[editor’s note. there was a layout issue when published a few hours previously. now resolved]
I often get asked this question on social media, so I decided to provide the answer as a simple primer.
1. The Basics: Climate Does Change
First, let’s be clear — climate change is real in the literal sense. The Earth’s climate has been changing for billions of years. We have geological records showing periods that were much warmer (like the Eocene, with crocodiles in the Arctic), and much colder (like the Ice Ages that covered North America in glaciers).
Even more recently, we have the Holocene Climate Optimum, significantly warmer than present day:
So, yes — the climate changes, and it always has. The debate isn’t about whether it changes, but why, how fast, and how much humans are influencing it today. The debate is also about how accurately we are able to detect temperature change, plus the overreliance on climate models to predict the future rather than actual data.
2. What the “Consensus” Says — and Where It Falls Short
The mainstream position (IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc.) holds that recent warming — roughly 1.1°C since the late 1800s — is largely due to increased CO₂ from human activity, mainly fossil fuels.
But here’s the rub: this view is heavily dependent on climate models, which are notoriously uncertain. As someone with a meteorology background, I can tell you models struggle with cloud feedbacks, ocean cycles, solar variability, and regional forecasts — all of which are crucial to understanding climate.
When models are run backward, they often fail to replicate past climate variability accurately — like the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age — unless they’re tuned heavily. That calls into question their reliability for long-term projections.
3. Natural Variability: The Elephant in the Room
A lot of warming in the 20th century happened before CO₂ rose sharply post-WWII. For example:
- The warming from 1910 to 1940 occurred with much lower CO₂ levels.
- Then there was a cooling trend from the 1940s to 1970s, despite rising CO₂ emissions during that time period.
Clearly, natural factors — like solar cycles, ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO), volcanic activity, and cloud dynamics — are still in play and possibly underestimated in mainstream assessments.
4. The CO₂ Connection: Overstated?
CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, no question. But its effect on temperature is logarithmic — meaning, the more CO₂ you add, the less warming you get per unit. The first 100 ppm has the biggest impact, and we’re well past that as seen in the figure below.
Moreover, satellite data from UAH and RSS shows a slower warming trend than surface datasets like HadCRUT or GISS. That discrepancy raises questions about data adjustments, urban heat island effects, and instrument biases.
5. Are We in a Crisis?
Even if we accept that humans are influencing climate, the notion that we’re in an “existential crisis” is unproven. Extreme weather trends (hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts) don’t show clear worsening patterns once you account for improved detection and population growth in vulnerable areas such as coastal developments.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agrees, suggesting a “low confidence” in many current and future weather events being affected by climate change. The “existential crisis” view is heavily dependent on climate model projections, which are notoriously uncertain and refuted by data.
Sea level is rising — but at a slow, linear pace of about 3 mm/year. That’s about 12 inches per century, similar to what’s been observed since before industrial CO₂ emissions.
Bottom Line
Yes, the climate is changing. It always has. The idea that global climate must be unchanging is simply wrongheaded. The real issue is how much of today’s change is due to human activity, how reliable our predictions are, and whether proposed policy responses are justified — or likely to do more harm than good.
At Watts Up With That, we’ve been pointing out for years that this issue is riddled with confirmation bias, model overconfidence, and selective reporting. There is no justification for shutting down economies or reshaping civilization based on the incomplete science of climate change.
So yes, climate change is real, but no, it’s not a crisis.
“First,…”
Is there a second, third…?
You seem to have to go to page 2 of the comments to get the full post.
Thanks
Odd layout!
I agree, haven’t seen this before on this site.
Perhaps they are trying to speed up the process of loading?
For you, Nick, Dante has predicted nine [circles].
: )
Winter is coming Nick, time for woolly socks. Also, dont forget, daylight saving ends in Danistan tomorrow (5 April Aus), your turn to sleep in till late.
Cheers,
Bill
I know that the state formerly known as Victoria is still under communist control, but isn’t it called Jacintastan now?
News flash for you Nick-
Scientists Uncover an Ancient Climate Pattern Returning in 2025
Don’t you worry though as it still means be very very afraid give us all your money deplorables and do as we say.
I’ll have to take a closer look at that Barker/Lisiecki paper, but first impression is not convincing. It looks back 1 million years, but that is about when the “100,000 year problem” began, ie, when the glacial-interglacial cycle changed from looking like a 41,000 year cycle to looking like a 100,000 year cycle. Ellis and Palmer’s work indicated that it was neither. So the paper (a) avoids the (major) part of the current ice age with a different apparent cycle and (b) uses “model simulations” of the perceived 100,000 year cycle (but not the earlier perceived 41,000 year cycle), which means high risk of circular logic. They also appear to find just a correlation with planetary cycles, not a mechanism. Ellis and Palmer did propose a mechanism (involving dust and albedo) for their finding. The Barker/Lisiecki paper does not cite Ellis and Palmer’s work.
Lorraine Lisiecki is one of the authors of the chart used by Wikipedia to illustrate the 100,000 year problem, but the data was reportedly adjusted to make it align better with a 100,000 year cycle. I emailed Lorraine Lisiecki a while ago, asking for the unadjusted data, but unfortunately received no response (please don’t read anything into that, maybe I had a wrong email address or my email went into spam, eg).
The press report of the Barker/Lisiecki paper says that it “suggests the onset of the next ice age could be expected in 10,000 years’ time”, but the paper itself says no such thing (unless I missed it) but it does say “the age models we employ are required only to have an accuracy of ~±10kyr”. That suggests that they cannot reasonably make a prediction for 10,000 years time.
For what it’s worth, the last 800,000 years can be well reproduced with a simple three-term harmonic model. And while I trust the projection trend, I certainly wouldn’t claim that it’s accurate, especially if I extended it 10,000 years. The solar system isn’t that stable.
I built a 12-term model mainly to try and better estimate some of the closely spaced frequencies. Yes, this is over fitting.
I’ve largely stopped working on trying to relate planetary motions to glaciation because these long periods relate to beats between closely-spaced shorter periods. Also, I’m beginning to suspect that the solar system has chaotic tendencies and may alternate between different resonance modes.
You can see the eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn’s orbit changing over just 20,000 years as variations in amplitude swings. Over shorter time scales you can see a 900-year variation on Jupiter and Saturn, and a 4200-year variation on Uranus and Neptune. Scafetta has an interesting paper that discusses changes in Jupiter’s eccentricity.
Very nice! Why doesn’t climate science do this kind of analysis?
That particular website has been putting out a lot of alarmist propaganda with almost no associated facts. For example, in your link, they never do define what that “Ancient Climate Pattern” is. It is click-bait apparently using the reputation of Fox News/Weather to encourage people to open it.
I asked Copilot if Weather-Fox was associated with Fox Weather and it responded that it could find no relationship. I gave Copilot a screen grab of its logo, and Copilot agreed that stylistically it strongly resembled the FireFox fox logo, suggesting that it was probably an infringement of the trademark of the the browser.
I suggest that you not open anything from Weather-Fox because it will be a waste of your time. The website is fact-free.
I don’t understand Nick’s comment. The first numbered paragraph starts with “First” and lays out the foundation understanding for the next four labeled paragraphs. Are you thinking the second numbered paragraph should have started with “Second”? Since it lays no foundation for the following paragraphs, that WOULD be confusing. You wouldn’t need paragraph numbering if you’re going to write out the numeral after the numeric symbol.
Or am I seeing the results of a correction to the original that Nick read? I see nothing odd as it exists now.
Stokes seems to have a compulsion to look for things to complain about with respect to skeptical positions and seems to be more interested in impugning skeptics than in learning the truth.
It has been corrected, as noted below the heading. Originally, only the first para showed, and as michel said, you had to go to page 2 of the comments (even though there wre few) to read the rest.
I think that those of us of a certain age know that the climate varies because we’ve experienced it. We’ve seen hot summers and cool summers. Snowy winters and mild winters. The younger generation haven’t had this experience. All they’ve got to go on is 20 or 30 years of the MSM saying ‘hottest year evah!’ whether it has been or not.
The climate that we come to accept as ‘normal’ is a constant 72°, controlled by a thermostat.
I keep my thermostat set to 70° F in the Winter and 74° F in the Summer. One needs a little variety in life.
Isn’t that just weather? Climate is weather averaged over 30 or more years. We live day to day, we don’t ever live the average.
One thing that produces bias is the use of the word “normal”. When announcers offer temperatures, they say that they are normal, or above normal, or below normal, with some figure offered as “normal”. In the world of binary perception, anything not “normal” is taken to mean abnormal when in fact normal is a distribution, and nothing we are experiencing is outside of that distribution. And as you point out, even that is simply the distribution during limited experience.
In order to promote that perception limitation, we now have people with degrees in Climate Communication.
Yeppers.
Here in Southern California, the weather people used to say “hotter than normal” or “below average”. Now, they are using “normal” less, and “average” more frequently. Maybe they’ve gotten smarter?
And in many MSM tv weather reports they still say the temperature today is higher or lower than it “should be”. Makes me cringe.
One of the weather forecasters I listen to says “possible record” this or that, all the time, and she calls some weather “crazy!”, as if she’s never seen it before, but I know she has because I’ve watched her for years..
I heard one “on the scene” weather reporter, standing among the debris of a tornado hit yesterday, say, “will this never end!”. No, it will never end. It’s been going on for billions of years and will continue as long as the Earth continues in its present form, so severe weather won’t be ending any time soon.
It will end when we finally see sustained fusion on earth.
(earth engulfed by sun going red giant).
Even when the Earth is within the Sun, fusion will still only be happening much closer to the center of the Sun. We will just be in a cloud of very hot hydrogen.
You may be right about that, Loren. But still, at that point in time, billions of years hence, commercial fusion power will only be forty years away.
I have to admit that it brought a smile to my face, but I don’t think you are right.
Clyde, if I am not being very clear, my opinion is that there will always be some means of producing electricity and process heat that is more cost-effective than fusion—and thus rendering terrestrial fusion not commercially feasible—forever.
Sure there have been some impressive science projects, prodigiously outrageously expensive science projects that have succeeded arguably in producing sustained fusion at breakeven (if you ignore massive inefficiencies on input energy and only count as an input what actually heats or compresses the plasma). And not actually bothering to capture the heat or otherwise actually generate any electricity as far as I’m aware.
But how much will it cost to build, how long will it last before it becomes highly radioactive nuclear waste? What does it cost to deal with constant rebuilds and disposal of long-term radioactive waste?
It’s analogous to extracting gold from seawater. The price of gold will never justify the cost of trying to extract it from seawater even though it may be technically possible.
In short, what is the all-in cost per kilowatt-hour going to be for a practical power plant over its entire useful lifetime including the costs that continue after its useful lifetime? I am sure it’s higher than conventional fission and possibly even worse than batteries and bird shredders.
But of course it’s just my pessimistic opinion.
That would be red hydrogen, I suppose.
With weather, average isn’t normal. The average April temperature occurs only briefly, usually just twice a day.
Smarter? In California?
You’re joking, right?
Climate is weather averaged over 30 or more years. We live day to day, we don’t ever live the average.
I suspect that’s exactly why the doomsters have so much traction with the touchscreen phone generation and every weather event from around the world blasted at them with no overarching reality. Live twice 30 years and the reality must sink in.
If you’ve been paying attention a similar problem has arisen with the online dating scene. Basically there are no average young women in their late teens and early twenties only average young men. Reality bites for said women at 30 and where have all the men gone?
I don’t think climate really is “weather averaged over 30 or more years”. I think that the averaging period you should choose – if any – depends on which aspect of climate you are addressing.
I’ve adjusted my definition of climate to >10 years, because for frequencies below what I call the Schwabe, or Jupiter Notch, solar cycles dominate over weather. There’s also a Saturn Notch, which I find very interesting.
I think that one should also examine the past history to see if there appear to be any knickpoints in the trends that reflect a change in the regime that might distinguish a different climate, rather that just arbitrarily picking 3 decades that all end with a zero.
The definition of micro climate, which has been hijacked, is a 30 year average of weather in a location or region with the state purpose of giving people an idea of what weather to expect if they relocated.
Nope. Shade provided by the surroundings is a part of the microclimate. Wind breaks are a part of the microclimate. Humidity levels are a part of the microclimate. The color of the substance below the measuring station (e.g green grass, brown grass, black asphalt, etc) is a part of the microclimate. The condition of the paint on the station enclosure is a part of the microclimate. Insect detritus inside the station enclosure is a part of the microclimate. The enclosure support infrastructure is a part of the microclimate.
None of these have anything to do with “weather”.
It’s why Hubbard and Lin found almost 25 years ago that regional “adjustments” to temperature readings only increase inaccuracy of the measurements. Any adjustments have to be done on a station-by-station basis and may only be good for a short period of time since actual past changes in the microclimate are typically unknown.
The younger generation always lived in climate-controlled homes, schools, offices, automobiles, etc. Those of us who came along before that was common have more sense.
My experience is that climate-controlled living is unique to the US. Visiting family and friends in the UK and France, and living in Germany, there was no air conditioning to speak of. Just heating in the winter.
There are people alive today (even in the USA) who were born into a world without electricity or even running water in the house. I can remember visiting my grandmother in Nebraska, as a small boy, where there was a water pump driven by a windmill, but there was also a hand pump (that had to be primed) next to it for fresh water when the wind wasn’t blowing.
The only thing more worrying than climate change would be if there was no climate change and the situation was permanently static.
Venus would be a good example.
Purple rain sounds nice in theory.
Better than “Black Rain.”
On a closer look, conditions driven by the Sun change over time on Venus and other planets, just at a different rate. But Earth’s rate of response is unique due to the water cycle.
Is climate change real?
There is objective science and there is [blind] faith. And now we have a weird combination of the two; a whole new set of gospels, holy modelled scripture and exceedingly firmly held beliefs. Science provides the devout with the ‘authority’ and the fig leaf for these luxury beliefs. It can and has been made to reflect what they choose to believe on pain of data torture and, where necessary, the cancellation and removal of disharmonious voices.
Climate denier has long been a favourite go to slur, but what does it really mean? The Cambridge dictionary covers all the bases and states:
“a person who does not accept that climate change is happening, or does not accept that it is caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels”
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/climate-denier
Personally speaking, I have never encountered a living soul who denies that the climate changes; would they also deny the seasons? Hardly likely. It’s quite clear what they really mean:
“does not accept that it is caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”
Ergo, what they really mean is someone who does not ‘believe’ their credo – and in having bugs for dinner, heat pumps, EVs and all that Star Trek village stuff.
The term should be Anthropogenic Climate Change Denier. But then, they know that…
Yes, like all religions, the belief system encompasses a “package” of tenets, ALL of which must be accepted to avoid “heresy”.
In the case of the AGW religion, the beliefs package is principally comprised of –
Yes, Galileo was spent the rest of his life under house arrest after daring to support the Copernican model of the solar system. Sadly, it’s the same today with climate. Climate doesn’t revolve around man.
My snarky description of the followers of these three models are Gaslighters, Hard-rockers, and Sunshine Boys.
4. The CO₂ Connection: Overstated?
What Anthony failed to mention is that temperature also drives CO2 concentrations, and it’s not just seasonal variations.
Just like me, you left out sea level rise (-:
and now it seems – earthquakes and volcanic eruptions too 🙂
It’s kind of a good thing that some Climastrologers go so far as to try to relate earthquakes and volcanic eruptions to Climate Change ™ because almost everyone with more than two neural synapses can grasp that seismic and volcanic activity has nothing to do with global warming. They are unwittingly discrediting themselves.
“Climate denier has long been a favourite go to slur, but what does it really mean? The Cambridge dictionary covers all the bases and states:
“a person who does not accept that climate change is happening, or does not accept that it is caused by human activity such as burning fossil fuels”
I accept that climate change happens, but I don’t accept that it is caused by human activity. What does that make me?
Rational.
I accept that climate changes and that human activity has a significant effect on some spatial scales, but I don’t accept that it is a crisis or that it justifies acceding to the whims of an all-knowing elite and their cult following.
This is more or less my take as well, Mark.
And you both are rational and realists. Well done.
And not easily influenced by propaganda.
Perfect. No climate emergency.
A serious confusion is that the words “climate change” don’t mean a “change in 30-year climate averages”. The phrase has been hijacked to mean “catastrophic overheating of worldwide ambient temperatures caused by human combustion of fossil fuels”. Generations of people have been programmed to believe that this catastrophe is imminent unless mankind immediately stops burning fossil fuels. A very high percentage of the population believe this to be true, and that people who don’t believe it are ignorant fools. Reality is that the ignorant fools are the ones who truly believe it.
A key word is “catastrophic”. Humanity is presently living in a multimillion-year Ice age that has only been punctuated by a few interglacial periods like the one we are living in now named the Holocene. The present warming period has temperatures similar to others in the Holocene that were realistically described as “Climate Optimums”, a far cry from Catastrophes. It was these “optimums” that give us major improvements in living conditions. a concerted effort is necessary to better educate decision makers who have the authority to make public policies. At least this is presently happening in the USA.
Typically, climate = temperature for most people. They’ve been programmed that way by propaganda over the past twenty years by the CAGW crowd. Yet climate is far more than temperature. If it was just temperature then Las Vegas and Miami would have similar climates.
Actual *climate” change has been minimal over the past 100 years at least. This is confirmed by the minimal change in hardiness zones over the same time period. Hardiness zones are far more representative of climate than is temperature alone.
And we aren’t even certain that it is appropriate to use “unprecedented” because of the low-pass filtering imposed on measurements and proxies, which results in smoothing and suppression of peaks and valleys.
Averaging *always* loses data and what the data actually tells us. This includes averaging Tmax and Tmin separately.
It’s why I like to look at integral degree-day values. This is a straight addition the whole way, daily degree-day value is a sum of the differences between temperature sample points and the set point. No averaging. You still lose the actual temperature values but there is no averaging. Using enthalpy would be better but degree-days at least aren’t “mid-rage* values.
According to their definition, climate denier.
I’m sure. 🙂
A Realist
An inhabitant of the Real World. 🙂
I deny that their data and models are sufficient to justify spending trillions of dollars to try to ineffectually fix the issue.
No escape for you – see the “or”.
Using that definition, you could probably include the IPCC (or at least many of its members) in the list of “climate change deniers”.
Of course. Things must be simplified for consumption by the deplorables.
Carbon instead of carbon dioxide.
Fossil fuels instead of hydrocarbon fuels and coal.
Trapping heat.
The list goes on and one.
It is intended to create sound bites and memes that can be pushed at the speed of light through social media, digital media, etc., knowing that the headlines will influence public opinion especially since the public does not bother to learn the topic. Basis of faith by pronouncement of authority.
Scientists say….
…. our most vulnerable….
Appeals to emotion.
Well put
Climate scientists all say “it’s worse than we thought” with each “new” paper reported on.
Which means their original thinking was wrong.
Since they’ve been consistently saying this about the climate change for 40 years now, it’s a wonder why anyone ever believes anything they say because it will always change later.
American society, since the 1960s via TV advertisement, has developed an attention span of about 13 seconds. There is no memory. Each is new and exciting.
Learning happened through repetition, with a few exceptions. Reading the same thing 100,000 times makes it true and real, regardless of what you read last week.
I always read ‘worse than we thought’ as: our already simplistic model of the atmosphere is even more flawed than we anticipated.
And: by close inspection it turns out that the complications of trying to equate the variables are almost impossible and that our speculations are mere hypotheses which are underpinned by unproven assumptions..
Well, in my dreams at last..🙂
How about Anthropogenic Climate Change Sceptic.
The term “climate denier” is, on its face, just plain stupid. Who denies that there is a climate? The alarmists love to use short-hand, talking about carbon when they mean carbon dioxide being another sign of sloppy language.
And, yes, the climate has been changing since there has been a climate, and will continue to change until there is no climate left. In fact, the climate has been changing while I wrote this comment.
Part of the problem is that alarmists are not interested in logically consistent definitions and arguments. They subscribe to the belief that the end justifies any means, including re-defining words and lying.
Likewise they alter definitions to suit their agenda in real time.
The problem is not so much whether there is or is not climate change at a given level. Its that the policies advocated by the climate crisis enthusiasts are both impractical and useless.
The consensus policy at the moment seems to be that the West, doing around 25% of emissions and growing slowest, should move its electricity generation to wind and solar, the great Net Zero plan, and at the same time move its transport and home heating to electricity. This is manifestly both impossible and useless in its own terms – its not going to make any significant difference to the total of global emissions even if it can be done.
Meanwhile we have the other 75%, and they just don’t believe in the climate crisis and are not going to do anything to lower their emissions, in fact they are raising them as fast as economic growth requires.
This is what is blowing up the climate movement. People can argue till blue in face over how much change and of what sort there has been or is likely in future. But its all pretty immaterial as long as the people who are doing the most emitting and growing fastest are just not interested. Yes, they will come to COP, but when they get there their main aim is to make sure it does not sign up to any binding real reductions. And they are increasingly not even bothering to attend at any significant level.
So you get a country like the UK, doing 1% of global emissions, planning to eliminate power generation emissions by 2030 or so, initially because climate. Its impossible of course, but also utterly pointless in the real world we are all living in. Its like Tuvalu reacting to rising sea levels by reducing its emissions. Absolutely no effect even were it possible, and impossible with it.
Not that Tuvalu is reducing its emissions, of course….! It too is doing whatever economic growth requires.
“The problem is not so much whether there is or is not climate change at a given level. Its that the policies advocated by the climate crisis enthusiasts are both impractical and useless.”
No, that pointlessly conflates the issues without answering any of them. The issues are:
_1 Are rising GHGs causing warming?
Yes
_2 Is this a problem?
It depends on whether you are in England or India (as many are). But wherever you are, it can’t go on for ever, so we’ll have to do something about it.
_3 Do we have good remedies?
People argue, but we’ll need them, so have to work on it. I think the things we are doing are worth doing, but more may be needed.
Issue 1 is scientific, and for scientists. Issue 2 is primarily social/political, rather than science. Issue 3 is stuff like practical engineering.
“_2 Is this a problem?”
You know and I know that it isn’t. Put it this way, show me one of the many, many predictions about the ‘climate crisis’ that have actually occurred. Just one.
Wrong. The answers are:
Point 2 cannot have a holistic response, as there are hundreds of climates around the world whose geographical regions would benefit significantly from warmer ambient temperatures.
There are a few places in the world that would not benefit from extra warmth, Sahara, Death Valley, parts of the Australian Outback, etc.
Not many people live in these places (heck, not much lives there, period) and those that do, have already learned how to adapt to the heat.
These are mostly desert areas. Meaning they get quite cold at night. Since most of the warming from the GHe’s are in nighttime temps, these desert areas probably would benefit from higher temps at night.
Deserts are dry. Moist tropical areas do not experience cold nights like tropical deserts. As CO2 levels are probably the same in both places, it’s obvious that water vapor is a more important GHG.
Nick should stop being ridiculous and realize that any trivial warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect is going to primarily be at night, in winter, at high latitudes. In places where a little more warmth wouldn’t be wholly beneficial, the change will be virtually imperceptible. True, England might experience more 20°+ heat waves.
The impact of any further enhancement of the GHE is so small, that it certainly can be allowed to go on forever or until fossil fuels can no longer be extracted cost effectively.
“_1 Are rising GHGs causing warming?
Yes”There is no scientific measurements to back up that conjecture.
There is no sign that CO2 has had any warming effect in the UAH data.
And there is absolutely no way you can use totally unfit-for-purpose junk surface data to draw any CO2 warming evidence.
_2.. your answer is meaningless irrelevant gibberish. We don’t need to do anything except to adapt as well as we can to natural climate variability.
_3.. Remedies are not needed for something that is nothing but imaginary.
NB : “Science” strongly suggests that rising solar irradiance will raise the Earth’s GMST to 100°C in roughly 1 to 2 billion years.
You are correct that anthropogenic GHG emissions “can’t go on for ever“.
.
The logical error in the second half of your “conclusion” was taught to me as “The Politician’s Fallacy”, which does something along the lines of :
1) Tub-thumping politician : Something must be done ! ! !
2) “Advisor” whispers in politician’s ear : X is something …
3) Tub-thumping politician : We have to do X ! ! !
.
Just because you are ( / I am / a Guardian headline writer is / …) the person saying “we have to (/ must) do [ insert pet project here ] in order to ‘stop climate change / save the planet’ …” doesn’t automatically make it true.
Sometimes the correct ( / least bad ?) “thing to do” is … drum-roll please … “Nothing“.
There aren’t enough fossil fuels in the ground for the burning of them to go on forever.
500 to 1000 years, tops.
So Nick’s “it can’t go on forever”, is just another of the straw men that Nick is so famous for.
Yes, I was taught in my first management training course that the first consideration when handling any ‘problem’ situation should be –
“What if we do nothing? Could the ‘problem’ be inconsequential, not warranting management actions, or even self-resolving?
Part of the problem with the political solution — do something/anything to get re-elected — is that if the problem is misunderstood, applying either an arbitrary ‘solution,’ or a solution to a different problem, could well exacerbate the problem. Therefore money is needlessly spent which may have the opposite impact wanted.
“Issue 1 is scientific,”
Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Now, tell us how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere.
CO2 is only a greenhouse gas in a greenhouse.
There is nothing about the earth (land, water, atmosphere) that fits the definition of a greenhouse.
Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought a ‘greenhouse gas’ (of which CO2 is said to be one) was so-called because it has the same optical properties as the panes of glass in a greenhouse, which are, namely, relative transparency to incoming shortwave radiation and relative opacity to outgoing longwave radiation. Therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to me to name such a class of gases ‘greenhouse gases’ regardless of whether or not those particular optical properties are the dominant principle that causes warming in an actual greenhouse.
A greenhouse warms by blocking convection.
Only H2O affects the speed of convection in the atmosphere.
CO2 is not opaque to IR. It doesn’t “block” anything. It might delay it getting to space but that is all. If CO2 were opaque to IR none of us would be here right now.
‘CO2 is not opaque to IR.’
I said “relatively opaque”, Tim. Not “absolutely opaque”, as you seem to have taken it.
‘It doesn’t “block” anything.’
I never said that it does.
To try and clarify: I wasn’t concerned with discussing the finer technical details of how CO2 specifically works or doesn’t work as a greenhouse gas. I was simply drawing a comparison between the defining optical properties of so-called “greenhouse gases” and the same, well-known optical properties of the panes of glass in a greenhouse which I think probably inspired the imaginative name “greenhouse gas”, that is all. (I drew it in reply to Sparta Nova 4’s comment here.)
Although not a perfect sphere, conceptualize a CO2 molecule as a sphere. It absorbs a photon of energy in its valence band. It then emits the same quantum of energy, but in which direction? Answer: Any point of the spherical geometry.
Having do IR electro optic sensors, the definition of why CO2 is opaque to IR is due to the spherical geometric scattering. Very few of the emissions of an aggregate of CO2 molecules are on the same vector as the incoming wave front.
Too may visualize a photon as a particle or bullet or similar. The only time a photon is called a particle is in quantum mechanics that goes on to explain a photon is massless and dimensionless and is specifically a single point photon.
If the molecule is a perfect sphere then the resulting radiation will be an EM wave with a spherical wavefront.
Radiation is not a photon bullet. The molecule does not “shoot” a photon bullet in a “direction”.
A photon is a packet of energy much like an expanding water balloon except there is no physical balloon. The packet of water can exhibit wave functionality or particle functionality depending on how it is interacted with.
If the radiation was not an EM wave then the entire Planck theory of a black body falls apart. A black body radiates with equal intensity in all directions at any point in time. It doesn’t radiate at 90° at time t0 and at 180° at time t1.
That EM wave can carry varying amount of energy. E.g. a 100 watt radio station puts out a stronger EM wave than a 1000 watt radio station. So when the EM wavefront hits an absorbing body the 1000 watt signal will have a higher W/m^2 intensity than the 100 watt signal.
That EM wave can carry varying amount of energy. E.g. a 1000 watt radio station puts out a stronger EM wave than a 100 watt radio station.
Fixed it for you.
See this site.
https://ask.learncbse.in/t/a-100-watt-bulb-emits-monochromatic-light-of-wavelength-400-nm-calcuate-the-number-of-photons-emitted-per-second-by-the-bulb/4455
“Therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to me to name such a class of gases ‘greenhouse gases’”
Indeed. But to cap it off, greenhouses do substantially warm because of the greenhouse effect. This became evident when plastic became used , which does not normally have a greenhouse efect, and is less effective than glass. So they now sell more expensive plastic with the greenhouse effect restored.
Thanks, Nick. I didn’t know that. It looks a potentially useful anecdote since it makes its point simply and should be easily verifiable by anyone who has access to a search engine.
The term “greenhouse effect” is not because CO2 has the same optical properties as panes of glass in an greenhouse. The term came about because the effect is similar. That is a greenhouse “traps” energy in the same way GHGs “trap” energy. Note that in this context “trap” is formally defined as the application of the 1st law of thermodynamics in which Ein > Eout resulting in ΔE > 0.
The concepts behind “greenhouse effect” and “trap” have an interesting history. It was Mariotte who first identified and formalized the concept that we now refer to as energy trapping in 1681. de Saussure also played an important role in the story with his heliothermometer in 1796 which is linked with the concept that we now refer to as the greenhouse effect. The fact that some gases (like CO2) can also cause the greenhouse effect was first identified by Foote and Tyndall in the 1850’s and 1860’s. The term “greenhouse effect” that was given to this concept was first used by Ekholm in 1901.
Thanks for this information, bdgwx. I found it illuminating.
If, as your first paragraph explains, the concept of the ‘greenhouse effect’ is essentially that of an ‘energy trap’, it could apply to any type or form of energy and not just to radiation, no? In that case, I would think that the other kinds of energy-exchanges besides radiative ones that may occur in the atmosphere (such as intermolecular collisions, for instance) could also be covered by the general term ‘greenhouse effect’ so long as they result in energy becoming ‘trapped’ in the planet’s system. Do you concur?
The history of the emergence of the concept which you gave us in your second paragraph also looks very significant in the context of the modern debate about it to me, since it implies that the concept first entered the mainstream scientific discourse as early as 1901. That was long before it was co-opted into the dishonest service of the climate alarmist movement that is openly misusing it as a false justifying pretext for its nefarious political purpose of bringing about the downfall of western capitalism and modern industrial civilization generally. Indeed, it was also decades before the idea of using it for this diabolical purpose was even a gleam in the late Marxist multi-millionaire fossil-fuel trader and Club of Rome co-founder Maurice Strong’s eye.
Correct. Greenhouses trap energy primarily as a result of impeding convection. GHGs trap energy primarily as a result of impeding radiation. The mechanism is different, but the effect is the same. The term came about because of the effect; not because of the mechanism.
Yes and no. In principal I agree. The problem is that the Earth system does not shed energy via convection or conduction (at least in any appreciable amount). Nearly 100% of the energy is shed via radiation. So although we could theoretically use the term “greenhouse effect” for convection and conduction in the hypothetical scenario that the Earth system actually shed energy via those mechanisms in practice we never get the chance because those mechanism of energy shed out of the system do not occur (at least in any appreciable amount).
The concepts were first developed as early as the 1600’s. It was only the term “greenhouse effect” that was coined in 1901.
I’m sorry, this is my trigger word in which I shutdown. I dislike all political and policy discussions. I’m not saying it isn’t important. I’m not saying other people shouldn’t be passionate about it. It’s just not for me and for that reason I’ll bow out of this portion of the discussion.
“Politics
I’m sorry, this is my trigger word in which I shutdown… …It’s just not for me and for that reason I’ll bow out of this portion of the discussion.”
No problem. I respect your decision. Thanks for letting me know about it.
From this commercial site:
“Although greenhouse films with infrared (IR) have been on the market for over 30 years, some growers are not taking advantage of the benefits of this material. More than half of the greenhouse operations that I have audited still have houses that are covered with regular poly. Let’s look at the benefits of IR greenhouse films:
Radiation is the process by which heat is transferred from one object to another. Energy from the sun enters through the greenhouse glazing as short-wave radiation and is converted to thermal energy (long-wave radiation) when the waves strike the plants, floors or benches. This energy is trapped by the glazing and the greenhouse warms up. This is the greenhouse effect.
At night, the reverse occurs. Up to 40 percent of the heat from the plants, floors and benches is reradiated. Glass is opaque to long-wave radiation losses, but polyethylene will allow up to 74 percent of radiation to go right through it unless a barrier is present. To retain this heat, manufacturers have developed an additive that is placed in the formulation that reflects the radiation back into the greenhouse.
Also affecting the radiation loss from the greenhouse is the condition of the sky that the greenhouse is radiating to. The weather forecaster talks about radiational cooling on clear nights. A clear sky is much colder than a cloudy sky; therefore, radiation losses are greater.”
This person doesn’t understand radiative energy loss. A body radiates based on its temperature, not what it is radiating to.
And, if the new material simply absorbs IR, its temperature will rise until equilibrium is reached with the radiating source. The heat loss may be slowed but that is all. Entropy says you can’t get something for nothing. Otherwise perpetual motion machines would proliferate.
Thermal energy is not longwave electromagnetic energy.
Thermal energy is kinetic energy.
This misinformation is constantly published.
Energy is propagated between objects in a vacuum by electromagnetic waves.
The space between molecules is essentially a vacuum. Energy is transported between molecules either by collision, i.e. a transfer of kinetic energy, or by radiation of an EM wave.
The adjective “thermal” is not physically meaningful. It was originally meant to characterize the frequency/wavelength of the associated EM wave, much like “radio” EM waves or “micro” EM waves or “visible” EM waves or “long” EM waves. It’s all just energy in an EM wave.
Thanks again, Nick. The greenhouse effect being given successful application in the technology of actual greenhouse constructions looks like a strong physical proof of the concept to me (assuming it stands up to close scrutiny).
I asked Copilot to confirm your claim. It did not do so. It claims that the difference is largely a result of glass being a better insulator (losing less heat through conduction), probably because of the greater thickness. Thus, while convection circulation of the air does not extend outside the boundaries of the greenhouse walls, the air immediately outside gets warmed sufficiently to conduct and convect heat away with the early plastics. It does not appear to be related to the spectral absorptivity.
The term greenhouse effect and its derivative term greenhouse gas came from the results of a simple experiment in the late 1800s or possibly the early 1900s.
A wooden box with a lid. The temperature rose. It had CO2 concentration higher than the atmosphere at the time. The result was stated as similar to a greenhouse.
Indeed it was similar to a greenhouse.
No. While there are varieties of glass that can block various wavelengths, that is not what makes a greenhouse a greenhouse.
A greenhouse is an environmental control system. CO2, H2O, and temperature are regulated by human operators to create optimum conditions for growing the desired plants.
In effect, it is no different than your living room or the cabin of your car.
It is a poor analogy that alarmists like because it shapes the dialog for their propaganda.
The 1LOT isn’t propaganda though. It’s fundamental. It’s real. And it has never been shown to be wrong. Greenhouses “trap” incoming solar energy. GHGs “trap” incoming solar energy. That’s the analogy. Note that “trap” in this context is defined objectively as an application of the 1LOT in which Ein > Eout resulting in ΔE > 0.
I don’t disagree that there may be better analogies and/or verbiage. Alternatives to “greenhouse effect” might include “heliothermometer effect”, “insulation effect”, “diathermanous envelope effect”, etc. Alternatives to “trap” might include “accumulate”, “retain”, “gain”, etc.
Alternatives don’t exist.
A greenhouse is a “convection blocking structure”. Gasses do not block convection, they are active participants in convection.
Radiative greenhouse gases trap nothing. They may thremalize non-radiative gases that then act as a temporary reservoir. This reservoir is never static, it is either gaining or losing energy (warming or cooling) constantly.
Greenhouse and trapping are propaganda terms that have no analogues in accurate physical descriptions.
You want a better analog, use “energy mover gases” or “energy portals”.
The “greenhouse gases” are energy conduits that convert radiation to sensible heat near the surface and convert sensible heat back into radiation at altitude.
The surface absorbs energy that arrives at the speed of light. The energy leaving the surface is limited by the atmospheric speed limit of convection. (Outside of the “atmospheric window, of course.)
As Schwarzschild said, “Radiation equilibrium will occur in a strongly radiating and absorbing atmosphere, in which the mixing effect of ascending and descending currents [convection] is insignificant compared to heat exchange by radiation.”
The “challenges” with the radiative transfer paradigm stem from the fact that it is the wrong model for the atmosphere. For 125 years there has been an effort to “crowbar” our convecting atmosphere into a radiative model. It cannot succeed.
If ΔE is always >0 then the Earth would have become a molten rock like Mercury long ago.
That should have been your first clue that your interpretation of the thermodynamic system known as the Earth biosphere and the 1LOT is wrong.
CO2 doesn’t “trap” anything. A blanket doesn’t “trap” heat. It merely slows down the rate of heat loss. Sooner or later, however, when ΔE is integrated over time it needs to be zero, it can’t be positive forever.
Somewhere between less than 1 deg C and more than 6 deg C per century, mostly at night and in the Winter for the global average. But we really have no idea what the regional changes will be for the various Köppen–Geiger climate classifications. The alarmists are truly flying blind when visual flight rules are called for.
I still can’t get two tomato crops here in Kansas each spring/summer/fall even with a marginally longer growing season. So the climate hasn’t changed enough to notice. Same for winter wheat, corn, milo, sunflowers, soybeans, etc. Cotton remains a very marginal crop. When farmers can get two annual crops of 90day soybeans here then I’ll start worrying about climate change.
“Issue 1 is scientific, and for scientists.” That one is particularly amusing, as if to say that simple plebes need not concern themselves with the province of the elite.
“Assumes facts not in evidence.”
All Climate Alarmists do that. You can’t be a true Climate Alarmist without assuming things not in evidence. 🙂
Wasn’t the Sahara once green and lush? Did human activity turn it into a desert? Things change. We either adapt or we die. It’s that simple. Attempting to stop it from happening is foolish, and that’s putting it very mildly.
According to Peta of Newark the Sahara was created by humans cutting down trees for cattle grazing.
Does anyone know what happened to our eccentric but lovable old friend?
_1 Are rising GHGs causing warming?
Yes
A bit. But first GHG is a bogus term created to feed the masses who will not or cannot think for themselves.
Blaming all the warming or CO2 (and everything except H20) is pushing the meme that CO2 is the “control knob,” which it is not.
So the real answer is, maybe some, perhaps.
_2 Is this a problem?
…. it can’t go on for ever, so we’ll have to do something about it.
You are certain of something that no one can be certain of. Your opinions and conjectures are not facts. It is quite possible that all of it is a self-regulating system and there are no “tipping points.” We just do not know enough to make such claims. Possible? Yes. Factual? No.
_3 Do we have good remedies?
… we’ll need them, so have to work on it.
I comprehend that this is based on your opinion for No. 2. So, you are entitled to have an opinion and I will defend to the death your right to speak it, even if I totally disagree.
I totally disagree.
True, it can’t go on forever, but at the current rate of warming, it will take 1000 years or so, just to get back to the balmy temperatures the world enjoyed during the Holocene Optimum.
10’s of thousands of years to get back to the warm periods of the more distant past.
In other words, no need to panic and let’s just enjoy the brief reprieve from the recent cold periods.
Its missing the point again. I don’t know why it is that when people with a proper quantitative background start arguing about climate and energy policy they fall back on what is no more rigorous than literary criticism. Vague assumptions and total lack of numbers. Can’t go on forever – how long is that? Do something – what does that even mean?
Its not whether they are causing warming, its how much, and is it a threatening amount. It doesn’t depend on where you are, but on how much. There is no evidence the human caused warming is enough to be concerned about. Most of recent warming appears to be from natural causes, and observational studies don’t support any alarming estimates.
Do we have good remedies? Who is ‘we’? No, we the West do not have any remedies at all. We have no current remedies which will materially affect emissions. Partly because none of our so-called remedies, particularly wind and solar, are feasible or effective in themselves. Partly because none of the largest and fastest growing emitters are going to even try to implement them, so they are not going to work regardless.
Do we (the global population) need to do anything? I doubt it, but I am completely sure that we (the global population) are not going to do anything.
What does that mean for what we (the West) should do? It means we should stop all this nonsense with wind and solar, stop trying to do idiotic things like eliminating GHGs from anesthetics. The West installing masses of useless intermittent energy generation or doing token gestures is not doing anything we (either the West or the global population) need. So we should stop it.
Research on energy is entirely reasonable. We (global) will run out of fossil fuels one day so we (all of us) ought to do research, and more and cheaper energy is a good idea anyway. But that is not installing wind and solar, its doing research into things that will actually work.
I think its over actually. it just took one large country to stand up and say that he has no clothes, and that has happened. There will be lots of kicking and screaming, but its basically over now.
It may be over now, but it is going to take a long time to reverse the damage. This isn’t the “beginning of the end”, or even “the end of the beginning”. But there is a realization that it can’t go on for ever, and change is coming.
Nick, you wrote “_2 Is this a problem?
It depends on whether you are in England or India (as many are). But wherever you are, it can’t go on for ever, so we’ll have to do something about it.”
Happer, Wijngaarden, Lindzen and others have shown that the warming caused by CO2 increases will certainly not “go on forever” because even if CO2 continues increasing, the warming effect logarithmically declines according to the physics of the thing and is presently on the nearly flat slope of that decline. Doubling current levels has nearly no temperature effect whatever. So we don’t have to do anything about it. The issue is whether the world will respond to the actual science, or the widespread ignorant hysteria. At present, many countries are proceeding with the hysterical approach. The US under President Trump, China and India (regardless of whoever is in charge) are not. China as we know has been very happy to indulge and profit from the hysteria of others as are the host of international wind and solar farm entrepreneurs gorging on subsidies from the hysterical governments involved.
When, if, it gets to 20,000 ppm, we might have a problem breathing.
I do not recall seeing any paleontological data showing CO2 ever got that level of atmospheric concentration.
Probably not a problem. Our exhaled breath contains about 40,000 ppm.
Exhale is different than inhale.
Submarines limit the ambient CO2.
Excessive CO2 cognitively impairs.
Then again, too much H2O can kill.
“Submarines limit the ambient CO2”
…unless the CO2 scrubbers fail ….
we experienced above 20,000 ppm for days.
Above 25,000 we did get headaches.
There’s not enough fossil fuels for that and anyway it would take 5000-10,000 years at current rates.
Not only to profit from it, but to promote it to accelerate the self-destruction of the West.
They don’t want war, but they can help us defeat ourselves with sex trafficking, designer drugs, and rock-and-roll climate hysteria.
“Happer, Wijngaarden, Lindzen and others have shown”
No, it was Arrhenius who showed, emphatically that the effect was logarithmic (and even he may not have been the first). That is why it is quantified as °C/doubling. But I don’t think you, or this post, really understand about logarithms. There is no “flat side”.
Does the word “asymptotic” ring a bell?
So what is the logarithm asymptotic to?
While there is no real asymptote for the maximum value of a logarithmic function the rate of increase does get less and less as the x-axis value grows.
If f(x) = a * log_b(x-h) + k
then a determines the vertical scaling of the function as x increases, i.e. the actual f(x) value as the slope of the function approaches zero. The slope of the function is related to a/x. As x grows the slope approaches zero.
Regardless of the vertical scaling the slope of the function gets smaller and smaller as x increases, approaching 0 (zero), i.e. a horizontal line, at very large values of x. Most people consider that to be asymptotic behavior.
So just what is a (the scaling factor) for CO2? If the CO2 response is logarithmic then there will be a scaling factor.
That is a question that climate science should answer prior to claiming AGW is a never ending increase.
With all the money that has been and will be spent on modeling, you and climate modelers should by now have a handle on where the asymptote lies.
Instead, the models end up with a never ending linear slope of temperature increase while fully knowing that the effect of CO2 is logarithmic.
You should ask this of your modeling friends and tell the world the answer.
“… it can’t go on for ever, so we’ll have to do something about it.” What if the system is self-regulating?
“I think the things we are doing are worth doing, but more may be needed.” Nick, there are no facts in evidence that the currently accepted “solution” to climate change (wind turbines and solar panels) can come even close to “solving” the problem by ushering in a golden “Net Zero” world. Yes, “… more may be needed”. And something like 75% of the world doesn’t care.
1st comment – How do you know this?
2nd comment – How do you know we’ll have to do something
Take a photo of your crystal ball so we can see how you predict the future. Alternatively, show us a picture of your time machine because you obviously know what will happen
Nick writes
_2 Is this a problem?
And that’s the wrong question. To skip to the right question…
_2 What are the Pros and Cons of Anthropogenic CO2?
Care to expand on #1? What empirical evidence can you point to that CO2 warming is more than a minor blip?
_1 Are rising GHGs causing [significant] warming?
No
_2 Is this a problem?
No
_3 Do we have good remedies?
No, but we don’t appear to need them for the foreseeable future. If the situation changes, society can change the priorities for the development of thorium fission reactors and controlled thermonuclear fusion instead of politically imposing an anachronistic technology developed by the Dutch to drain the sea bed to make farmland.
“Issue 1 is scientific, and for scientists.”
I’m really impressed with the number of replies you get to your comments Nick😅
Oh, how controversial you must be….
Just to be clear though on this statement you made. I couldn’t agree more that this issue is for scientists……and yet, there are several eminent scientists who disagree with the mainstream view. Just because they appear not to represent the majority, does that mean that their highly qualified scientific opinion should be ignored….or even demonised? Remember Galileo was once in the lone voice of correct scientific opinion 😉……or maybe he was wrong, after all😩😬 🤣
Excellent comment, Michel. I agree with everything you wrote.
Net Zero is impossible and utterly pointless.
When will UK and German politicians figure this out?
They (other than lunatics) already know this but they are flailing about for plausible propaganda to shield themselves from voter wrath.
Utterly pointless? Depends on PoV.
However, it is clearly self-destructive for any pursuing it.
They always knew it. They will admit it once the objective is achieved and that is very close if not already here. When European culture is utterly obliterated and overrun by third world replacement populations, the need for gaslighting will be over.
Change enthusiasts to activists.
Dear Anthony,
I’d like to have the time to discuss this with you, but it is late in the day here in eastern Australia and time to close down.
I agree, the climate has changed; however it is episodic changes in rainfall that have mitigated changes in temperature, not changes in temperature per se.
Analysis of some 300 medium and long-term Australian temperature records using the same protocols, some of which have been shared at http://www.bomwatch.com.au, shows there is no change in temperature that could evidence a trend or change in the climate.
A change in temperature alone would require the dependence of temperature on rainfall to break down, which has not happened, at least in Australian data.
The reason temperature appears to have increased is because Bureau of Meteorology scientists adjusted changepoints that made no difference to the data, or they failed to adjust for changepoints that were influential. Their use of correlated reference series adds to the bias inherent in Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) data.
All for another day.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
I endorse what Dr Bill just wrote.
Many people say there is natural warming just now because we are coming out of a little ice age.
But, what is the mechanism of this gentle warming?
Dr Bill is the only scientist of whom I am aware who proposes a mechanism, involving water, and supports it with abundant quantitative analysis for all to see.
Geoff S
Maybe we should ditch the term “climate change” in general. The term “change” is misleading as the climate on earth is not static, it is subject to natural and uncontrolable cycles.
Better just call it just climate and acknowlegde that currently we’re enjoying one of it’s the warmer periods. Anyone not satisfied with that please invent a ONE WAY ONLY time machine and seek out one of the past ice ages while trying to grow your crops – naked!
Alternate cryo is also possible, for future iceages (sarc).
Actually, it isn’t one of the warmer periods of the Earth’s history. It is relatively warmer than it was 300 years ago, during the depths of the little ice age. The problem is that some people consider that cold era to be normal.
I’ll take what I can get.
Me too, hot Glögg on cold days, ice cold Sangría on warm days… spiced vine is spiced vine 😁
Agreed, the roman empire f.e. enjoyed a much warmer period than us today.
“Some people” just want to create a problem where there is none.
Follow the money if you need an answer why.
An imaginary world brings very real benefits if you make others live in it.
With a chronically variable climate, it’s all ’normal’.
Well, THAT isn’t going to get you any research money….
“research money for climate change ” Sounds to me more like some form of modern welfare or hooker money (sarc?🤪)
Actually not really sarcasm. 🙂
Maybe Alarmists should use “CO2-caused climate change” so we know what they are talking about.
Mother Nature causes the climate to change. CO2, not so much, as there is no evidence CO2 is connected to any weather or climate event on Earth.
If we look at the whole geological history of Earth from the times when CO2 made significant part of the atmosphere, at CO2 biological sequestration, at CO2 role in desertification at the end of glaciations, etc., we can say that CO2 is one of the players in ever changing climate. Not a driver, but a player.
Maybe, as humans, we should realize that we’ve existed on this planet for an eyeblink of its existence. And that we haven’t experienced even an iota of the change that has already happened.
When was The Climate ever in equilibrium, at least for more than a few seconds? What were the climatic conditions at that instant? Would those be conditions we should seek?
Don’t forget, “Americans want change” and they elect the people who say so.
People who are elected determine monetary policy.
People who are elected get rich while in office.
People who aren’t get change.
Yes, “climate change” is redundant, like “RV vehicle.”
The irrationality of “Climate Change” is compounded by the refusal to replace carbon-based energy sources with clean, safe and reliable nuclear power. Although, there is some early evidence of change — see, “Why Microsoft made a deal to help restart Three Mile Island.”
https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/26/1104516/three-mile-island-microsoft/
But not without a fight. For many, Climate Change is still a religion.
Climate change, for some, is a way of life.
NGOs and all the rag tag hangers on to the crisis need it to continue. Solutions are not welcome at all.
Sorry.
The definition of climate is the average weather over an extended period of time.
The current definition repurposed micro climate and assumed a 30 year interval.
This results in the current definition of climate as a running 30 year average of weather.
Since the weather at this moment is not precisely and exactly the same as 30 years ago, the running average changes.
So yes, climate change is real, both the the paleoclimate definition and the modern definition.
if you measure temperature with a thermometer or something that acts like a thermometer, then the result is an intensive property. You can average extensive properties. Trying to average intensive properties is nonsense. The is no agreed upon method to convert intensive temperatures to extensive temperatures. The hundredth of a degree accuracy in temperature measurements is also nonsense.
I agree.
Nit point. I did not say temperature. I said weather.
Uh First of all there seems to be more than one definition of what Climate Change might be and the IPCC one is particulary weak.. linking that expression to anthropogenic CO2 alone!
Who uses which definition here needs to be clarified . .
The cause of the rapid warming of the late 20th century has in my view largely been caused by the switching of recording temps over to electronic thermometers during this time. As the high sensitivity of these thermometers have made them unsuitable for placing in small screens in the sunshine. Where this current method of doing things is l believe giving misleading data on daytime temps. Today has been a great example of the issues that are been caused whenever there is sunny weather.
Here in Scunthorpe as of 14:20 BST the recorded temp reading from my LIG thermometer in open shade was 12.8C.
Yet the readings from local AWS are as follows.
Lincoln 17.5C
Hatfield Moors 16.3C
Thorne Moors 15.3C
This sort of difference happens every time there are lengthy spells of sunshine and the difference is greatest when the electronic thermometers are incased in small screens. There needs to be a serious rethink about having these thermometers placed in small screens outside in the sunshine.
That verifiably is a root cause.
There is also data manipulation, aka the Mann trick, also homogenization.
You’re like a cracked record taxed.
Bridlington, Scarborough, Hull were only 11 to 13C. News alert, the North Sea is cold this time of year, local weather varies enormously.
Max temperatures UK wide today varied from under 10C to almost 24C.
Yes but the thing is, that this also happens everytime there is a reasonable sunny day and the winds are from the west. Also Scunthorpe is 20 miles inland and yet l was recording the same sort of max temps the AWS were recording along the coast, with as you say a strong breeze blowing in from the sea.
I know enough about the weather, to be able to understand when the Met Office is trying to treat people like mushrooms. It was the very reason why l have started recording my own temperature data in the first place.
By the way this large difference in temperature range with the local AWS’s is largely confined to days where the weather is reasonable sunny. As soon as we have a dull cloudy day over the region then that large temperature range disappears.
Strange that such a thing should be happening, maybe you would care to explain it. 🤔
An understanding of the synoptic meteorology gives the answer.
E to NE’ly winds covered the country. Due the topography of the Euro coastline (the N Sea is widest further north) and as E Anglia juts out E, air advecting from Holland across and onto Norfolk has had a much shorter crossing than had air exiting Denmark and coming into Lincs (in particular N Lincs). That was the situation yesterday. Additionally the airmass boundary layer temp had a deltaT from N (colder) to south. This can be seen on the GFS model 6 hr Forecast of 925mb temp (~ 2000ft)……
The 2 Moors you mention are further west and had a longer insolation time on the E’ly wind.
Well it will interesting to see what happens to temperatures towards the middle of next week. When we lose that cool breeze from the East and winds fall light across the UK. So making for a much smoother temperature range across the region. Then we will see if it has any that impact on the temperature ranges am seeing.
Would like to get hold of the data from the Normanby Hall weather station as this would be ideal for me. But have not been able to access it online.
The traditional view of a thermometer in a shelter being a well designed device capable of giving a predictable temperature when plonked down in a new location.is everywhere being shown wrong.
In reality, at the sought accuracy of a tenth of a degree or so, the thermometer-in-shelter is a temperamental device that, at a minimum, requires careful calibration before its output is used.
In proper science, each device would be evaluated at each new location by a standard test routine involving several other devices run in parallel for a couple of years. Factors considered unimportant in the past are now showing themselves capable of upsetting accuracy to give overall error more like 1 degree. Like years ago when Anthony Watts reported on old/new paint or whitewashes for the shelter, like Pat Frank reporting 0.2 degrees drift in early LIG thermometers, like many studies of UHI, like Dr Bill Johnston with his many examples of rainfall influencing temperature measurements and more, more, more.
When was the last time there was a report showing the magnitude of all perturbations resulting in an expected envelope of real errors?
Geoff S
The biggest problem is how do you define the area or extent of the region being measured. It will vary depending on the wind for example. Then any averaging must take into account the various sizes of those regions. Also, the difference between accuracy and precision is never considered.
Yes l think that the modern highly sensitive electronic thermometers have made the the current method of recording temperatures rather out dated. It may have been see been fit for purpose back in the late 19th century, but that’s no longer the case. With the other points you bring up, here where my current thinking stands.
With the UHI effects am now thinking that some of this warming has been due to a improvement in accuracy of LIG thermometers over the 20th century alongside the lack of maintenance of the screens.
Also l think the use of using plastic for the screens is a issue.
Because having just recently brought a new set of Six’ thermometers as spares for my current thermometer. I have been surprised by just how off white the background of the scale has become when compared to the new thermometers. My older thermometer has been outside since Feb 2024 and background of the scale has become a creamy white rather then the brilliant white of the new thermometers. So it’s very likely that the same thing is happening with the plastic screens sitting outside in the sun. Which will be surely be warming the inside of the screen during sunny weather.
With Dr Bill Johnston’ findings of a link with rainfall and temperature measurements. Where l think a link could be is with the rain along comes the cloud cover. Which due to the lack of sunshine impacting on the screen, brings the temperature within the screen down to a more truely accurate recording of the air temperature.
One answer tried by climate science has been to put multiple thermometers in the screen. This might allow identifying an outlier unit but if they are all in the same screen then they all suffer from the same effects the screen itself causes.
Even “homogenization” with other locations doesn’t help. Hubbard and Lin showed back in 2002 that differences in microclimates require that adjustments to readings must be done on a station-by-station basis. And even they didn’t get into the problems with trying to adjust past temperature readings because of differing drift patterns both in the instrumentation itself as well as in the microclimate around the station.
Bottom line: I’ve never seen anything from climate science that gives me confidence for the accuracy of any “average” value, be it local, regional, or global, with a value past the units digit.
About crying “wolf”, yes, there is a canine animal coming, but it is more of a Chihuahua.
No, climate change is not real. Stop parsing words. When leftists say “climate change” they mean rapid, disastrous, life-threatening, human-caused and reversible global warming. They don’t mean the long-term climate variation—both warming and cooling—that’s been happening since the dawn of time. They mean warming, and nothing but warming, and we should stick with what they mean, global warming, and not water it down to sound sciencey. That’s their meaning and yes, climate change is not real. Say it in their faces, boldly, a thousand times. It’s not real. It’s a hoax. It’s yet another scam by leftists to bilk the gullible of trillions of dollars, euros, whatever, to funnel into their leftist fever dreams, designed to yoke free people like beasts of burden and compel them to behave the way they dictate. Global warming is not real, and we have the data to prove it. They have no evidence that recent warming is human-caused, that it’s an imminent threat to humans, that it can be reversed, or that any of their policy proposls will do anything other than impoverish humans. “Climate change” is not real.
We must be careful. They are better at playing word games than we are.
Yes, global warming morphed into climate change and carried the same definition.
AGW is the term to fight back on. Anything with anthropogenic in it as a disaster also.
Natural global warming is real. It is not as cold as the Continental Army suffered at Valley Forge.
The problem with the current definition of climate (30 years) is it is the micro climate definition repurposed for propaganda.
No, we must be direct and stop waffling. Climate change, the fantastic beast dreamed up by leftists, is not real. If you want to play the losing game of conceding that they are partially correct, you’ll lose. They aren’t partially correct. They are completely wrong. They’re not interested in discussing real climate change; the long-term natural variations in global climate on which humans have no effect. You might be able to persuade a moderate who doesn’t know anything about global climate and its natural variations by asking first what he means by “climate change” and working from a common definition. The rest? Tell it straight and don’t waver. The commonly (mis-)used term “climate change” is not real. It’s completely fabricated by leftists torturing computer models, cherry-picking data, and falsely connecting extreme weather, glacial melt, and moderate warming in the late 20th century to human fossil fuel use and meat-eating.
You make some valid points.
However, if we claim there is no climate change we will be giving guns to the Indians.
Since there is climate change and global warming, we have to be correct. That Anthropogenic is not a measurable part of it is the part that needs defeated.
Fighting back has to be in the context of their invalid definition, which seems to be the thrust of your post.
“. . . giving guns to the Indians.”
What if the Indians are on our side and the cavalry isn’t?
In today’s day and age, we win.
I think you meant “irreversible.”
Only one of these is the direct result of capitalism…
Beating the earth into a ball sure did cost a lot, but grit and determination saw us through. We did have to lean quite heavily on an outside contractor for most of the work, so I want to give special thanks to Joshua and the boys at Galilee Industrial for their innovative approach to solving multiple problems. Those guys can literally walk on water.
Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik
Sometimes made easy. 🙂
“The mainstream position (IPCC, NOAA, NASA, etc.) holds that recent warming — roughly 1.1°C since the late 1800s — is largely due to increased CO₂ from human activity, mainly fossil fuels.”
Even if true, if all of it were anthropogenic, so what? Most of the warming has been at night, in winter, and more concentrated in the colder places like Siberia and Canada. Ergo, no “crisis”.
More than a century ago Einstein pointed out that just one experimental observation that directly contradicts a core prediction of a theory is enough to prove the theory to be wrong. In this context, the claim of CO2 induced warming is that rising CO2 acts like an incremental blanket over the Earth reducing Earths thermal ( ie; long wave radiation) energy loss to space with the additional retained heat driving warming. The experimental observation is NASA’s direct measurement of Earth’s energy loss to space (outgoing long wave radiation or OLR) which shows that since measurements began 50 odd years ago OLR has been steadily rising not falling. The core AGW prediction is that OLR should be falling, the experimental observation is that it is rising. This is direct conflict over the core AGW prediction and proves the theory wrong.
This is one of the contrarian myths that never dies. The AGW prediction is that OLR will increase. See [Donohoe et al. 2014] for details.
“This is one of the contrarian myths that never dies. The AGW prediction is that OLR will increase. See [Donohoe et al. 2014] for details.”
Really? From the link you show:
“Trenberth and Fasullo (3) considered global energy accumulation within the ensemble of coupled general circulation models (GCMs) participating in phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (4) (CMIP3). They report that, under the Special Report on Emission Scenarios A1B emissions scenario, wherein increasing radiative forcing is driven principally by increasing GHG concentrations, OLR changes little over the 21st century and global energy accumulation is caused nearly entirely by enhanced ASR—seemingly at odds with the canonical view of global warming by reduced LW emission to space (outlined in Fig. 1A).”
“If you would debate me, first define your terms.” — (attributed to ?) Voltaire
The last sentence of the “Abstract” paragraph from your chosen link :
The last sentence of the “Significance” box (also on the first page of the PDF file) :
The first sentence of the “Discussion and Conclusions” section (on page 5) :
Did you mix up “OLR” and “ASR” in your head, or “increase” and “reduce / reduction” ?
No. There is no mix up. Just because the initial effect is to reduce OLR that does not mean that the cumulative effect necessitates a reduction. To help illustrate what is going on the authors include figure 1. In panels C (instant pulse) and D (1% growth pulse) you’ll see the initial OLR reduction followed by the eventual increase caused by the shortwave feedback. This feedback was first proposed by Manabe and Wetherald in the 1960’s.
bdgwx: “Just because the initial effect is to reduce OLR that does not mean that the cumulative effect necessitates a reduction. “
bdgwx: “This is one of the contrarian myths that never dies. The AGW prediction is that OLR will increase”
Really? The paper says: “OLR changes little over the 21st century”
the entire CAGW argument has been that we must stop burning fossil fuel because it would reduce OLR thus making the planet burn up and everyone would die – all because of CO2 from burning those fossil fuels.
From the paper: “seemingly at odds with the canonical view of global warming by reduced LW emission to space (outlined in Fig. 1A).””
Your link doesn’t support your assertions.
Again: If the feedbacks cause warming then why is CO2 necessary for that warming? The enhancement from ASR will happen regardless of what CO2 does.
Mark BLR; problem remains, what you describe is a feedback and by definition feedbacks are a system response to a forcing. If there is no forcing there cannot be any feedback to the non existent forcing. The theory of CAGW is that the forcing due to rising CO2 is a reduction in OLR. If there is no reduction in OLR there cannot be a feedback. Worse, if the OLR forcing is increasing OLR rather than reducing OLR then the feedback would also reverse – driving reduced ASR. It is not possible to trigger a feedback and then reverse the forcing function and not also reverse the feedback effect. A further conundrum, if the initial projected drop in OLR was decades ago and now further changes to OLR are irrelevant then the horse has bolted and there is no point trying to do anything because the forcing function has clearly become irrelevant.
Really bdgwx; Problems can be made very difficult or very simple depending on how you choose to look at them. In this case, Earth only gains energy from incoming solar radiation and only loses energy by thermal radiation to space (OLR). If Earth is warming either input is increasing or energy loss is reducing. So if Earh is warming while OLR is rising that would mean incoming solar r[input is rising even faster. How does CO2 do that? The very fundamental rational is that CO2 is a GHG and GHG’s act like a blanket over the Earth reducing energy loss to space. The experimental observations contradict that. I have heard the argument that feedback mechanisms cause incoming energy to rise and that becomes the dominant effect however feedback mechanisms by definition are a system response to a forcing and if CO2 is the forcing then by the stated theory that has to be a reduction in OLR. If that is not happening then there is no forcing and that means there cannot be any feedback. This is VERY BASIC, models can always be manipulated to show whatever the designer wants but the very basic experimental observation holds and contradicts the theory of CAGW as stated for the last 2 decades.
“So if Earh is warming while OLR is rising that would mean incoming solar r[input is rising even faster. How does CO2 do that? “
Don’t expect an answer.
The shortwave feedback. Any cooling/warming that occurs regardless of cause will also increases/decrease the planet’s albedo amplifying the effect.
No experiment has ever been able to falsify the hypothesis that CO2 impedes the transmission of energy especially near the 4.25 um and 15 um band peaks.
LOL. Shortwave feedback, CO2 feedback, water feedback, etc. All positive feedbacks that warm the earth. We should have burned up long ago. Where do the negative feedback kick in
Very nice Anthony. This is really important it needs widespread distribution, educating the good people at WUWT is not nearly good enough. Once the average guy understands these few simple facts he will not put up with the kind of disgraceful actions we are seeing from our government. We do not have a climate problem we have a government problem.
The radiative Greenhouse effect is impossible in an open system like the earths atmosphere. The theory that atmospheric CO2 molecules trap earth’s LW radiation and then radiate this energy to warm the earth lower atmosphere defies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. A cooler body cannot transmit heat to a warmer body. QED
Any positive ΔT is resisted by a T^x radiation increase. While a temporary ΔT can happen, T^x will eventually drive it to a long term equilibrium.
“A cooler body cannot transmit heat to a warmer body. QED”
Yeah, that’s not exactly true.
It is true. A cold body will radiate energy that can be absorbed by a hot body, but the cold body can never transmit heat to a warm body.
Think of how thermal equilibrium would be achieved if cold can transmit heat to a hot body.
It depends on your definition of “heat.” If IR radiation can be called “heat,” then a colder body can transfer “heat” to a warmer body.
“Think of how thermal equilibrium would be achieved if cold can transmit heat to a hot body.”
Yet it will be achieved–eventually–assuming an isolated system. Open and closed systems don’t usually tend to thermal equilibrium. By thermal equilibrium, I assume you mean that the change in entropy of the system is zero–thus an isolated system.
If by thermal equilibrium, you mean “steady state,” then that is not the usual definition.
A cold body can not transfer heat to a warmer body. A colder body can transfer energy but it can not make the heat gradient reverse. The hot body will continue to cool.
IR radiation is the transfer of energy, not “heat”. EM radiation does not have a temperature term in it. Look at the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
5.670367(13) × 10-8 W⋅m²K⁴
Multiply this by T⁴, and the temperature term disappears, so the EM wave does not have a temperature.
With a lot of assumptions, one can solve the SB equation for a temperature. This doesn’t really define heat though. The general equation for “heat” requires the determination of a difference in temperature.
Q = m c ∆T
I’ll have to remember that the next time I’m warmed by the infrared rays from a campfire that it’s not due to heat.
Don’t be petulant. The energy contained in the EM waves that you absorb is changed into kinetic energy of the molecules in your body, i.e, heat.
Here is a question for you. Does the IR that you radiate as an EM wave make the fire hotter?
The classic thermodynamic definition of heat is the energy transferred across a system boundary due to a temperature difference. The “net” flow is always from a higher temperature to a lower temperature. Your use of “heat” is nonstandard. And objects/systems do not “contain” heat. Excuse me for being confused by your definition. Work is also a boundary phenomenon–that is, objects/systems don’t contain work either.
“Does the IR that you radiate as an EM wave make the fire hotter?”
Probably only theoretically.
I never said there wasn’t a boundary. However, with radiation the boundary occurs where emission ends and absorption begins.
At that point, the second law of thermodynamics is applicable. If the absorbing body is cold, it’s temperature will rise. If it is the hot body, the temperature will continue to cool.
As Planck has expressed:
It seems that you think I’m saying that the colder object will make the warmer object warmer. I’m saying that the colder object will slightly reduce the rate of cooling by the warmer object–assuming both objects are radiating. And you also seem to be implying that these objects are in an isolated system–otherwise both objects will continue to cool towards absolute zero.
Tom Hope and others; I have lost tack of how many times I have tried to explain the 2nd law error. The 2nd law is being misquoted. It does NOT say a cooler body cannot transmit heat to a warmer body. It says NET heat flow is always from warmer to cooler – the word NET is very important. All objects warmer than absolute zero radiate thermal energy in all directions. If some of this energy is torwards a wamer body that energy will be aborbed by the warmer body. However if the warmer body can receive radiation from the cooler it will also radiate towards the cooler and since it is warmer the level of thermal emission will be higher. So heat energy is transferred from both cooler to warmer and warmer to cooler but there will always be more energy radiated from warmer to cooler so NET heat flow is from warmer to cooler. In the case of back radiation from green house gases; in the absence of GHG’s the surface is radiating to outer space – temp 4K so very little radiation coming back. With GHG’s the radiation coming back is from the GHG’s at maybe 200K so much more radiation coming back. In both cases the NET long wave radiation is away from the surface but with GHG’s the energy radiated by the surface minus the energy received back is smaller than it would be without GHG’s ss the surface loses less energy and thus stays somewhat warmer.
You said it better than I did. Thanks!
The heat transferred is the *integral* of the temperature profile. If the surface stays warmer then it radiates at a greater level thus sending *more* heat toward space.
It’s a result of ΔT vs ΔT^x. (I use x because the earth isn’t a black body). ΔT^x goes up faster than ΔT.
The nighttime temperature profile is an exponential decay. If the sunset temperature on Day2 is higher than on Day1 then the surface initially radiates heat away faster on Day2.
The decay exponential is of the form h(t) = h0 e^ (-kt) (k is the decay rate). Integrated over time the amount of heat lost is dependent on h0. The integral over time is related to h0/k. The decay rate doesn’t change but the total heat lost increases.
Even if the assumption that the decay rate is the same doesn’t hold, then that would imply that k would get smaller (i.e. decay slower) because of back radiation. If k get less then the integral value actually increases because of the (1/k) factor.
With a higher starting point and the same decay rate the asymptotic value, i.e. Tmin, increases but total heat loss also increases.
The ΔT vs ΔT^x also sets a boundary on Tmax. When ΔT^x = ΔT you have reached an inflection point where ΔT can’t increase any further because the heat loss exceeds the heat intake.
Climate science ties temperature to heat loss/gain. Meaning higher temps mean less heat loss. But the math doesn’t seem to support that. There just seems to be a blind spot in climate science for the ΔT vs ΔT^x relationahip.
CO₂ is a greenhouse gas, no question
Well, of course if you define it be a “greenhouse gas”, you are right.
Almost exactly like defining “slower cooling” to be “heating”.
The difference is that you cannot actually say clearly and unambiguously what changing the amount of this gas in the atmosphere is supposed to do!
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
Removing CO2 from air does not make it colder.
Are you saying that a “greenhouse gas” has no heating capabilities at all?
Michael Flynn; the definition of a green house gas is not subject to question. A green house gas is any gas that absorbs thermal infrared radiation (wavelengths between about 4 and 50 microns). If it can absorb it must also emit at those wavelengths, the processes are reciprocal. Green house gases in the atmosphere absorb energy (at their absorption wavelengths) emitted from the surface. They re-radiate energy at those same wavelengths at a level determined by the local temperature of the GHG gas. Thoughout the atmosphere, energy emitted by one parcel of GHG is reabsorbed by adjacent GHG except at the very top of the atmospheric column. At this point there is no GHG above the emitting gas to re-absorb so the energy ecapes to space. Thus GHG in the atmosphere absorbs surface emissions at the GHG absorption wavelenghts and replaces it with energy at these wavelenghts radiated from the top of the atmospheric column. The top of the atmospheric column is colder than the surface so the energy radiated is less. Hence overall OLR is reduced.
Sorry to inform you that all gases can both emit and absorb infrared radiation. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
You do not understand that matter emits wavelengths dependent on temperature, the intensity is not dependent on temperature, rather on emissivity.
Setting your misunderstanding of physics aside, the insulating properties of the atmosphere are measurable, resulting in lower daytime maxima, and higher nighttime minima, compared with the Moon.
Slow cooling is not heating. No GHE. The Earth has cooled, and continues to do so.
Those GHG’s radiate via EM waves. Those EM waves may be directional because of the molecular dipoles but when summed over time and space they will average out to a spherical wavefront. Meaning as much gets re-radiated away from earth as gets radiated toward it. (actually as elevation increases, less gets sent back to earth as it will subtend a smaller and smaller angle on the spherical wavefront)
So for every unit of heat loss absorbed from the surface only 1/2 of that heat loss gets redirected back toward earth.
So for unit1 of heat loss you get a decreasing series. Unit 1 transmitted, unit1/2 received back. Unit1/2 retransmitted by the earth results in only unit1/4 coming back. The next iterations are unit1/8, unit1/16, unit1/32, etc.
Thus over time the “back radiation” actually results in an infinitely small actual gain in heat for the earth.
Somehow climate science always seems to ignore that the earth will retransmit whatever comes back to it. It just assumes that the “back radiation” somehow gets absorbed, thus raising the heat energy and temperature of the earth, with no further re-radiation by the earth. Thus “back radiation” raises the temperature of the earth.
Since the “back radiation” also gets absorbed by CO2 and retransmitted, meaning half is resent skyward and half earthward, just how much actual “back radiation” actually reaches the surface of the earth?
They also forget that when the surface reradiates, that it does so as a grey body which means 30 – 40% goes out the atmospheric window which makes your 1/2 really “1/2 × 1/3 = 1/6” or less reaching CO2 again.
I suggest everyone look at David Dibbell’s video, Energy Conversion in the Atmosphere.
The dynamic vertical scale is (+/-)10,000 Wm^2. The climate energy-state is not static.
Static is how one is invited to see it, given the climate model add-CO2-cause-warming POV. That view is utterly wrong.
The ~25 W/m^2 of the first 100 ppmv CO2 and the ~31 W/m^2 of 300 ppmv CO2 hardly register on the vertical scale. Climate dynamics wouldn’t even notice their added presence.
Much less would the dynamics of climate energy dissipation notice the paltry 2.5 W/m^2 of GHG forcing added since 1750.
David points out the added energy flux due to human-emitted GHGs has a vertical footprint within the tick-mark at zero W/m^2.
The critical point is, in David’s words, “The assumed GHG “forcings” cannot be isolated for reliable attribution of reported surface warming.
“And with all the circulation and energy conversion throughout the depth of the troposphere, heat energy need not be expected to accumulate on land and in the oceans to harmful effect from incremental non-condensing GHGs.
“The GHGs add no energy to the land + ocean + atmosphere system. Therefore the radiative properties of CO2, CH4, and N2O, and other molecules of similar nature, should not be assumed to produce a perturbing climate “forcing.”
“The concept of energy conversion helps us understand the self-regulating delivery of energy to high altitude for just enough longwave radiation to be emitted to space.“
Competent climate physicists would know this. One can justifiably conclude that climate modelers do not in fact know the physics of the system they purport to express.
Bottom line: The effect of human GHG emissions on the climate is indistinguishable from zero.
To put this into perspective if a 2.5 W.m-2 radiative force is too paltry then a change in TSI of 2.5 w.m-2 * 4 / (1-0.3) = 14 W.m-2 would be equally paltry since a TSI change of 14 W.m-2 is equivalent to a radiative force of 2.5 W.m-2.
There is no “radiative force”. It is merely an existing amount of energy being shuffled around in the biosphere. It causes no actual increase in the energy of the system. TSI on the other hand *is* an increase in the energy of the system.
I know…I know. You’ve made it abundantly clear that the 1LOT is a mythical law of nature that does not exist. I neither have the time nor the motivation to have yet another absurd debate with you regarding the validity of the 1LOT.
For the lurkers radiative force is the 1LOT applied to the top of the atmosphere. Specifically it is ΔE = Ein – Eout dividing both sides by the area (A) and time period analyzed (t) resulting in ΔE/(At) which has units of W.m-2. The 1LOT is real. It is fundamental. And it has never been shown to not exist or not be true.
“You’ve made it abundantly clear that the 1LOT is a mythical law of nature”
Malarky! The problem is that you simply do not understand the 1LOT at all.
The internal energy, i.e. the heat content, of a closed system that is doing no work (THE EARTH) is ΔU = ΔQ where ΔQ is the heat-in minus the heat-out.
The only source of heat-in is the sun. LWIR radiation from the earth *is* energy already received from the sun. There is no internal change of energy in the Earth’s thermodynamic system from bouncing that already received energy from the sun around inside the system, be it from kinetic interaction among molecules inside the system or radiation between molecules inside the system. There can be no *forcing* from internal energy in the system on the system itself. All the system itself can do is lose heat via radiation across the boundary into space.
You are trying to equate radiative flux intensity, i.e. W/m^2, leaving the system to “forcing” of the internal energy in the system. It doesn’t matter what the boundary of the system is, only the total energy leaving through the boundary or entering across the boundary matter.
If ΔQ is positive then the internal energy of the system increases – typically measured by an increase in temperature, e.g. the sun warming the gas inside a can causing the pressure on the can walls to go up. Over time if ΔQ is not zero then the system will see an increase in temperature, ΔT. Of course if ΔT goes up so does ΔT^x radiative heat loss, a negative feedback. At some point T and T^x will balance and the internal energy of the system will stay constant.
Again, it doesn’t matter what the radiative flux intensity, i..e W/m^2, of T^x is, the heat loss is the total across the boundary that matters.
If ΔU is always positive then the earth would have succumbed to a fiery heat death milllenia ago. The fact that it hasn’t, even with higher CO2 levels than today, means that the earth maintains a pretty constant internal energy level over time. Variation from that constant internal energy level is bounded by T^x radiation loss.
I would also note that if the top of the atmosphere expands that represents WORK, i..e an increase in volume, and work decreases internal energy. ΔU = ΔQ – W. This decrease in internal energy would represent a temperature decrease, or at least a change in some other characteristic of internal energy such as pressure.
If the TOA is merely a number representing where the outgoing radiative flux, integrated over the sphere defined by the TOA, equals ΔQ_in, then again, the area of the sphere is meaningless for heat loss. The heat loss is the total energy flowing across the boundary, a smaller sphere merely represents a higher W/m^2 than a larger sphere – but the actual heat loss will be the same.
Why not? If CO2 acts like an insulator and it does, then the analogy is getting warmer by putting on a jumper. The jumper doesn’t add energy but you still retain more energy and are warmer.
Take a look at this image of an insulating wall.
Do you see the insulator materials becoming warmer than the starting temperature? Do you reckon the 2nd LOT is in play here?
I just wonder if your jumper becomes warmer than you? What happens when the temperature outside becomes warmer than you and you are still wearing your jumper?
Not warmer than you. But the jumper is warmer than if you weren’t wearing it. And you’re also warmer. Insulation with an energy source (ie your body’s metabolism) isn’t rocket science.
For your wall example if the inside of the house isn’t being heated then no amount of insulation will make it warmer but if the house is heated then more insulation results in a warmer house. Again, not rocket science.
As far as wearing a jumper when it’s warmer outside than your body temperature goes, now the energy flow is towards your body so you heat up even more. The jumper will actually slow that heating for the same reasons firemen wear thick insulative clothing.
Exactly. The atmosphere insulates the surface from the Sun’s rays. Unfortunately, unlike a living human, the Earth doesn’t heat up more. It just cools more slowly.
Just like putting a jumper on a non-living human won’t “warm them up” at all. Just slows the rate at which it reaches equilibrium with the environment.
No GHE, I’m afraid.
Incoming short wave radiation largely passes straight through the atmosphere. Long wave radiation leaving, is where the insulation mostly takes effect.
No. The atmosphere blocks about 30% of the Sun’s radiation reaching the surface. Lowers daytime maxima. Slows nighttime cooling, meaning temps don’t fall to lunar levels.
You have been bamboozled by GHE believers.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. Four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight hasn’t stopped the surface cooling.
Sorry, but that’s reality.
Much more is absorbed on the way out.
Don’t think so. As Fourier said, during the night, the surface loses all the heat of the day, plus a little interior heat.
After four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight, the surface has cooled, rather giving the lie to your bizarre unsupported assertion.
No one-way insulators, no GHE. Sorry about that.
Dont trust me, look it up for yourself. Here’s a reference but feel free to look at any actual science on this.
from your refrence: “Energy released from the Sun is emitted as shortwave light and ultraviolet energy.”
This is just plain WRONG.
In the context of the reference it’s correct. Do you think they need to describe all the detail every time? The point they’re making is SW in, LW out.
Wrong is wrong. LWIR being more than half of the sun’s spectrum is *not* a detail. It should be SW/LW in, LW out.
Tim, anyone who uses “science” as you have just done, obviously does not understand the role of science, and the scientific method.
Your “reference” is complete nonsense, and physically incorrect. More than half of the Sun’s measured output is infrared. Some looney at NOAA is completely clueless and off with the fairies.
Does the 30% of the incoming near IR warm the atmosphere? Where is that is that taken into account in the GHE?
Did you ever look up the temperature of the highest levels of the atmosphere?
You didn’t answer the question did you? Where is that warming taken into account in the GHE theory?
GHE theory is only really interested in what happens at the surface because that’s what impacts us. What do you think additional CO2 does at the top of the atmosphere that changes things?
Tim, sorry, but there is no GHE theory. There is not even a consistent and unambiguous description of the mythical GHE, mainly because the idea that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, or that a cooler atmosphere can raise the temperature of a colder surface, is completely insane.
Refusal to accept reality is one of the main characteristics of insanity.
The Earth has cooled, regardless of the composition or even the presence of the atmosphere.
Accept reality.
Radiation from the sun is less than 50% of the total spectrum. About 55% is long wave radiation.
Hint: Why is the sky blue?
But on the way out there is nearly no SW radiation by comparison. If you feel it invalidates the concept they’re conveying, then why?
You said “Much more is absorbed on the way out.”
This can only be true if the IR coming in is much less than the IR going out. That doesn’t seem to make sense if more than half of the sun’s radiation coming in is IR.
The IR coming in from the sun doesn’t make it to the surface. But it never did. It was always absorbed high up in the atmosphere and doesn’t impact the surface temperature directly with or without more CO2 in the atmosphere.
So moleules warmed by near IR don’t radiate downward?
Both upwards and downwards.
“Both upwards and downwards.”
TTTM: “The IR coming in from the sun doesn’t make it to the surface.”
So the downward IR radiation never reaches the surface? Then how does the so-called “back radiation” work as a greenhouse effect?
The downward IR radiation from the sun doesn’t reach the surface because its absorbed in the atmosphere well above the surface. About half would be radiated back to space from there and decreasing amounts radiate downwards.
“Back radiation” is from the atmosphere just above the surface.
But I do take your point that the energy diagrams ought to include the LW from the sun for completeness.
It doesn’t change how the warming from additional green house gasses happens, though.
“The downward IR radiation from the sun doesn’t reach the surface “
“decreasing amounts radiate downwards.”
Did you read this before you posted it? If part of the IR radiation from the sun gets radiated downward but never reaches the surface then this implies that the atmosphere totally blocks IR.
If the atmosphere totally blocks IR transmission then IR radiation from the surface can never reach space. OLR would be zero.
““Back radiation” is from the atmosphere just above the surface.”
So downward radiation from points higher than “just above the surface” gets totally blocked from reaching the surface? Once again that implies the atmosphere totally blocks the transmission of IR – which, in turn, implies that IR radiation from the surface can never reach space.
You’ve dug yourself a hole you can’t get out of. Stop digging.
No, it implies that at every stage the radiation is absorbed (and radiated) half goes back upwards.
Consider this…all of the SW energy radiated upwards from the surface is also absorbed at the top of the atmosphere on its way out so if much of that radiated back down, then it wouldn’t leave at all but we know the net direction is upwards.
Did you read your own reply? The use of the word “block” is possibly confusing. The atmosphere absorbs it and radiates it both up and down, it doesn’t “block” it in any one direction.
No it gets radiated both up and down with the net result being up. Radiation just above the surface radiates back to the surface and that’s the point.
Did you read and understand the green plate experiment? I’m serious. It gives you an understanding for the effect. If you include the idea of LW from the sun, then the green plate starts at a temperate above “zero” but otherwise the effect is unchanged.
“No, it implies that at every stage the radiation is absorbed (and radiated) half goes back upwards.”
if that half going downward never reaches the surface then it is BLOCKED from the surface. The converse is that the same kind of radiation going up from the surface would be blocked from reaching space.
“Consider this…all of the SW energy radiated upwards from the surface is also absorbed at the top of the atmosphere on its way out so if much of that radiated back down, then it wouldn’t leave at all but we know the net direction is upwards.”
I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make here. 1. Just how much SW is radiated by the earth? 2. Radiation headed down gets re-radiated by the absorbing part of the atmosphere. Part of that re-radiated energy will head up and part down. You have postulated that the part headed up would be blocked again – meaning *nothing* would ever be able to leave. 3. If radiation from the earth can get to space then the LWIR from the sun can reach the earth as well. The atmosphere can’t distinguish between earth-generated and sun-generated energy.
“The atmosphere absorbs it and radiates it both up and down, it doesn’t “block” it in any one direction.”
The only way LWIR from the sun can’t reach the earth is if it is totally blocked – and that *is* what you asserted, no LWIR from the sun can reach the earth. If the atmosphere is totally blocking sun-generated LWIR then it will also totally block earth-generated LWIR. The EM wave doesn’t carry a fingerprint allowing the two to be distinguished.
Are you now admitting that at least some of the sun’s LWIR *will* reach the earth? Or are you still maintaining that the atmosphere will totally block sun-generated LWIR?
“ Radiation just above the surface radiates back to the surface and that’s the point.”
And then gets re-radiated by the earth again! As I’ve pointed out it becomes a decreasing series over time. If the earth radiates X energy then it will get back X/Y back where Y is less than 1. The earth will then absorb the X/Y and re-radiate it. It will then get back X/Y^2 back. It will then absorb X/Y^2 and re-radiate it. It then gets back X/Y^3 back. The series, in the limit, approaches 0 (zero) being returned – i.e. That original amount of X gets to space. As long as the earth is warmer than space this is what will happen. The atmosphere is not a heat generator. It can’t return more than it receives, it can only return less. How long the series goes before approaching zero depends only on how close Y is to being 1.
“Did you read and understand the green plate experiment?”
Did you? The sentence where it goes wrong is this: “They neglect the fact that heating and cooling are dynamic processes and thermodynamics is not.”
Thermodynamics is *certainly* a dynamic process. The experiment as shown does *not* represent the earth-sun system since it has no heat-cool cycle. Turn the 400 W/m^2 heat source off and on for equal periods and what happens to the two plates? (hint -> they will never be in equilibrium)
The Green Plate thought process IS NOT an experiment in any sense of the word. It does not include any controlling assumptions so conclusions are not able to be validated with mathematical precision.
Look at the second drawing closely. The blue plate is supposedly at equilibrium with the source, but what kind it never says.
NASA says at: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/temptr.html
One must recognize that objects in thermodynamic equilibrium must also have a uniform temperature throughout. Otherwise, the temperature would be in a state of flux. This is one of the assumptions that is missing.
Uniform temperature means that an object radiates equally in all directions. Another missing assumption.
Look at his math for determining the temperature of the blue plate.
(400 W/m2) = 2 σ Teq4
The SB equation DOES NOT include a factor of “2” to account for the amount of radiation from an object. This would require a multiplying factor for objects with multiple sides. Stefan-Boltzmann does not use an additive factor to adjust for an object that has multiple sides.
The SB equation contains a surface area dimension which is usually considered to be 1m². With a viewing factor of 1:1, the area term falls out. However it shows that a radiating surface must “view” a corresponding area on another body. This rules out adding radiation from an opposite side.
This is a massive error and permeates every following calculation.
From Planck, Theory of Heat Radiation, Para. 4
It is obvious that Rabett has never studied Planck, Stefan-Boltzmann, nor any thermodynamic textbook. To not recognize this error speaks loudly to your expertise.
Rayleigh scattering
“ Insulation with an energy source (ie your body’s metabolism) isn’t rocket science.”
Where is the heat source inside the earth’s thermodynamic system?
Nice strawman argument, but it is based on the idea that you can reach out and turn up the sun’s output.
Another strawman that doesn’t hold water. Your logic would tell people to wear a jumper when it is hot in order to slow getting warmer. Good luck with that one.
You fail to address the question I asked.
Do you see any temperature gradient that would suggest a reversal in the flow of heat due to insulation?
It’s based on the idea we can increase the insulation. The house was always being heated in the analogy with the earth’s surface and it’s atmosphere.
Do you think doubling the width of the insulation in the drawing will change anything? Show me your math about how the temperature gradients will reverse with the addition of insulation and begin to raise the temperature of the input.
Yes. Do you think halving it will change anything? What about halving that? And halving it again? And again?
The equations are right there on the drawing.
Show what you think will occur when halving the amount of insulation.
I’ll tell you right now that you’ll have a hard time showing that reducing insulation will result in increasing T₁.
And I really must answer this. Why do you think the temperature gradients have to reverse to make the house warmer? That’s not how insulation works and seems like a crazy thing to say.
It IS the way insulation works.
Is the gradient across the brick positive? No, it is cooling. How would more insulation make the brick warmer than T1.
Show the math that makes your assertions real.
Insulation only works if the house is heated. If the house is unheated, it cools so that everything is eventually in thermodynamic equilibrium. In that case the amount of insulation determines how long that takes from when the heating stops.
What kind of game are you playing here because T1 does increase in temperature and so does the brick. But ONLY because the house is being heated.
Here is what you said originally.
You do not warm. At best, you cool slower. Look at the gradients, they all show cooling, not warming.
You are creating another strawman by now stipulating:
All you are doing is saying that you can increase T1. That doesn’t change the equations shown. You can’t reach out and turn the sun up.
You warm because of your metabolism.
Yes, but not by turning up the heating. The insulation slows cooling and so the room retains more heat before reaching its new equilibrium.
My logic tells them to rug up if they need to run through a fire. People are intuitively aware of how long it takes to get to thermal equilibrium.
You don’t like answering questions with facts do you?
Your body is a heat generator inside the thermodynamic system defined by the insulator boundary. The earth doesn’t have a similar heat generator inside the boundary of the system.
Put a blanket over a dead man and see if his temperature goes up.
It does and it’s the SW radiation from the sun.
The sun is inside the earths’atmosphere so the CO2 in the atmosphere can act like a jumper on a man?
Put down the bottle.
The SW radiation largely ignores the atmosphere on the way in and the LW radiation is absorbed by it on the way out.
I fully expect you understand the argument but I have no idea why you persist with inane arguments to the contrary.
Your reference to “E” is very simple. Read this document several times and especially the parts about entropy and the second law.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/schwartz/files/5-thermodynamics.pdf
You miss the fact of heat reservoirs such as the ocean having a substantial effect on Ein = Eout.
My god Tim and Toolman; so much back and forth over what is really a very simple situation. Earth receives predominantly short wave energy from the sun. NO TIM solar energy is not more than 50% in the thermal infrared range. The emission spectrum is defined by Planks law and at the suns surface temerature of 5500K the peak of the mission is around 550nm or 0.55 micron. As you correctly state about 44% is in the visible and technically around 55% is in the IR but most of that is between about 700nm and 1500nm. Earth is not warm enough to emit appreciable radiation below about 4 microns and only about 1% of solar radiation is at wavelengths of 4 microns or greater.
GHG in the atmosphere have a large number of impacts some of which are not at all obvious. For example, without GHG there would be no rain no wind no clouds no weather at all and noon time suface temperatures near the equator would be above 100C every day with night time temperatures way below zero. Even in temperate areas noon time temperatures would be 80+c. In short, Earths temperature profile would be simialr to that of the moon. I can explain why if you like but I have to warn it will be a long post. I should also point out that by FAR the most important GHG is water vapour compared to which all others are of very secondary importance.
However one undoubted impact of GHG’s as I explained in a post replying to Michael Flynn posted at 8:35 on the 6th, is for GHG to absorb some of the thermal radiation from the surface and replace it with radiation from the top of the GHG column (typically the tropopause or lower stratosphere). Since that region is cooler than the surface, the overall OLR of Earth is reduced. It is this effect that creates weather on Earth. As you correctly state, Earth receives energy via short wave radiation from the sun and loses energy by long wave radiation to space. These are the only two appreciable energy gain/loss mechanisms. Since outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) depends on temperature, again via Planks law, Earth’s temperature will adjust until energy in = energy out. If OLR is reduced, the Earth will warm enough to bring it back into equilibrium. Since we know that one impact (but far from the only impact) of GHG’s is to reduce OLR it is logical to claim that GHG will cause Earth to warm. However the two elephants in the room are firstly, how much and more importantly how much from less than one doubling of CO2. There is no doubt a burning candle will emit heat and there is also no doubt that releasing heat inside a house will warm it but that does not mean you can make your home toastly warm by lighting candle.
Secondly what effects do the other impacts of GHG’s have on temperature. Warmists postulate virtually every feedback mechanism is positive which is how they justify extreme impacts yet stable systems virtually always have net negative feedback – its what makes them stable. Some of these feedbacks are very interesting but this post is getting too long already. Maybe if there is interest I can continue in a further post.
I dont believe I ever said that? My bad if that’s an interpretation that could be made. The way it works is SW in, which is largely ignored by the atmosphere and LW out, which is largely absorbed by the atmosphere and its impossible for a few people on this forum to understand that concept.
Right. With the important observation that its LW radiated from the surface.
But for the others its baby steps. Feedbacks are a whole other conversation and frankly that science is far from settled IMO but unless the basics are understood, there’s no point in continuing to that conversation.
“The way it works is SW in, which is largely ignored by the atmosphere and LW out,”
Nope. Again, it is SW/LW in, LW out.
per copilot: “The sun emits energy across a wide spectrum of wavelengths, but about 49% of its energy is in the form of infrared radiation.”
LW in, is absorbed at the top of the atmosphere, not the surface.
Then why isn’t “back radiation” from the upper atmosphere not blocked from reaching the surface as well?
Can the atmosphere somehow tell the difference between downward IR generated by the sun from the downward IR generated from re-radiating IR from the surface?
Is that LWIR from the sun all re-radiated totally toward space? How do CO2 particles at the top of the atmosphere direct their generated EM wave only toward space?
It is blocked. Well… its absorbed on the way down…and then radiated both up and down every time its absorbed. And its working against convection.
Its like trying to heat water with a heat lamp from the top. Very ineffective at the bottom.
And convection is working against gravity. U = Q – W. Meaning work being done decreases total energy – i.e. cooling.
“Its like trying to heat water with a heat lamp from the top. Very ineffective at the bottom.”
You are still arguing that IR gets blocked by the atmosphere. Which means that the earth can’t cool since IR from the surface would never reach space.
No, you’re insisting on a meaning of blocked that supports your argument. Blocked means absorbed. Its then radiated both up and down so it not “blocked” from going in any one direction.
I’m quite sure you know this and are being obstinate and I’ve spent far too long with you over a couple of threads now. I completely understand why Willis has given up and I’ll do the same.
“No, you’re insisting on a meaning of blocked that supports your argument. Blocked means absorbed. Its then radiated both up and down so it not “blocked” from going in any one direction.”
I am using *YOUR* assertion that no LWIR from the sun reaches the surface of the earth. The operative word “no” means the LWIR from the sun is totally blocked from the surface by the atmosphere.
If LWIR from the sun is totally blocked from transiting the atmosphere then the converse *has* to be that LWIR from the surface is totally blocked from transiting the atmosphere.
Since this is obviously not true it means that the energy reaching the earth is a percentage of the total (SW + LW) from the sun. Stating that only SW from the sun warms the earth is wrong.
“I’m quite sure you know this and are being obstinate “
The only one being obstinate is you since you keep on trying to say that LWIR from the sun never reaches the surface. Or have you changed your mind on that?
“Earth receives predominantly short wave energy from the sun. NO TIM solar energy is not more than 50% in the thermal infrared range.”
go here: https://ibb.co/rfvZ3b31
from copilot: “The sun emits energy across a wide spectrum of wavelengths, but about 49% of its energy is in the form of infrared radiation.”
Some sources say as much as 55%. Take your pick.
“ Earth is not warm enough to emit appreciable radiation”
The question isn’t what the earth emits, the question is what it receives.
What the earth emits is based on it’s temperature and that temperature is based on what it receives.
“For example, without GHG there would be no rain no wind no clouds no weather at all and noon time suface temperatures near the equator would be above 100C every day with night time temperatures way below zero.”
The issue isn’t “no GHG’s”, it’s CO2 as a GHG. Even with no CO2 there would still be water vapor from evaporation across the oceans if nothing else. Thus conduction and convection would still cause wind, clouds, and weather.
“the overall OLR of Earth is reduced.”
Then how can it be constant?
“If OLR is reduced”
If you add more CO2 then you have more molecules radiating to space. Even if they radiate less per molecule you’ll have more total radiators.
” yet stable systems virtually always have net negative feedback – its what makes them stable.”
The main one climate science seems to ignore is the ΔT vs ΔT^x relationship. ΔT^x goes up faster than ΔT thus it represents a major negative feedback. It’s this relationship that actually sets the boundary condition for Tmax.
“Static is how one is invited to see it”
The inevitable “average” meme in climate science.Everything is always and forever the “average”.
Without ever discussing the associated variance. God forbid climate science would want to advertise the range of temperatures or ΔT values associated with the probability function the mean represents.
It’s fairly obvious that when a “climate scientist”, or a gullible worshipper, says “climate change”, they really mean “CO2 is evil, because it is produced by burning filthy, dirty, black, coal”. One particularly eccentric “climate scientist”, James Hansen, said “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”.
So coal is evil, and therefore CO2 must be evil. Nothing to do with weather, or its average – climate.
All based on the delusional ravings of a misguided prophet of doom, fixated on “death by coal”.
People who espouse their belief in the mythical GHE (its worshippers can’t even describe the GHE in any consistent or unambiguous way, of course), simply can’t be bothered thinking for themselves. Intelligence and education are obviously no barrier to intellectual laziness.
The term “climate change” is ambiguous. Don’t use it. Use the term everyone understands …. global warming. Most people also understand the planet warms and cools naturally. Hence, if we want to discuss whether humanity is responsible for warming, we need to spell it …. man-made global warming.
The question becomes, is man-made global warming real. That eliminates a lot of unproductive discussion. The answer is also easy …. NO.
Willis demonstrated the greenhouse effect has been constant since 2000 using NOAA CERES mission data. It’s not getting any stronger. Miskolczi 2010 also demonstrated a constant greenhouse effect from 1948-2008 using NOAA radiosonde data.
We have 77 years of good scientific data which demonstrate a constant greenhouse effect. Mother nature has already answered this question. All we have to do is spread the word.
Unfortunately, there is no consistent and unambiguous description of this “greenhouse effect”, is there?
If there was, it would probably have to include bizarre claims that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, or that a colder atmosphere can raise the temperature of a hotter surface!
How silly would that be?
Once people figure out that the so-called “greenhouse effect” is actually a “gravity based atmospheric mass effect”, you realise that, barring a major meteor that removes a large part of the atmosphere, there will always be a constant “greenhouse effect”.
True, but it still requires an energy source and radiative elements to provide that energy to the “atmospheric mass”.
One minor problem is that without providing a consistent and unambiguous description of this “greenhouse effect”, you can obviously call it anything you like with little fear of being contradicted.
It doesn’t really matter, does it? Future atmospheric states are unpredictable, and even the IPCC agrees!
Three intermixed issues:
1: co2 rise causes warmer nights
2: air pollution decreases causes less clouds more sunlight and stronger showers
3: AMO and AO causes more north south variation
alarmists blame 2and 3 on 1
The Covid shutdown proved that man’s CO2 emissions have NO impact whatsoever. There was no noticable change in the atmosphere’s CO2 content despite halving emissions.
Also CO2 is a weak GHG, other gasses are much more influential.
CO2 discussion is a timewaster.
Check Roy Spencer’s simple CO2 model, emissions need to drop by 20% to be noticeable in the atmospheric level.
Another hypothesis. I have enough issues w current theories as they stand.
I was taught that first a phenomenon that has not been explained by present scientific knowledge must be noticed. A proposed explanation (guess, speculation) can then be followed up. Has to be disprovable by experiment.
Thermometers getting hotter is not a new phenomenon. Thermometers get hotter when exposed to sufficient higher temperature matter.
Nothing mysterious.
No, just simple CO2 bookkeeping
Not sure what you mean. What’s wrong with measurements?
Does CO2 in the atmosphere have some predictable measurable effect on weather?
I don’t believe so, but if you have some experimental evidence, I’ll be interested.
Sorry, but there’s no GHE, if that’s what you are trying to imply. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
No. Models mean nothing compared to measurements.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/lockdown-resulted-in-largest-ppm-surge-in-45-years/
My own analysis showed that the emission reduction needed to have been 50% for 1 yr to falsify the hypothesis that the law of conservation mass applies to atmospheric CO2 concentration with p < 0.05.
That is true when using only annual measurements. The sensitivity to detection is increased when the temporal resolution is increased enough to resolve the seasonal changes. By coincidence, the ramp-up phase in CO2, when there was no confounding withdrawal by photosynthesis, was when most of the shutdowns took place.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/11/contribution-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-to-changes-in-atmospheric-concentrations/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/