my grade school science classroom. I told the story of that back in 2011 (4th paragraph here) how I was asked by one of my classmates if I was worried about ice sheets coming as far south as where we all lived. “No, I’m sure I can outrun a glacier.”
“No, I’m sure I can outrun a glacier.”
Ah, when we were young!
The BBC showed a 2 hour programme entitled ‘The Weather Machine’, a co-production with WNET (New York), Sveridges Radio (Stockholm), KBO (Hilversum), OECA (Toronto) and ZDF (Mainz) on 12th October 1974.
They also published a book by distinguished science writer Nigel Calder entitled
‘THE WEATHER MACHINE AND THE THREAT OF ICE’
The book has 138 pages of small text most of which is in double columns on each page as well as photographs and diagrams.. The last chapter is entitled ‘The Threat of Ice’
Page 135 lists
‘Countries in danger of obliteration (complete or almost complete) by ice sheets’
Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Irish Republic, United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden,Denmark, Finland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, New Zealand
It goes on to list 14 ‘countries in danger of of extensive glaciation’ and notes that six countries then part of the USSR would also suffer
It then lists 43 ‘countries in danger of severe drought during the onset of an ice age’
The Ice Age scare was real but perhaps Nick had other things on his mind at the time.
And yet the EPA now allow wind turbines that kill huge numbers of Bald Eagles… \
Go figure… .
Could it be that the EPA just doesn’t care.
I see where someone shot a Bald Eagle and killed it in Alabama, the other day. There’s a $2,500.00 reward out for any information on the shooter.
If he had killed that Eagle with a windmill, he wouldn’t be in trouble.
There was not a scientific consensus that the planet was headed toward an impending ice age in the 1970s. The scientific community broadly anticipated near-term warming as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. There had been an observed moderate cooling trend since the mid-century, driven by sulfate emissions, and there were a handful of scientists who speculated about what might happen if this trend were not reversed, but this was not the majority opinion. A literature review by Peterson, Connolley, and Flek showed only a handful of papers from the time predicting cooling:
Media reporting on the subject was driven by a renewed public interest in the ice ages as paleoclimatologists were beginning to unravel some of the mysteries of past glaciations. Whatever your experience in school was it was likely driven more by this interest than by prevailing scientific opinion.
Alan:
Here is an except from the paper …
“MEDIA COVERAGE . When the myth of the
1970s global cooling scare arises in contemporary
discussion over climate change, it is most often in the
form of citations not to the scientific literature, but
to news media coverage. That is where U.S. Senator
James Inhofe turned for much of the evidence to
support his argument in a U.S. Senate floor speech in
2003 (Inhofe 2003). Chief among his evidence was a
frequently cited Newsweek story: “The cooling world”
(Gwynne 1975). The story drew from the latest global
temperature records, and suggested that cooling “may
portend a drastic decline for food production.” Citing
the Kuklas’work on increasing Northern Hemisphere
snow and ice, and Reid Bryson’s concerns about a
long-term cooling trend, the Newsweek story juxtaposes
the possibility of cooling temperatures and
decreasing food production with rising global populations.
Other articles of the time featured similar
themes (see “Popular literature of the era” sidebar).
Even cursory review of the news media coverage of
the issue reveals that, just as there was no consensus
at the time among scientists, so was there also no
consensus among journalists. For example, these are
titles from two New York Times articles: “Scientists
ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may
be ahead” (Sullivan 1975a) and “Warming trend seen
in climate; two articles counter view that cold period
is due” (Sullivan 1975b). Equally juxtaposed were The
Cooling (Ponte 1976), which was published the year
after Hothouse Earth (Wilcox 1975)”.
Indeed. The contrarian set continually pushes two false arguments:
There was a broad scientific consensus in the 1970s about an imminent ice age.If scientists got it wrong in the 70s, they must have it wrong today.
The first of course being false and the second logically incongruous.
The reality, as the paper points out, is threefold. First, modern climate science was much less mature in the 70s – the theories of past ice ages were only just being worked out, and work on modern climate models was only beginning. But even then, scientists knew about GHGs, and the theory that human emissions were going to drive a warming of the climate was well established. So there was less agreement, but still an overall consensus about which outcome was most likely.
Second, there actually was an observed global cooling trend, and scientists rightly engaged in scientific conjecture about the possible implications. But few agreed with this conjecture, and as evidence amassed in support of continued future warming, these ideas were abandoned as scientists did what they’re supposed to do and followed the evidence.
Third, media tends to publish what the public wants to consume, and people like hearing wild stories about glaciers descending down on the continents and burying everyone under kilometers of ice, so that’s what they published. The contrarians were children when this was happening, so their exposure was to popular media, not peer reviewed scientific literature, leading to a skewed perception.
The thing the contrarians can never do is point to any documentary evidence of their claims of a consensus, only personal anecdotes.
The point you are missing is that both errors were caused by projecting “too big” results with “too little” data.
ROFLMAO.
The PETTY efforts you two clowns go to to DENY the 1970s ice age scare is really quite hilarious.
You KNOW you are lying.
And we know that you know you are lying.
“Third, media tends to publish what the public wants to consume”
WRONG, media publishes what they are paid to push, and what their ideology tells them to publish.
Any “scare” story will do, no matter how ludicrous.
That is why there is so much climate nonsense in so many far-left papers
there Was no consensus than and there is none now outside of the political, academic and media world. In the science world there is tremendous debate whether about AGW and its magnitude. There is little debate where the long term trend is headed, 10,000 years from now we will be out of this interglacial period and maybe much sooner. CAGW has moved to the fringe in the scientific community but is still the prevailing view in the political, academic and media world, why is that?
It should be quite simple for you to prove this by pointing to a literature survey showing that the prevailing view amongst climate scientists is that AGW isn’t real.
CAGW
So no evidence to support your position. Got it.
For give me, I don’t remember saying AGW isn’t real, can you please point out where I did?
So you agree with the latest IPCC reports?
I agree that man has an affect on the environment. I agree that man’s affect is mostly in warming the environment. I agree that CO2 is a green house gas.
I agree with Judith Curry, Roy Spencer’s and most the actual climate scientist that CO2 is a week contributor to global warming. I also see mostly positives to that small warming trend. I agree with most of the scientist on either side of the argument that what ever affect man made warming does have it certainly is not going to cause catastrophic out comes.
I disagree with all of the Media, Academic and Political jackasses that want to use man made warming as a tool to reshape society.
I disagree with people like Michael Mann who use their position as a climate scientist to make millions off of sensationalism and fear mongering.
I disagree with people like you who think their understanding and view are a religion not to be questioned.
Nor is there a consensus now, and science is not a democracy.
However many many scientists contributed to the Ice Age scare. And it is a far more genuine concern than CO2.
“When the myth of the 1970s global cooling scare”
To people who were there, it was not a myth.
…nor are the various Malthusian doom novels that were assigned as college science reading at the time.
Where the F do you think the media got the idea? You’re missing the whole point, it’s about fear and control, then and now and it was pervasive then they just even better things to use, like nuclear war. It the 80s when it was realized that there was a need for a never ending boogie man that could not be resolved quickly to con people with, since the Cold War was ending, they turned to CAGW.
“it’s about fear and control”
Sorry, but I’m not a paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I’ll leave you and the many others on here to that delusion Ta.
Poor bantam chook. It is that has all the irrational fears.
You are the one totally immersed in the AGW conspiracy.
I am not a conspiracy theorist either. You don’t think CAGW is being used to manipulate people and especially kids? When I was young I watched my friends and classmates be manipulated in to fearing things they had zero control over. Many of them developed serious emotional issues or the anxiety they felt.
it was in college that I realized how strong the socialist movement had taken hold in academia and later I realized how strong it also was in media. The manipulation was overwhelming in college, professors obviously directing kids what to think and creating peer groups to pressure everyone to fall in line. Using the power of impending world doom gave the peer groups the power of righteousness. This is not a conspiracy it’s something I have lived through and it’s all around now. It’s no conspiracy that every group pushing the CAGW agenda also wants government control and social Justice over everything. It’s also no conspiracy how much money communist Russia then and communist China now pour into our academic institutions.
“You don’t think CAGW is being used to manipulate people and especially kids?”
Correct I don’t.
I think is entirely a consequence of ideological alignment.
On the one hand we have scientists who work with the best knowledge of the subject of anyone on Earth, now or past, to research the climate.
They do what they do and come to a *general* conclusion.
A caveat to that is that human psychology has it that there is small section of the population that are inherently contrarian. They will not be told stuff, and insist on doing their own study. In many cases they are not equipped with the means to do it – but they do anyway and, again, here with the DK thing, they end up thinking the mainstream is wrong and they are correct. (we see extremes on here akin to an ostriches head in the sand)
There is the science (as it is a *social* science, and not one that will bring riches, most scientists lean to the left), and then there are politicians.
Politics is evenly divided into 2 camps (increasingly poles apart).
The left, are caring and are very much interested in people and nature. They seek to press the scientific conclusion.
The right, they are very much libertarian and self-centric and resent being told how they should live their lives.
Such is the situation as regards AGW.
The left see it being tackled as imperative.
The right are pushing against that and very much resent it.
Sorry, but you are quite obviously on the right, else you would not think that we are being manipulated.
At the end of the day this is the only planet available to us, and you pays yer money and takes yer choice.
Climatology is not a physical science, and all your versification cannot change this simple fact.
“A caveat to that is that human psychology has it that there is small section of the population that are inherently contrarian. They will not be told stuff, and insist on doing their own study……”
Some very interesting stuff here….
However, it must be asked: if mainstream science is so convinced that the evidence is overwhelming, why does it not tolerate challenge to the evidence? Surely, the very essence of science is to test the hypothesis to destruction? Why are various highly qualified experts, who (although in the minority) find problems with mainstream conclusions, not allowed to be heard? Why is the media and the political world also so keen to keep such ones on the margins? Why do the likes of “Skeptical Science” blacklist scientists, who by all measures, carry outstanding credibility but who challenge the orthodoxy?
Your comments on the lefties being the good guys and the righties being the baddies, I think is interesting. The lefties being the ones who want to save the planet for future generations from the ravages of climate change and other pending environmental time bombs. Perhaps this is true of the most naive of lefties when they first enter politics. They possibly do believe that they can be the ones to turn the tide, bringing about social and environmental justice for all. But very soon, the truth kicks in and they find themselves involved in power struggles against a system that’s inherently rigged against everything they might originally hoped to achieve.
Also, if lefties believe that the Net zero agenda is actually going to save the planet, why don’t they question the wisdom of what is being proposed? Because, the net zero agenda is a COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME UNLESS CHINA AND INDIA GET ONBOARD.
All politicians who have even the most basic of analytical faculties must surely understand this. Also, how does the world intend to prevent developing nations who discover vast fossil fuel reserves from developing in ways that they see fit? Even the dimmest of politicians must see the futility of net zero. That being the case, we have to ask, what really is their motivation behind backing such a dead donkey?
It’s fascinating how the big government types always resort to calling those who disagree with them paranoid conspiracists.
While claiming they are “above” politics.
I spent my whole life talking people of cliffs about things like climate change. I don’t go around bring up conspiracies on anything and am frankly disinterested in most of this nonsense. But if you think countries like China aren’t manipulating things to try and destabilize the west your are just blind to the obvious. If you don’t think they are buying people off in our government and everywhere else in are society you are very unobservant.
You cannot see as you must be one of them.
I find it incredibly bizarre that such a notion can be held in any brain.
The world works via cock-up and not conspiracy.
What you fail to mention there in your citation is that the middle name in that trio of ‘literature review’ authors is no less than William “Wikiprogaganda” Connolley, the man who spent most of his time as an editor at Wikipedia erasing any content he could find which undercut the notion of CAGW and/or which attempted to correct egregious accusation errors hurled at skeptic climate scientists. I have a 7-part series at GelbspanFiles on how the man was tapped for assistance to hurl the baseless accusation mega-complaint against the UK Channel 4’s “The Great Global Warming Swindle” video broadcast. Just like the current 30+ “ExxonKnew” lawsuits in the U.S., the giant Ofcom complaint against that video utilized the same American ‘sources’ in its meritless accusation about ‘skeptic scientists being on the payroll of Big Oil.’
I don’t mention that because it is completely, utterly irrelevant to the content of the paper, which underwent peer review, and of my comment, which concerns scientific outlook on climate change in the 70s. What you are attempting is the textbook definition of an Ad Hominem fallacy. As an aside, “expert scientist leverages Wikipedia’s moderation features to keep misinformation from being spread on the platform” isn’t a very damning condemnation, whatever subtleties you might find lurking in the ethical considerations.
WRONG.
Wiki is RIFE with misinformation in many areas, particularly “climate science”
What people like Connelly did was to spread the AGW mis-information, and gormless ignorant twits fell for it all.
By mentioning that the fatally flawed ‘Connolley et al.’ paper underwent peer review, you inadvertently illustrated how pointless ‘peer review’ is for validating the conclusion of a ‘scholarly paper.’ Uncountable numbers of WUWT readers could bombard you all day long with evidence that science concern about global cooling was dominant back in the 1970s. Prior to achieving her “Merchants of Doubt” fame, Naomi Oreskes herself admitted to such. Peer review guarantees nothing – a paper on antioxidants underwent such a procedure years ago, was widely cited, and then retracted when it was discovered that the paper author “was guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data.” Two years back, I covered right here at WUWT how a peer reviewed paper on the “Electric Utility Industry’s Role in Promoting Climate Denial” contained a minimum of 6 fatal errors.
Meanwhile, re-word your sentence to say “enviro-activist leverages Wikipedia’s moderation features to keep inconvenient truth information from being seen on the platform,” and that would be accurate in describing Connolley & crew when it comes to the climate issue. Back in 2008 before I knew how their system worked, I spent a good 20 minutes correcting the false info in the Wiki entry for Fred Singer on just the slurs on the tobacco angle alone, only to see it revert right back to its original false form. In 2014, I detailed how the utterly false accusation about the “reposition global warming” memos found its way into Wikipropaganda.
Attempt to spin the 1970s global cooling situation out of existence all you wish, but you’ll never succeed in rewriting history. It was what it was.
But you can’t point out those flaws.
But you can’t proffer that evidence.
It’s interesting how you keep talking around the issue instead of directly addressing it. Perhaps that’s why the Heartland Institute finds you such a useful propagandist.
Pg 5 of ‘Connolley et al.’:
‘Connolley et al.’ completely, totally missed this whopper headline title from 1978 which undermines their entire paper: “International Team of Specialists Find No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere”
How many other such articles have the other commenters shown you in these comments so far? Do your own survey. Register to use the Newspapers.com website and look for those kinds of headlines yourself. Then there’s this: “Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-’80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific ‘Consensus’”
Again, keep talking around the issue with your enslavement to a solitary ‘paper’ (authored by a dubious individual notorious for burying inconvenient truths) instead of directly addressing the facts which kill your claim …. but you cannot rewrite history. Deal with that reality.
Regarding your ad hominem slur against me of being a “propagandist” — pick any one of my GelbspanFiles blog posts and explain to this WUWT reading audience what exactly is false “propaganda” within it. Be specific. Wild generalities prove nothing. Plus, state specifically what you can prove concerning your implication of a connection between me and the Heartland Institute. Remember, it doesn’t matter what you believe, or what others believe, it only matters what you and they can prove. Instead of taking the cheap shot of linking to some website’s unsupportable screed against me, how about first checking for yourself if any of it is true?
None. I’ve been shown zero scientific papers indicating a global cooling consensus in the 70s.
This whole thing is a Gish Gallop (Gosselin’s bread and butter), but I’ve reviewed the cited abstracts and the papers are overwhelmingly talking about the already-observed cooling trend that had started in the 40s and its connection to aerosol pollution or talking about a coming ice age tens of thousands of years hence. Others are talking about general challenges in climate science and climate modeling, which was in its infancy at the time. A multitude of them discuss anthropogenic warming from CO2 emissions. The few that indicate imminent cooling or a neutral outlook are those cited in Connelly. No cooling consensus is indicated whatsoever, and it rather seems to confirm the findings of the Connolley paper.
Whoops.
This you?
https://heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/russell-cook/
Over the decade of jousting with enviro-activists, the recurring theme I’ve run into with them is their astounding degree of concept comprehension failure. What you fail to understand, no different than countless others citing the meritless ‘Connolley et al.’ paper to imply the global cooling craze never existed, is that both I and others here pointed you straight to article screencaptures showing the widespread reporting of global cooling. It’s all the public ever heard about back then. It was so prevalent that it even made its way in comical form into an episode of the “Barney Miller” sitcom. No matter how much spin you try to put on it, the wall of reporting in the ’60s / ’70s / clean into the ’80s was about global cooling. You cannot rewrite history. Accept that fact and ask yourself why you feel so emotionally driven to support a literally unsupportable assertion. Ya ought to be embarrassed by it now.
Meanwhile, you walked straight into my trap, eyes wide open and oblivious to your own “whoops,” didn’t you?
Your implication was that I had a direct connection, that they instruct me to write disinforming propaganda. There is no other way to read that. My challenge to you was to provide evidence to back up what you implied. The best you could come up with was a belief, concerning the bio page they created for me (a page unsolicited by me, btw). Did you bother to read a single word at that bio page? Did you bother to count how many dozens of others have similar ‘advisor’ pages at Heartland? You could not prove I or any any of the others are instructed to put out “propaganda” for Heartland if your reputation depended on it. Yes, they do have a few paid employees with bio pages. How few is that actual number? Me, I cannot even begin to count how many other places / people I advise on how the “crooked skeptic scientists” accusation falls apart. I am no more connected to Heartland and their operations than I am to CFACT, AmericanThinker, ClimateDepot, the Senate/House Committee investigation, CLINTEL, Breitbart, on and on and on. Why didn’t say I was connected to The Daily Caller? Was it because you have no proof that I do anything more than offered them sound advice? Or was it because the bio page there is too short? (FYI, trap laid for you on that last bit)
Notice one other huge failure on your part — not one word of proof from you that any detail in any of my GelbspanFiles blog posts is propaganda. Stand and deliver, friend. All eyes on you now. Don’t feel bad if you can’t. Guys much bigger than you crashed the same way on emotion-driven unsupportable beliefs. (FYI, another trap laid for you on that last bit, if you feel like walking right into it …)
I’ve not contested the notion that there was media reporting about global cooling at the time – it was a popular bit of scientific speculation that caught the public fancy. My argument is that there was no widespread consensus within the scientific comunity that the planet was headed for imminent global cooling. The preponderance of research about near-term future change was concened with warming from greenhouse gases.
I think you have a direct connection, I don’t know or care if they direct your writing. You’re useful to their agenda, and what you write is misleading and wrong, the combination of these two things makes it propaganda. Whether you’re writing it of your own accord or at their direction makes little difference.
Yes, you seem to be a prolific spreader of misinformation.
Left out one critical word there — “widespread.” It was overwhelming. Everywhere. So prevalent that my grade school classmates asked me if I was worried that the ice sheets might spread as far south as where we lived. There certainly was a ‘consensus‘ – your terminology – among news reporters. What explains that? Might it be because the abundance of science papers indicated to reporters that the world was cooling, not warming? Or was it pure journalism malfeasance prompting them to report the situation wrong, when – as you contend via only one single dicey paper written by one author having a clear bias on the current issue – there was a majority of papers for the global warming idea? If those journalists got it wrong back then on which direction the ‘earth temperature is headed,’ what makes you think they have it right now?
Not withstanding that consensus opinion, a “show of hands,” has never validated a single science conclusion in the entire history of the Scientific Method, of course. You’ll probably tell us there’s a science consensus that men can get pregnant next.
Again, doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what you can prove. You could not prove I have any direct connection with them on operational matters, formulating positions, directing action, etc, etc, etc if your reputation depended on it. Guess what? Now it does. Your pals may give you polite rounds of light applause for going into the WUWT lion’s den, but I got news for you, they will never look to you to provide evidence that I’m some kind of Heartland-directed shill. Take heart, though; you aren’t the first by a long shot on that abysmal failure.
Prove it. Challenge before to you remains untaken.
Kudos on figuring out how to use the word “seems” against me. But again, you either have a mountain of proof or you do not. Take for example how I say the namesake of my blog never won a Pulitzer. Exactly where is the misinformation in that? Then pick out 50 more items you say is misinformation and prove how it is. Meanwhile – “prolific” – relative to what? How many blog posts do I put out per week / online comments per week? How many comment do you put out per week?
There is not a scientific consensus that CO2 is a problem either.
Of course there is, else you would not be here pushing against it and governments would not be acting.
blanton outs himself as a dyed-in-the-wool marxist.
Alan J
what bunch of BS, there is never broad scientific consensus on anything dealing with climate. The point was then it was authoritarian, academic and Media driven. It’s the same today just way more potent.
If you think there is a climate consensus now in the scientific community you’re nuts. It’s political, academic and media driven for the same reasons as it was then, control, hence the CAGW BS.
Claiming there is a scientific consensus is just another trick the climate alarmists use to promote their climate crisis narrative.
The “97 percent” consensus the climate alarmists point to, in reality, is a three percent consensus, created by a guy who dresses like a Nazi.
“what bunch of BS, there is never broad scientific consensus on anything dealing with climate. ”
Correct. (not the BS bit)
Just as in many issues there is not a broad consensus.
There is more than enough to be beyond reasonable doubt. (that you want 100% would never happen in a million years).
Just never going to happen – due human behaviour.
The section of the population whose motivations lie beyond evidence.
I’m talking of ideological motivation.
And it is a thing. (see below)
So naturally the v small no. of contrarians are worshipped by peeps here (in the main) as the font of wisdom.
All it takes is one in fact.
FI, of the cohort of meteorologists, those who work for companies (eg the media) are more likely to be *sceptical*.
Those on the research and public service side no.
Ideology Trumps Meteorology: Why Many Television Weathercasters Remain Unconvinced of Human-Caused Global Warming – Kris M. Wilson, 2012
“TV weathercasters are a potentially important source of climate change information: They are a widely trusted source; they have frequent access to large audiences; and most have discussed climate change as part of their duties. Previous research, however, has shown that a significant minority of TV weathercasters disagree with the consensus science. Using multivariate analyses, this article identifies political ideology (conservative) and gender (male), but not age or science training, as predictors for being unconvinced that global warming is occurring; only ideology (conservative) predicts being unconvinced of anthropogenic causes of global warming. Ideology is also the strongest predictor, and gender is a secondary predictor, of trust in sources of climate change information: Conservative weathercasters expressed less trust in all seven science-based sources that were examined. These findings suggest that efforts to improve the quality of climate change reporting among these high-profile specialists must address political and personal ideology in addition to increased science training.
My local weather forecasters never talk about Human-caused Climate Change.
That’s just what I want them to do. Just the weather please. We don’t need any speculation about CO2.
If my local weather forecaster were to try to connect CO2 to the weather, I would write that person, and the boss of the tv station, a very nasty note expressing my displeasure with their speculation about CO2 when there is no evidence backing up any claims connecting CO2 to the weather.
I would challenge them to “put up” or “shut up”.
I would say that to any other Climate Alarmist, too. Put up, or shut up. It’s telling that every time I say that (or its equivalent) to a Climate Alarmist, they almost always shut up. That’s because they don’t have anything to put up.
I have three tv stations in my area, which means there are probably about 15 weather forecasters among them, and none of them ever connect CO2 to the weather. We have some very smart weather forecasters around here. And we are happy about that.
May all efforts to corrupt local weather forecasters with speculation about CO2, fail.
Warmist lies flows heavily here since there are 285 published papers talking about a cooling trend,
285 Papers 70s Cooling 1
LINK
Yeah, I lived during those times and there was lots of talk about a possible coming Ice Age.
Climate Alarmists have to try to rewrite history to make their arguments seem credible.
History puts the lie to a Climate Crisis. There is no climate crisis.
These Alarmist Climate Scientists haven’t even nailed down the basics. All they can really say is that CO2 absorbs and emits energy. Beyond that, it’s speculation all the way down. Has been for decades.
Alarmist Climate Science is not science.
So, Nick, absolutely ZERO argument about anything in the paper.
PATHETIC as usual.
And according to Reid Bryson of U. Wisconsin.. (as quoted by Schneider…
Sounds like he was saying it was even cooler than the Little Ice Age. !! 😉
Actually Schneider was aware that the cooling wa scasused by aerosols and not natural variation.
“Sounds like he was saying it was even cooler than the Little Ice Age.”
Caused by man, by burning F fuel and creating atmospheric aerosols (before the CO2 that FFs also create, had build up enough radiative forcing)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/89/9/2008bams2370_1.pdf
In 1971, S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen Schneider
wrote what may be the most misinterpreted and mis
used paper in the story of global cooling (Rasool and
Schneider 1971). It was the first foray into climate science
for Schneider, who would become famous for his
work on climate change. Rasool and Schneider were
trying to extend the newly developed tool of climate
modeling to include the effects of aerosols, in an
attempt to sort out two potentially conflicting trends—
the warming brought about by increasing carbon
dioxide and the cooling potential of aerosols emitted
into the Earth’s atmosphere by industrial activity.
The answer proposed by Rasool and Schneider
to the questions posed by Bryson and Mitchell’s
disagreement was stark. An increase by a factor of
4 in global aerosol concentrations, “which cannot
be ruled out as a possibility,” could be enough to
trigger an ice age (Rasool and Schneider 1971). Critics
quickly pointed out flaws in Rasool and Schneider’s
work, including some they acknowledged themselves
(Charlson et al. 1972; Rasool and Schneider 1972).
Refinements, using data on aerosols from volcanic
eruptions, showed that while cooling could result,
the original Rasool and Schneider paper had overestimated
cooling while underestimating the greenhouse
warming contributed by carbon dioxide (Schneider
and Mass 1975; Weart 2003). Adding to the confusion
at the time, other researchers concluded that aeroosols
would lead to warming rather than cooling (Reck
1975; Idso and Brazel 1977).
It was James Hansen and his colleagues who found
what seemed to be the right balance between the
two competing forces by modeling the aerosols from
Mount Agung, a volcano that erupted in Bali in 1963.
Hansen and his colleagues fed data from the Agung
eruption into their model, which got the size and
timing of the resulting pulse of global cooling correct.
By 1978, the question of the relative role of aerosol
cooling and greenhouse warming had been sorted
out. Greenhouse warming, the researchers concluded,
had become the dominant forcing (Hansen et al. 1978;
Weart 2003).
What warming effect of CO2.. You have proven time and again that it doesn’t exist.
There is no evidence that reduction in SO2 over the USA caused any warming.
From 1980.. 174ppb to 1998… 89ppb , (a decrease of 14.7 million tons)
UAH USA48 shows no warming.
SO2 dropped from 79ppb in 2005 to 24ppb in 2015..( a decrease of 8.1 million tons)
so to less than 1/3.
According to USCRN and UAH USA48 there was no warming.
“According to USCRN and UAH USA48 there was no warming.”
Look, if you didn’t know, calling black white doesn’t make it so.
Again:
You say all this nonsense like it’s fact, when it’s clearly not. The debate is not even close to settled and likely never will be. One thing that is more and more apparent is CAGW is very, very unlikely.
“You say all this nonsense like it’s fact, when it’s clearly not.”
That is the essence of Alarmist Climate Science. The Alarmists present speculation and assumptions about CO2 as established facts.
That’s my problem with Alarmist Climate Science: It is nothing but speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions, all the way down.
As above.
The application of science is not based on “assumptions”.
Read up about it and learn – which you will never do by only getting your “science” off here.
NB: I know you won’t because you are so invested in the “science” on here being correct.
“The application of science is not based on “assumptions”.”
Yet that is what AGW is built on, anti-science conjectures from the ground up.
Thanks for showing that AGW is NOT SCIENCE.
You have presented absolutely ZERO scientific evidence to support the AGW scam
Care to try.. just once.. Don’t continue to be a COMPLETE FAILURE.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
“1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.”
What a tired old failure of repetition!
It is the 2 LoT that describes that – that a cold body can transfer RF to a warm body, and in doing so slow the warm bodies cooling.
It it is the NET flow of RF that matters and a cold body can never make the warm body further.
That the SB Law relates E + const T^4 merely ells us that a hot body radiates more strongly than a cooler body.
It does not stop energy being absorbed by the cooler body in an exchange.
Do you expect the cool body to reject the photons fom the hot body by it somehow recognising that they are not allowed due coming from the hot body ?
By the way. that is how the GHE works – by radiating more weakly at the colder temps aloft at the EEL than they would have done lower down at a lower CO2 concentration.
Didn’t you read this earlier post by Anthony Banton?
Please state your own scientific credentials before slating those of some who clearly holds a well-recognised “scientific” qualification within the physical sciences, meteorology.
1.Please provide empirical evidence to counter the explanation given above by Anthony Banton
2. Please state your own scientific credentials, that make you feel qualified to overturn well established laws of physics 😉
I’m guessing I have been studying the climate change subject for a lot longer than you have, even with your 32 years of being a meteorologist. I was looking into the subject in the 1970’s, when the fear was the Earth’s climate was entering another ice age. I cancelled my subscription to Scientific American in about the year 1984, when I got disgusted with the new Human-caused global warming meme, where they were presenting speculation and assumptions about the climate as established facts, just like they did with the Human-caused Global Cooling meme. What were you doing in 1984?
And you know what, Alarmist Climate Science is *still* presenting speculation and assumptions as established facts. It’s really pathetic, and you buy into it, because you apparently can’t tell the difference between speculation and assumptions and evidence.
Btw, that downvote did not come from me. I don’t do downvotes. If I disagree enough, I will comment.
“ I was looking into the subject in the 1970’s, when the fear was the Earth’s climate was entering another ice age. “
I was interested in the early 70’s.
I bought a book called “The Weather Machine”
by one Nigel Calder.
Concerning the onset of a new “Ice Age”
Reason was, I like cold/snowy winter weather (yes it is so rare here, I actually do)
Seems he was just another denialist …
From Wiki …
“Between 1956 and 1966, Calder wrote for the magazine New Scientist, serving as editor from 1962 until 1966. After that, he worked as an independent author and TV screenwriter.”
“As early as 1980, he predicted that by 2030 “the much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide ‘greenhouse’ [will fail] to occur; instead, there [will be] renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age”.[2]
Calder participated in making the film The Great Global Warming Swindle. He also co-authored The Chilling Stars.[3] Regarding global warming, Calder stated: “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”[4]”
Sound familiar?
The only manner of science it might be is political science, it certainly isn’t a physical science.
First off CAGW is a term invented by the likes of you.
That in no way is portrayed as a certainty by the IPCC.
Secondly the fact that mankind is altering the Earth’s climate by burning FFs beyond the biosphere’s ability to sink the CO2 caused is beyond doubt.
Thirdly, the GHE caused by that excess CO2 comes with a range of uncertainties (due feed-backs). But there is a significant one.
There is no AGW, only urban warming.
AGW is a totally FAKE conjecture which you have been totally unable to produce even the slightest empirical evidence of.
Only change mankind is making with fossil fuels is the massive expansion of civilisations, a massive increase in human well-being, and a massive increase in plant food.
Why do you hate human progress so much.
You really are a sick and disgusting little chook. !!
“You really are a sick and disgusting little chook. !!”
Classy!
Oh, an update for you Mr nicely…
Nudge, nudge
Don’t reckon on your antics being allowed to continue.
Wink, wink
CAGW was created in academia to scare students, it has been furthered by politicians and Media to scare the public into “action”. It was not made up by the “deniers”.
thanks for making my point, the IPCC does not use CAGW and they are on the extreme side of the scientific debate. In fact they are very dubious about any of the extreme predictions, at least in their actual scientific work not their political wing.
the magnitude of AGW is in strong debate across the scientific community, very few scientists now believe that there are catastrophic out comes and the trend each year is towards less of a concern.
however in Academia, Media and the political world the trend is towards more extremism, again why?
i am no denier of AGW, I think it is a fact, however I also believe that more and more the evidence that it’s magnitude is fairly small and it’s affects are in fact almost exclusively beneficial.
CAGW is a term invented by the likes of you.
So are you saying that AGW is not going to be catastrophic?
If that’s the case, then what’s the worry?
Good question. Every time I hear the Climate Alarmists talk about Human-caused Climate Change they are telling us that death and destruction are right around the corner because of too much CO2.
That sounds like a description of a catastrophe to me.
Outgoing President Joe Biden declares increasing amounts of CO2 to be an Existential Threat to the United States and the World.
Every prediction the Climate Alarmists make about CO2 and the future are Dire Warnings. They predict catastrophe but claim they are not doing so. They are either divorced from reality, or they are lying.
It depends on what you mean by “catastrophic”.
And the scale of the consequences are not yet known.
It might be, but that is on a scale of probability, not certainty.
If you are so concerned about warming what are you doing posting here?
You should be trying to get China, India and South East Asia to take it ‘seriously” because they are showing no interest at all in reigning in their use of fossil fuels since they know fossil fuels are absolutely necessary to improve the lives of their populations.
“If you are so concerned about warming what are you doing posting here?”
I’m actually not concerened.
I think the outcome is enevitable – as you sayChina and especially Russia will not go Green.
In China’s and India’s case they need to grow to keep their 1.4 bn peeps in jobs.
So I am sanguine.
Another 20 years and I’ll prob be dead.
Serious repercussions will be well after that.
There is no point in railing against something you can’t control.
(a tip for you there).
No, I just have plenty of idle time, sat here looking after my dementia ridden Mum.
It offers me the reason to dig deeper into the subject as study … and well, I just like calling out bollocks and lies from the ignorant and closed-minded.
…
….
Briffa tree rings since 1900
Yes, that looks like the actual temperature profile of the globe.
Every written, historic regional surface temperature chart shows a similar profile to Briffa’s tree ring estimate, where it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
Another example showing the bogus Hockey Stick global chart does not represent reality. It was created in a computer to help sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative. It’s a Fraud and a BIG LIE. Maybe one of the biggest lies in Science history. I can’t think of one bigger.
NAS 1980
…..
……
The far-left Gruniad…
Newsweek..
.
.
.
I have another 50+ of these… but I think that will do. 😉
Thanks for the history lesson, bnice.
I lived through that 1970’s era and read just about all that ice age stuff.
People who call the ice age scare of the 1970’s a myth are just plain wrong.
You see, climate alarmists can’t believe in an Ice Age scare and the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global chart at the same time. That’s because the people who bastardized the global chart deformed the temperature profile so much that the cooling from the 1930’s to the 1970’s is minuscule and so cannot be interpreted as the Earth cooling into another ice age.
So the Climate Alarmists pretend that the significant cooling that happened from the 1930’s to the 1970’s didn’t really amount to much.
Climate Alarmists do a lot of rewriting of history. They have to in order to try to make a case for CO2 being an evil gas.
Lots of Climate Change propaganda flying around in the air today.
Just remember: Climate Alarmists can’t prove what they claim about CO2 and the Earth’s atmosphere and weather. It’s all speculation and assumptions. They have nothing definitive.
“People who call the ice age scare of the 1970’s a myth are just plain wrong.“
No, they are DELIBERATELY LYING because they are trying to hide their own anti-science CORRUPTION.
I’m sure there are a lot of liars, too, but there are also a lot of people who have been duped and actually believe what they say, because they have been listening to the liars.
It becomes harder and harder to differentiate between the two.
Yes, it does.
I would suggest that the phrases highlighted are standard for intelligence services. As a working paper subject to further research then of course there’s going to be plausible deniability. Does that detract from the content? There were multiple sources that suggested a dramatic decrease in global temperatures, if memory serves that included several BBC programmes such as Horizon, Tomorrow’s World and Panorama. Of course it is now probably impossible to prove this as the BBC reused their videotapes.
Nick, I am not, and never have been, in the CIA. However, your nitpickyness appears to be working in overdrive today. Although I may be corrected by a CIA spook, I would guess that publishing working papers is part of the business of the CIA, and the paragraph you highlighted and underlined looks to be no more than a standard disclaimer that you might find in any CIA or other government “working paper.”
I don’t believe the working paper was published.
SO WHAT.. you are unable to counter anything in it.
They don’t call CBS CIA Brodcasting for nothing 😉
The claim that global cooling was never a concern with anybody, is the topic.
The fact that the CIA was concerned enough to request a “working paper’ puts the lie to that claim.
Nice of you to pipe up with your pathetic attempts to change the subject.
The concern was climate change.
The concern was what can we use to create fear to use as a tool of control. Why would the CIA care about climate change. I think Nick you have really just turned your brain off.
Turned off on purpose
While global cooling is another aspect of climate change, the charge by you and others is that there never was a global cooling scare back in the 70’s. That claim has been refuted, which causes you to, as usual, change the subject.
which causes you to, as usual,
changeobfuscate the subject.FIFY.
….and in the latest intelligence-
Relentless warming is driving the water cycle to new extremes, the 2024 global water report shows
Humanity in hot water
Warmer air can hold more moisture; that’s how your clothes dryer works. The paradoxical consequence is that this makes both droughts and floods worse.
When it doesn’t rain, the warmer and drier air dries everything out faster, deepening droughts. When it rains, the fact the atmosphere holds more moisture means that it can rain heavier and for longer, leading to more floods.
So heads we win and tails you lose with the dooming skeptics.
In the news …
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/01/breaking-canadian-prime-minister-justin-trudeau-resign-during/
Don’t let simon see you post links to TGP, he’ll call you a right-wing racist stormtrooper.
😉
And to be certain ..
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/01/06/justin-from-canada-expected-to-resign-this-week/
😉
TGP is fringe , but frequently first with the news ,
Prediction is hard … especially about the future.
And in regards to the “scare” about cooling then and warming now;
“It’s deja vu all over again!”
There is little doubt that cooler temperatures are a greater threat than the moderate warming we may be experiencing.
The Northern hemisphere is experiencing longer frost free periods in most years which enables high producing crops to be grown further north. High heat in times of low moisture can be very damaging to crops but pales beside the damage caused by late spring or early fall frost. Cooler weather also exacerbates the problem by slowing the maturity of crops.
Both situations are feared by farmers and gardeners but at least “warm” is more comfortable for BBQ and beer. Benefits of a wealthy society. Weather anomalies can be killers in poorer societies.
This piece fits in with Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb. I was required to read and study that in high school. The starvation predicted was supposed be caused in part by by a colder climate IIRC. I
recall being more concerned by getting drafted and ending up in Vietnam. A classmates
brother had just returned from Khe Sanh and was mess up with ptsd, speaking of the cia,
On one hand it stinks to buy a copy of that garbage-quality book, it being neither good science nor good fiction.
On the other hand it is important to keep notes of garbage advocated with that level of confidence.
It’s a difficult read.
I wish someone could explain why the Greenland ice core data shows such temperature volatility over the last 10k years as human-produced CO2 can’t explain it. Why are the causes of the Greenland ice core temperature volatility still not at work?
The Arctic, in general, has huge temperature volatility. Why was 1922 so warm in the Arctic?
I also wish someone could explain to me how CO2 is supposed to warm the earth’s surface without a change in surface air pressure. I believe that CO2 could increase enough to increase air pressure, which would undoubtedly warm the Earth’s surface. The problem is a doubling of CO2 would have no impact on measured surface air pressure.
A final point. I don’t understand why the climate community insists on using anomalies calculated from a reference period. The tools of Time Series Analysis are powerful, and they are seldom used in analyzing climate data.
Greenland over the past 10kyr showed temperature volatility characteristic of its latitude and location in the polar North Atlantic:
Those forces are still at work, they just now have anthropogenic forcing added into the mix. Note the sharp uptick in the recent years.
Via the radiative greenhouse effect. Long wave infrared radiation emitted by the earth is absorbed by gases in the atmosphere, like CO2, and eventually emitted to space at altitude. The altitude of radiant emission must be quite cold to balance incoming sunlight at the earth-sun distance, and since this altitude isn’t at the surface, as it would be without radiatively active gases, and because the atmosphere near the surface is warmer than the atmosphere at high altitude owing to the lapse rate, the surface is warmer than it otherwise would be.
Adding more CO2 drives the altitude of radiant emission up higher, where the atmosphere is even colder, so to regain balance with incoming sunlight, this higher layer needs to warm up a bit, and the whole column down to the surface warms up as a result.
Anomalies are used because they are easier to calculate than an absolute temperature value and effectively capture the variable of interest well – temperature change over large regions or over the globe. Time series analysis is used extensively in climate science.
Did not answer “how CO2 is supposed to warm the earth’s surface without a change in surface air pressure”
I’m not answering it either, but I’m not claiming to.
I did address this question, perhaps not directly enough. The warming caused by CO2 through the radiative greenhouse effect does not depend on changes in surface air pressure (i.e. via compression or a change in density). Surface warming occurs because CO2 alters the way energy is exchanged between the Earth’s surface and space.
So the answer requires that temperature not affect pressure?
The answer doesn’t require that at all, the answer is simply that the GHE doesn’t depend on an increase in pressure from the added volume of CO2.
GHE doesn’t depend on CO2 at all.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
A video you should watch and learn, you will have to unlearn all the erroneous and FAKE AGW crap that infects your mind fist, though..
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232
Would a other factor other than the added volume of CO2 affect pressure if temperature increases?
The surface pressure is the result of the weight of the overlying column of air, presumably if you add more molecules of CO2 you increase the pressure, but not significantly. Going by PV=nRT, increasing the temperature can increase either the pressure or volume, assuming the atmosphere behaves like an ideal gas. Since the atmosphere is unbounded, the volume will increase as the temperature rises.
So you admit that it is the gas laws that controls the atmosphere, not CO2
WELL DONE. tiny step for a very tiny mind.
“if you add more molecules of CO2 you increase the pressure,”
Idiot, it combines with oxygen, so doesn’t change anything.
The ideal gas law is an equation of state that merely describes the relationship between pressure, volume, and temperature in a given state. It is purely descriptive, not prescriptive, and explains nothing about why the planet’s atmosphere is in the state it is in. One can only do this by considering radiative equilibrium.
Maybe you should do more research and learning. Go to some other sites other than just CAGW sites that have an agenda.
Here is a web site from a Penn State meteorology course that teaches you how to calculate a “prescriptive” value for dry and moist air using the Ideal Gas Law with substitutions that give a very accurate determination.
2.1 Gas Laws | METEO 300: Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science
I would say “your slip is showing”, but you probably won’t understand the reference.
Yes, the gas law describes the state of a parcel of air in a given set of circumstances. It does not explain how that set of circumstances came to be.
This is one thing I will slightly disagree with you about. AlanJ is using incorrect terminology CO2 increases the mass of the atmosphere and will increase pressure some small amount.
Where did you learn science at?
To measure the pressure change from an increase in temperature you hold a constant volume and raise the temperature inside the volume.
Due to the lapse rate, there will be a very small increase in the volume of the entire atmosphere surrounding the earth. Probably unmeasurable.
Let’s keep things simple. V = 1 m³, n = 42 mole, R = 8.2×10⁻⁵, T = 290K, ΔT = 1.5K
(42)(8.2×10⁻⁵)(290)/(1) = 0.9988 atm = 29.88 inHg
(1)((8.2×10⁻⁵)(291.5)/(1) = 1.0039 atm = 30.04inHg
That’s a change of about 0.16 inHg. These values are quite noticeable. Have we seen “global average pressure” at sea level increase this much? If not, why?
Yes, if you hold the volume constant you can determine a change in temperature. The volume of the atmosphere is not constant:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi8065
You don’t really add a “volume’ to a volume. You add a quantity of a substance to a given volume. In essence you are increasing “n” in the Ideal Gas Law.
You claim to be an expert and then give an answer like this?
You say the GHE increases temperature. The Ideal Gas Law then requires pressure to increase with the rising temperature.
P = (nR(T + ΔT))/V
This WILL increase pressure.
Your suggestion is that the added volume of CO2 isn’t large enough to affect pressure. That makes no sense from a science standpoint. You don’t add volume to a volume. You add quantities of something (CO2) to a given volume.
You add “n”, i.e., the number of moles in a given volume if you want to evaluate what occurs within that given volume with that additional quantity. Doing so WILL increase the pressure, albeit a small amount.
I don’t claim to be any expert. My point is that the mechanism of the GHE doesn’t rely on warming produced by increased pressure. Increasing the temperature may result in increased surface pressure (or volume – the atmosphere is not bounded), but this will be small. The warming is related to radiative effects.
So you are saying that Nick Stokes is totally wrong in his claim that the lapse rate causes the increased warming?
In a non-closed system, temperature has no impact on pressure.
“Surface warming occurs because CO2 alters the way energy is exchanged between the Earth’s surface and space.”
A load of total BS !!
And yet another informative contribution from bnice.
Informative in that it (yet again) it highlights his relentless imperative to give us the benefit of his amazing knowledge.
“The warming caused by CO2 through the radiative greenhouse effect”
DOES NOT EXIST. !!
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Or FAIL yet again.
Ideal Gas Law.
PV = nRT or instead P = (nRT)/V
n, R, and V being equal, if T goes up, pressure goes up.
Remember, we are talking about a volume at the surface/atmosphere boundary. V doesn’t change, in case you were going to try to use that.
V does not need to remain equal because the atmosphere is not bounded, and in fact the height of the atmosphere will increase as it warms. You can solve the ideal gas law for any arbitrary set of fixed values for three of the four variables.
Err, Jim – you do know that the atmosphere can expand upwards ?
As Alan says it is not bounded.
Therefore as it’s temperature rises it’s surface pressure is not in any way affected.
The only way it could be is if more atmospheric mass were added.
Just curious what the temporal resolution on that graph is, or is it all annual data going back 12,000 years?
The data are from Vinther, et al., 2009, and are 20-year averages.
Got it, thanks.
AlanJ, Older post and not sure if people are still commenting, but quick question if you’re still here. Looking at the historical data, how do you account for historical temperature changes of + 1.5° or more over much shorter (20-40 year) periods than the current warming, and why didn’t the earth reach any tipping points then?
Phil, this graph presents temperature change over Greenland, which is only a small fraction of the global surface area. Variability within small regions is much larger than variability for the globe overall. This is especially true of Greenland, which occupies a unique place in the North Atlantic, where small perturbations in ocean circulation, like freshwater surges, can produce rapid and localized climate shifts that don’t necessarily reflect global-scale trends.
Alan, also the Greenland plateau lies at an average height of 7000ft and GISP2 drill site is at 10,500ft.
Very different up there.
With major differences in temp depending on whether the regime predisposed are originating airmasses from the Arctic or from the Atlantic.
Well…. yes the Arctic temperatures are volatile, but why the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, the Dark Ages, MWP, the Little Ice Age. In the 12k year graph you show the last 10k year temperature changes get swamped by the ending of the YD. A 10k year graph makes my point clearer. Also, I would not add observational data to the ice core record. Again, you have provided no explanation for the volatility we see in the ice core data. Without understanding why the prolonged periods of warm and cold in the ice core occurred, there is no way to know how much of modern warming is natural.,
Your average radiating height argument is the common explanation. I think it is not a complete explanation. How much higher is the average radiating height if you double CO2. The atmosphere radiates to space from all altitudes. Right? Why can’t the distribution of radiating heights change so that the surface doesn’t warm up? The idea that a trace gas like CO2 can cause sensible heat to accumulate at the surface is strange in a free-convective atmosphere.
You didn’t address my air pressure question. Holding atmospheric mass, gravity, and insolation constant, I don’t see how the average surface temperature can increase.
My PhD is in Econometrics. The question about the CO2 effect on temperatures is really to ask about the stationarity of the temperature processes. The claim is that increasing CO2 is causing temperature time series to be nonstationary. On long time scales, temperatures are nonstationary. The 800k year Vostok ice core data makes this clear. The first step in testing for stationarity is to deseasonalize the data. Given monthly data, you take the 12th difference. You do lose the first year of data, but that is the right process. Taking some 30 year period to use is just not right. Jim Hamilton (Time Series Analysis) would have failed me in my first course in TSA. I tested the 7 CA temperature series in the CRN a few years ago when the wild fires were all the rage, and none of the CA stations had a significant time trend
I have yet to see a cross sectional/ time series analysis of temperature data that tries to isolate the effect of CO2. It seems a worthwhile effort.
Human caused climate change is global, Greenland volatility is unique to Greenland. We don’t need to understand the cause of every regional climate event in Greenland to understand how humans are changing the global climate in the present day. My point also is that there is less volatility in the Greenland ice sheet records than one might assume – the graph you’ve posted in this comment is for a single ice core, not the entire Greenland ice sheet, and also ends in ca. 1950. The graph I provided from Vinther et al. is a reconstruction combining 6 different ice core records from across Greenland, and gives a better picture of regional, rather than site-specific, variability.
Because the radiating heights are dependent on the concentration of the various greenhouse gases. If you look at a graph like this one:
You can see earth’s emission spectra compared to blackbody emission curves for different temperatures. You can see emission across many wavelengths is occurring from near the surface, but in the wavenumbers where CO2/water vapor is a strong absorber there are distinct peaks. The only way to “redistribute” this curve is to change the concentrations of the different absorbers.
Think about the situation from the effective altitude of emission and work down toward the surface. The temperature of the effective altitude of emission is set by the constraint that at equilibrium, energy in must equal energy out. If energy out is less than energy in, the temperature of the effective altitude of emission must increase. If the temperature of the effective altitude of emission increases, the temperature of the entire atmospheric column down to the surface must also increase because they are connected via the lapse rate. It isn’t just the surface that warms, but the entire atmosphere. The energy content is in a higher state than it was before.
In a complex physical system, you cannot establish the cause of changes to the system merely via time series analysis, you have to construct a model based on the physical relationships of the components of the system to the change you are observing. i.e. correlation does not equal causation.
Displaying your ignorance yet again.
You have zero clue what you are talking about.
Listen and learn.
Tom Shula and Markus Ott : The “Missing Link” in the Greenhouse Effect | Tom Nelson Pod #232 – YouTube
Perhaps you can explain exactly what you find compelling about this video. From my viewing, the authors describe a radiative-convective model of atmospheric energy transfer and seem to think they’re the first to do so. This naivete is the downfall of all laypeople who think they can establish novel results in a field they have no familiarity with. Instead of making this video, they would have been better served spending some time reading the decades of literature they are attempting to overturn.
So you admit that you are incapable of understanding the video
No surprise whatsoever.
They are several magnitudes ahead of you in scientific understand.
Remain CLUELESS.. your chosen place in life.
I understood the video quite well, and that is why I believe it is quite poor. You seem to have no willingness or ability to defend the arguments made therein, so I’m more than happy to consider it immaterial.
You obviously don’t have the scientific ability to comprehend the science in the video.
You have not presented one single counter.
You are a dishonest, scientifically-illiterate twit.
I presented the only counter that matters: the video’s fundamental thesis is that convection plays a significant role in vertical heat transport, and that this is completely ignored by modern climate models, which rely exclusively on radiative transfer. While it is true that convection plays a significant role, it is decidedly untrue that this role is unaccounted for by modern climate models. Convection has been accounted for since Manabe’s work in the 60s and 70s.
It is unsurprising that the video’s authors are unaware of this, because not one of them has any expertise or qualifications in climate science whatsoever, so they are completely unaware of the vast body of literature on this subject. This underscores the conceit of laypeople believing they have uncovered novel findings in a field unfamiliar to them.
Just aheads up Mr nicely.
I have reason to believe you may have a rude awakening on here.
Human caused climate change is global
No , it is restricted to urban areas.
Everything else you typed is just Walz-like arm flapping.
Warming of the atmosphere by CO2 has never been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
Or FAIL yet again !!
And AlanJ FAILS again..
… can only manage a red thumb.
Run away little child. !! Hide behind more mindless waffle.
To understand the swings in Greenland climate who will have to look beyond Greenland’s climate data.
A good starting point would be to compare it with Europe’s climate data over the same period. Because should there be any evidence that the there climate’s swing in opposite directions at around the same time. Then that would suggest that the climate swings are link to weather patterning and the shifting of long term wind pattern movements.
“A good starting point would be to compare it with Europe’s climate data over the same period. ”
No.
At the latitude of the ice cores, there would be no comparison.
For Europe to be trending warm there needs to be a +NAO
For the +NAO LP will dominate over Greenland.
LP has a core of cold air.
The Low will drive warm/humid air into Europe whereas cold air will sit over Greenland.
In other words an anticorrelation.
“Also, I would not add observational data to the ice core record.”
Yes, and he implies that Vinther et al. added that bogus bit at the end. Vinther et al. (2009) is available on ResearchGate here, and they did no such thing:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26817271_Holocene_thinning_of_the_Greenland_ice_sheet
While I have the podium, might I also commend you for your patience and civility with this person who believes that scientific research starts with the conclusion and then magically works back around to the conclusion.
PS You can find the Vinther et al. figures on Google images.
No one in climate science and that includes CAGW folks here know how or what time series analysis is. They are only interested in showing that as of January 9, 1990 CO2 and global temperature are correlated. Thereby allowing the conclusion that CO2 causes temperature changes. You never see the opposite conclusion, that is, temperature causes a CO2 concentration rise.
Several of us call these folks trendologists because all they are interested in is curve fitting time series of CO2 and temperature without worrying about the causal relationship between them.
Greenland since 1860s
It looks like Greenland was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today.
CO2 apparently has not affected Greenland’s temperatures as there is more CO2 in the air today than there was in the Early Twentieth Century, yet it is no warmer today than it was then.
Conclusion: CO2 has had no measurable effect on Greenland’s temperatures.
Notice: No Climate Alarmists comeback. Crickets from the Peanut Gallery.
So what I said above must be true. Right? If I was wrong the Climate Alarmist would delight in pointing that out. Right?
Silence says a lot.
Graphs like the one bnice posted are hard to evaluate without knowing their provenance. Greenland as a whole is warmer today than in the early 20th century, but some areas of Greenland saw temperatures in the 1920s-30s comparable to today:
As the figure makes abundantly clear, Greenland does not represent the entire world, and some highly local dynamics do not indicate that CO2 does not drive atmospheric warming.
“but some areas of Greenland saw temperatures in the 1920s-30s comparable to today”
Uh, huh. Yes, they did.
A lot of places around the world saw temperatures in the Early Twentieth Century that were comparable to today.
You can see the areas in the map above. They are not extensive, the world as a whole is > 1 degree warmer now than it was in the early 20th century.
Not according to James Hansen. James says 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, and that would also make it warmer than 2016, and would make it comparable to the high of 2024.
There is certainly no one degree C difference between the Early Twentieth Century and today.
Computer games are what give us those record temperatures, not Mother Nature.
The written historic temperature records put the lie to the Climate Alarmist claims of unprecedented warmth today.
I have a lot of evidence that the warming today is not unprecedented: the written temperature records from around the world which show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.
What do you have as evidence of unprecedented warming? What you have is a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick global temperature chart, which distorts the temperature record.
And that’s the only “evidence” you can show. You have nothing else but a bastardized temperature chart. You wouldn’t have anything to talk about if it weren’t for that.
The Temperature Data Mannipulators have done serious damage to science, and have cost humanity TRILLIONS in wasted spending trying to curtail the benign gas, CO2.
Temperature History shows the Hockey Stick temperature profile is a BIG LIE.
When did he say this?
Which records are those, specifically?
Unlike you and some others on here, I have stuff to do other than be on here 24/7. Like sleep FI !
See above.
“Conclusion: CO2 has had no measurable effect on Greenland’s temperatures”.
No:
Conclusion you are not aware how much CO2 forcing has risen since then.
You cannot compare Ggreenlands “early 20th ct” temps against CO2 at it’s current levels.
As I repeatedly say, the RF of CO2 (and CH4) then, was small in comparison to today,
RF then was less than 0.5 W/m^2.
Today it is ~ 3 W/m^2,
6x the forcing.
“You cannot compare Ggreenlands “early 20th ct” temps against CO2 at it’s current levels.”
Sure, I can.
There was less CO2 in the air in the Early Twentieth Century than there is today, but it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today even though today has much more CO2 in the air than in the past.
So the logical conclusion is that increased amounts of CO2 has not had a measurable effect on the temperatures. Something other than CO2 caused the warming in the Early Twentieth Century, and the current day warming is no warmer than in the past, so CO2 can’t be said to have had any visible effect on temperatures. The “something else” that caused the Early Twentieth Century Warming might be what is causing the current day warming, and CO2 is just along for the ride.
“Something other than CO2 caused the warming in the Early Twentieth Century,”
Yes, it did.
It was the confluence of warm PDO and AMO cycles…
Look at both the PDO and the AMO through the 30’s and 40’s.
Nowhere on the graph is there another period of the 2 peaking for any length in their warm phases. BTW: this was also the cause of the “Dust bowl” event along with stupid farming practices that created a feed-back effect.
Also note for the decades before, that the PDO and AMO had been in the opposite configuration – both in their -ve phase. Again something that accentuated the appearance of the warm “bump”.
This was followed by the increased aerosol load following WW2, making the warming seem more pronounced. The clean air acts after 1970 then eventually allowed the increasing CO2 RF to emerge from the natural variation noise that was the cause of the early 20th ct warming.
Greenland back to 2000BC
HEH
Dr. Brown’s DeLorean ran on gas. It only needed Mr. Fusion for time travel.