Did you know there is a “global energy fixer” in the atmospheric component of climate models?
Here are quotes from the current CAM5 (Community Atmosphere Model) Scientific Guide from NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research):
“To compensate for the loss of total energy due to horizontal discretization, we apply a global fixer to add the loss in kinetic energy due to “diffusion” back to the thermodynamic equation so that the total energy is conserved. The loss in total energy (in flux unit) is found to be around 2 W/m2 with the 2 degrees resolution.”
“The energy fixer then changes dry static energy (s = CpT+ Phi) by a constant amount over each grid cell to conserve total energy in the entire computational domain.”
Source: https://ncar.github.io/CAM/doc/build/html/cam5_scientific_guide/dynamics.html#global-energy-fixer
In other words, there is a ~2 W/m2 heating effect (influencing internal energy + potential energy)applied equally to all grid cells at every time step of the interated computation. This is necessary to “conserve total energy in the entire computational domain” because of the “loss of total energy due to horizontal discretization” (i.e. due to the numerical necessities of computing the dynamics by discrete grid cells).
Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but this “global energy fixer” smears ~2 W/m2 of energy over the whole planet. How can such a model ever produce a reliable diagnosis or prognosis of the equator-to-pole climate system response to a so-called “forcing” – from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O – that is assumed to be rising at about 0.035 W/m2 per year?
Nothing is being hidden here, to the credit of the modelers in this documentation. But this issue is “hiding in plain sight,” is it not? The only way to use such a model to support AGW was to pre-stabilize the simulation and add prescribed “forcings” through the radiation transfer parameterization.
Lee Zeldin at the EPA should consider this and be the honest “fixer” of the 2009 “Endangerment Finding.” That regulatory action relied on the models up through IPCC AR4 to make the case of harm from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. It was an utterly circular exercise all along.
Here is another example. This one is from NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, describing how their atmospheric model AM4.0 handles the issue. Same 2 W/m2 magnitude.
“The dissipation of kinetic energy in this model, besides the part due to explicit vertical diffusion, occurs implicitly as a consequence of the advection algorithm. As a result, the dissipative heating balancing this loss of kinetic energy cannot easily be computed locally, and is, instead returned to the flow by a spatially uniform tropospheric heating. This dissipative heating associated with the advection in the dynamical core in AM4.0 is ∼ 2 W m−2.”
Source – see the first full page here of Supplemental Information S1:
There is also a mass fixer. It is common in computational fluid dynamics. The point is that the equations being solved are the equations for conservation of mass, energy and momentum. They try to achieve a solution that does that conservation locally. But it isn’t exact, and so a discrepancy builds up globally. Now you know that should not happen, and you know the extent of discrepancy, so it is legitimate to make a correction to achieve the aim of conservation. If you don’t, then the total energy (or mass) drifts, with unphysical results.
The fixer is applied in a way that does not create gradients, which are the source of weather phenomena. So it does not distort the solution.
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Nick. You have confirmed that the discretized computation of the global atmosphere’s mass and energy flows is inherently unsuited to reliably hindcast or project a response to incremental CO2. The resolution is at least 100 times too course for this reason alone. I don’t disagree with your sense that the “fixer is applied in a way that does not create gradients” as an explanation for the method.
No, it’s just correct mathematical pde solution. Here is another way of looking at it. If you tried to solve just heat conduction on the surface of a metal sphere – for simplicity suppose hollow interior. The heat equation tells what the gradients should be to conserve energy. But it has an extra degree of freedom – to add uniform heat everywhere. That adds no gradients, and so is also a solution of the same equation. The heat equation can’t distinguish.
But you can distinguish – you know how much total heat there should be. So you can choose which of that class of equivalent solutions is right. In math terms this is regularising the solution of a set of equations with a nullspace. Totally legit.
“Totally legit.” Agreed, if your objective is to stabilize the simulation so you can then apply the “forcings” and claim to have diagnosed the thermal response.
But wait. Why perform the time-step-iterated gridded simulations at all, if you are already convinced that the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 MUST result in sensible heat gain? You don’t need a discretized model.
I know what you’re getting at Nick. My friendly suggestion is to “stop digging.”
And by the way, take a few minutes to appreciate energy conversion as described by Lorenz and computed in the ERA5 reanalysis. See, I don’t discount discretized computation for what it is good for! Be sure to take the time to read the “Readme” text at this time-lapse video.
In Nick’s defense, these problems with numerical dispersion and disappearing mass/momentum/energy have been around since the advent of discretized approximations for partial differential equations. I faced problems like this during my modeling of geothermal systems in the 1970s. Fortunately in my case the flows were so large that small amounts of numerical error didn’t impact the results significantly.
In this case adding 2W/m2 is larger than what I might consider significant over long time intervals, which is maybe half a watt per squared meter. I’m not certain about the uniform addition being totally benign. What the numerical climate system does with this uniform addition, may, itself, produce a gradient different from what it would be otherwise.
“In Nick’s defense…” Agreed. He’s not wrong about the nature of the computational challenge. I’m glad he responded. “I’m not certain about the uniform addition being totally benign.” Agreed also.
There is no way to know how closely the ~2 W/m^2 uniform heating adjustment (or whatever value is computed at each time step) matches what would be the correct value for each grid cell if computed locally. It reveals an epistemic uncertainty at every time step at every grid cell, which cannot be assumed to average out across the globe or across time.
“There is no way to know how closely the ~2 W/m^2 uniform heating adjustment (or whatever value is computed at each time step) matches what would be the correct value for each grid cell if computed locally.”
You do know that it matches. The reason is again that the pde can’t distinguish.
Think again of the spherical shell surrounded by perfect insulation (both sides), this time with no drivers. What is the steady pde solution? It is constant T – any constant. But it isn’t indeterminate. T should remain at its initial value.
If you actually tried to compute the solution, there might be some noise, and total heat would drift. You would move away from the initial constant value. But you know this can’t be. and you know solutions can be superimposed (linearity). So you can add an appropriate value of the constant solution to restore the original total energy.
Hi again Nick,
“You do know that it matches.” No, not grid cell by grid cell. If they computed the dissipative heating locally, they could apply a local value locally, and there would be no need for the “global energy fixer”. The wording of the GFDL example seems pretty clear about this: “the dissipative heating balancing this loss of kinetic energy cannot easily be computed locally.”
Nick,
How is this adjustment mathematically incorporated into estimates of uncertainty?
Surely, the larger the fix, the larger the uncertainty is.
But then, some climate change studies calculate and report uncertainties calculated by their methods, seemingly because a proper comprehensive estimate would limit the value of the research. Geoff S
You know how much heat there should be because energy is conserved, both globally and locally.
Really? How much is stored every day in the oceans and land for later release at hours, days, months, years lag times?
I’ll say it again, if you already know the answer, there is no reason to calculate anything. The NEED for a calculation implies that there is a reason to find a different result.
Let’s be careful not to get the wrong impression here. The “global energy fixer” is a computed value, and the objective of maintaining conservation of energy in the “entire computational domain” is valid. The problem is that the necessity for this computed global correction helps to expose the circular nature of the entire “climate” modeling exercise, in my assessment of it, as applied to “GHG” “forcing.”
Reminds me of my early days at the water plant I retired from. We didn’t have a SCADA system yet. We walked around and read gauges that were to show MGD based on the pressure differences. There were times we questioned the reading because, if say, we were running a 20 MGD pump and a 10 MGD pump, we’d expect it read around 30 MGD. If it read only 20 MGD or 40 MGD, we’d write a work request for one of the instrument techs to look at it.
We had one tech that was famous for working on it then asking us, “Does that look about right?”. It always did … until we made a pumping change. Then it was off again.
He wasn’t checking the lines, hooking up the manometer (mercury filled) or anything like that. He’d just adjust the needle on the gauge until it pointed to the expected number.
Now you know that should not happen, and you know the extent of discrepancy, so it is legitimate to make a correction to achieve the aim of conservation.
How do you know what “should” happen? Crystal ball? Escrying chicken entrails?
Real scientists sometimes wonder why results are not what they thought. This led to the “discovery” of chaos by Lorenz. He could just have just “fixed” the computer input which didn’t give him the desired result.
The electron magnetic moment was expected to be precisely 1 in a particular unit.. Experiment showed it to be a little different – 1.00115965246. Luckily, one person didn’t apply a “fixer”. Turned out the theory was a bit wrong.
Sometimes it’s important to believe the measured results. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
“The fixer is applied in a way that does not create gradients, which are the source of weather phenomena.”
What a laugher!
There is no temperature gradient between fresh water ice/snow at 32 de-F and liquid water at 32 deg-F, yet there is a huge difference in specific enthalpy between the two phases.
There is no temperature gradient between liquid seawater at, say, 68 deg-F (the world’s average SST) and water vapor in the atmosphere at 68 deg-F laying directly above the liquid surface due to evaporation, yet there is a huge difference in specific enthalpy between the two phases.
“Weather phenomena” are greatly dependent on the phase changes of water, reference Earth’s hydrologic cycle, and thus not necessarily dependent just on (temperature) gradients.
No. Put mathematically, if you have a linear differential equation (pde) A(y)=f, and z is a solution of A(z)=0, then A(y+a*z)=f – ie y+a*z is also a solution for any constant a. This linearity argument also applies to the discretized equation. a*z is the fixer.
Numerical precision is not the problem. Discretization necessarily gives an inexact solution.
In reading your link about the fixer I find this quote to be intriguing. “ The loss in total energy (in flux unit) is found to be around 2 w/m^2.” (My copy didn’t work correctly so I had to add the w/m^2.)
The fixer really isn’t a fixer because they say it is only “around” 2. Does that mean it is 1.7 or 2.4? The science isn’t settled.
Throughout this post, when you see “W/m2” please understand it means W/m^2. The superscript “2” does not carry through to be pasted into the comment or reply boxes here.
It’s utterly circular because ‘they’ assume radiative transfer models (RTMs) are applicable to the lower troposphere and the introduction of any radiative ‘forcing’ to a radiative transfer model inevitably results in warming. Different degrees of warming occur, depending on whether the RTMs are applied ‘straight up’ or buried in the code of the GCMs.
At first I understood the fixer to be superglue used to fix protesters to tarmac.
If without the fixer the results would be ‘unphysical’ (according to Nick), how can anyone be sure that with the fixer the results are ‘physical’? Your calculations are hostage to the hack being realistic and the simple balancing exercise with a flashy name looks to me like another ‘Nature trick’.
Sounds like “fixative” which immobilizes a specimen on a slide for microscopic examination. 🙂 The good thing is that it is all documented. Surely the modelers who wrote this up would have known that sooner or later someone would pick up on the obvious non-random uncertainty at each time step at each grid cell that this “fixer” represents. The fact that the method is computationally valid as a whole does not mean the model is suitable for the investigation.
Labor has left the door open to a tax on cement and steel coming in from places not taking sufficient climate action.
Climate action? Just walk around carrying a placard saying “Stop climate change”! That should be “sufficient”, surely.
Oh well, nobody says that politicians are any less gullible and ignorant than the majority of the population. They should pass a law stopping the climate from changing. How hard could it be?
strativarius
June 1, 2025 2:30 am
Good news for Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
The dumb Tories haven’t learned anything at all. Remember the man who declared that the ticking time bomb of the climate crisis began with the Industrial Revolution in Britain? Carrie has his manhood in her handbag…
If you find your backyard duck pond at 60N is a few degrees Centigrade warmer this year than it was way back in 1700 I can give you the explanation.
On March 20 this year, the Sun zenith moved north of the equator. Since then tilt today, June 1, every square metre of your pond has been exposed to an extra 11.6MJ. So making a heap of assumptions that all the extra solar EMR was thermalised; all additional heat was absorbed into water (the sort of “realistic” assumptions the climate models incorporate) and your pond averages 1m deep it will be 2.8C warmer this year than in 1700. I anticipate the ice was just melting back on March10 so the starting conditions taken at 0C in both years.
Today, Earth is 131,000km closer to the Sun than in 1700 on the same date. The declination is 0.024 degrees higher today compared with same day in 1700. The average daily solar EMR at 60N is up 1.07W/m^2.
From June 30, the NH energy surplus in 2025 relative to 1700 will be in decline. But the additional heat input will not be forgotten until the Sun zenith passes back over the oceans. By the end of the year, the deficit at 60N will be 19.7MJ/m^2 from the peak surplus on June 20. That will drive a lot of heat advection from lower latitudes after September. Expect record snowfall in the NH in 2025.
I will continue the story next week on how the year will unfold relative to 1700.
Those people longing for the blissful weather of 1700 when the water in their pond was 2.8C cooler at 60N than today will not achieve their objective by avoiding fossil fuels. They need to find a way to get Earth’s orbit back to what is was in 1700. Elon Musk may be able to help with a few thousand of his Startship and a long tow line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nMfW7T3rx4
If you are curious about how the Sun is changing in your neck of the woods I may be able to help.
Are you sure it is not the additional mass of all the humans on the planet is what has caused the orbit planet to draw nearer the sun? This would be another argument for decimating the human population!
I’d argue that 1) the effective thermalization of excited IR-active GHG species within meters of the Earth’s surface via collisions with non-IR active gas species, and, 2) the complete failure of GCMs to show that presumed anthopogenic forcings are not dwarfed by the radiative effects of cloud uncertainty, are entirely relevant.
Might I respectfully ask that you say what you mean by “thermalization”?
One definition is “attain or cause to attain thermal equilibrium with the environment”. Is that what you mean?
You mention “excited IR-active GHG species”, which might be misleading as the phenomena of excitation might not be what you really meant. The phrase “IR active GHG species” looks like meaningless “climate science” jargon to me, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe you are trying to imply that the increased presence of supposed “GHG” in the atmosphere results in higher temperatures, but this is demonstrably untrue.
The hottest air temperatures occur where the “GHG” content is least!
Examples might be Death Valley and the Lut Desert.
Maybe I misunderstood you. What were you trying to say when you wrote
the effective thermalization of excited IR-active GHG species within meters of the Earth’s surface via collisions with non-IR active gas species [ . . . ] are entirely relevant.
‘Might I respectfully ask that you say what you mean by “thermalization”?’
Sure. My understanding is that thermalization refers to the process in which an IR-active gas molecule in an excited state returns to its (unexcited) ground state after colliding with a non-IR active gas molecule, thereby increasing the kinetic energy of the latter. Effectively, this process converts the energy of an absorbed photons into sensible heat, which can then be measured as an increase in the overall temperature of the gas pool.
And might I respectfully ask that you take a look at what these guys have to say on the subject?
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation transmits as an electromagnetic wave through both matter and vacuum. When matter absorbs thermal radiation its temperature will tend to rise. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
OK. I’m not sure why the word “thermal” is added to “radiation”. I suppose the author thinks it sounds more “scientific”.At least he states categorically “All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
Yes, but with their added caveat that ‘Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal
radiation.’
‘I’m not sure why the word “thermal” is added to “radiation”’
As they say, it’s because it is caused by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation is a subset of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which is one type of radiation.
Yes, but with their added caveat that ‘Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal radiation.’
That’s not what your reference says, does it? Are you trying to disagree with your reference?
Here’s the definition you provided
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation emitted by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation transmits as an electromagnetic wave through both matter and vacuum. When matter absorbs thermal radiation its temperature will tend to rise. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
Now you claim
Thermal radiation is a subset of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which is one type of radiation.
Maybe you should read your reference, which clearly states “Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation”.
No “subset”. No “one type” of radiation (as opposed to another which you can’t name!).
All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
Not “All matter with the exception of some matter which I find inconvenient . . . ”
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, no matter what you believe. No GHE.
Discussions about CO2 are never-ending.
Wind/Solar “solutions” were found disastrous in Spain/Portugal
The mere failure of DC/AC back-end power systems of solar systems caused a total blackout for 50 million people.
Here are some operational realities of W/S systems that are at the core of their problems:
. Synchronous Rotational Inertia, SRI, Stabilizes the Grid
Closing down traditional plants (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro), with rotating generators that provide SRI, de-stabilizes the grid; a death sentence for the grid.
.
Wind/solar systems provide ZERO SRI to help stabilize the grid, because their variable outputs are digitized, then reconstituted into an artificial sine wave with the same phase and frequency as the grid.
Super expensive battery systems provide ZERO SRI.
Battery systems can provide virtual inertia, at very high c/kWh, by means of their inverters (which failed in Spain/Portugal), which can quickly counteract voltage/frequency drops for a short time. . Connections Between Grids
Almost all grids have connections to other grids for import and export purposes.
About 50% of such connections are high-voltage, direct-current lines, HVDC
Such DC connections transfer power, but transfer ZERO SRI to other grids. . Reactive Power
No AC grid can function without positive reactive power; say power factor of 0.8
Wind/solar systems take reactive power FROM the grid; say power factor of -0.8
All traditional power plants are automatically set up to provide positive reactive power TO the grid. . Synchronous Condenser Systems
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, wind/solar feed-ins to the grid often create transmission faults.
Those faults are often minimized with synchronous condenser systems that provide positive reactive power TO the grid.
Blackouts
In case of too much W/S power, it needs to be curtailed.
Owners usually get paid for what they could have produced.
.
In case of too little W/S power or a W/S outage, reliable, quick-reacting CCGT plants, in Hot Synchronous Standby, HSS, mode, would provide:
.
1)) Instant SRI to the grid for “ride-through” to give switches time to switch, and
2) Provide power to the grid, within seconds, to counteract voltage/frequency drops due to W/S outages, 24/7/365; if battery systems were used, they would be empty after a few hours, with no prospect of a black grid to refill them.
.
Spain/Portugal would have needed about 10,000 MW of CCGT plants in HSS mode to avoid its recent blackout.
They would operate at 50% output throughout the year, and quickly provide up to 5000 MW, in case of a W/S outage. . Black Start Procedure for a 100 MW CCGT Power Plant Initial Power Source: The on-site auxiliary generator is started. It provides power to critical plant systems, including control, safety, and communication systems. Plant Startup: The auxiliary generator then powers the CCGT plant’s essential systems. This includes cooling systems, fuel handling systems, and starting the gas turbine. Connecting to the Grid: After the CCGT plant is spinning at 3600 rpm at the same phase and frequency as the grid, it can be connected to the grid to supply power to its section of the grid. That section powers another power plant, etc., until all sections are up and running. Only then, grid-destabilizing W/S systems are connected.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people.
Also, here are my best arguments against man-made global warming. Where am I wrong?
I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts. Link
‘I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer.’
You (we?) mean one where everyone agrees with you (we?) that CO2 doesn’t do anything because dry ice is really cold?
Paraphrasing Shula & Ott:
“Implicit in (your assertion, above) is the assumption that individual molecular (GHG) species will spontaneously radiate according to a Planck distribution as though they were part of a blackbody, which is invalid though commonly assumed. This is conflating Kirchhoff’s Law for condensed matter bodies with individual molecules which does not apply.”
Your first video is too long and nobody will sit for such a long time to watch it. These videos flash info so fast that it hard to comprehend it. I prefer printed info.
Could you get a temperature plot for Death Valley using RSS. Below is a plot of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv (0.59 CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased
to 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.) but the was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The reasons there was no increase in air temperature at this arid desert are quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wave IR radiation emanating from the desert floor to heat up the air.
The plot was obtained from the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on a region or country (e.g., Oz) to access charts of temperature from over 200 weather stations located around the world which showed no warming up to 2002.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air currently is 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains 0.843 g of CO2. This small amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air by a very small amount if at all.
Most all people do not know how little CO2 there is in the air. The main mechanism for the heating the air above a surface is conduction and convection.
If you have any more questions post them here or try an AI bot such Grok.
JiminNEF
June 1, 2025 6:17 am
Follow the money.
From CNBC: JPMorgan hired NOAA’s chief scientist to advise clients on navigating climate change. Sarah Kapnick is the scientist who left NOAA in October of 2024.
Did she leave NOAA because Trump was about to win the presidency again?
After I read the article (interview), I couldn’t imagine soliciting advice from her on investments. What’s harder to model: global climate or the global economy?
Just read the astrology column in your local newspaper. Much cheaper. The predictions can be interpreted any way you want them. Pay particular attention to lucky numbers – 4 is a good one. Often found on $100 bills, winning lottery tickets, dice – even playing cards.
Climate models depend heavily on the number “4”. There are 4 seasons, 4 weeks in a month, and leap years are divisible by 4 (unless they are century years, in which case they must be divisible by 400). See how important the number “4” is?
Gavin Schmidt says “2” (as in CO2 or H2O) controls the world’s temperature. He’s wrong – it’s 4. Ask any “climate scientist”. If you pay enough, they’ll tell you what you want to hear.
Scissor
June 1, 2025 6:44 am
Making the rounds from 1992. Carlin, “The planet is fine.”
Can you tell me why when El Ninos have been happening for at least the last 10000 years we are not continually warming? And while you are at it, find a scientist on the planet who thinks your childishly simple theory is real?
Once again, we learn that giant curve-fitting machines are better at predicting the future than any sort of understanding or computation of actual physics. Especially where physics can’t be computed because the problem is too large.
Didn’t Willis E. reduce the entire body of climate models to a simple pde?
Russell Cook
June 1, 2025 9:10 am
Story tip: Estate of Juliana Leon v Exxon Mobil Corporation(filed May 28, 2025)
3 critical points to this otherwise pointless new effort to sue Big Oil for the wrongful death of a single individual:
The judge, after dismissing this frivolous lawsuit, should reprimand the plaintiff’s lawyer for bringing the suit to court, and allow the defense to sue for court costs/legal fees. Only then will these nosense cases stop.
If you lose, your lawyers have to pay the defendant the amount of money you were seeking, all the defendant’s legal costs, and spend 30 days in the slammer with assorted vagrants, drunks, fine-evaders and other low level criminals. Good luck with finding a lawyer who will represent you if they have to accept responsibility for wasting everyone else’s time.
Australia’s Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre
CliSci’s say “Hall marks of a warming planet” https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/cdj9ry9m30ro
Of couse no mention of how very obvious that it has happened many times before….
All week, various ‘news’ outlets were warning about an impending heat wave in the US West, imploring people to stay indoors and “out of the sun.” Known hot-spots, such as Redbluff (CA) were forecast to reach 107 deg F on Friday and Saturday. Checking the weather reports yesterday, it appears that Redbluff and surrounding areas reached 101 deg F, which in the dry heat of California would actually be a pleasant day if one doesn’t have to do hard, manual labor in the sun. However, the ‘news’ media has been quiet about the overestimate in predictions. No acknowledgment that the forecast didn’t happen, let alone an apology for the unwarranted alarmism.
When I first saw the news articles advising people to stay out of the sun for two days, my first thought was that perhaps a Coronal Mass Ejection had disrupted the ozone layer. It turns out it was just an all too frequent alarmist prediction that didn’t come true. A friend who lives in the SF Bay Area informed me that it got to 93 deg F there. That is the reason so many people moved to California, not a reason for alarm.
It’s the only symbol I’ve memorized, Alt-shift-8 held down together for my iMac keyboard. For any others, I cheat by doing an internet search for ’em, such as “copyright keyboard shortcut”, and then I just copy ‘n paste ’em into my comments.
At the MLO in Hawaii the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.849 g of CO2. There is no way this trace amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air if at all. Those IPCC guys are liars and perpetrating the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
The claims by the IPCC that CO2 causes “global warming” and is “the control knob for climate change” are fabrications and lies are to provide the justifications for (1) the continued maintenance and generous funding of not only the IPCC but also the UNFCCC and the UN COP and (2) for the distribution of doner funds from the rich countries to all the poor countries.
The IPCC does no research, has about 400 workers in the head office in Geneva and is living off the global warming gravy train. Who are these workers? I tried to search for info on them, but got no results. The UNFCCC has over 1,000 workers.
The budgets for these organizations are many billions of dollars. The pledges by the countries for COP 28 was 58 billion dollars. At COP 29 in Baku, the poor countries came begging not for billions but trillions of dollars. The left the conference empty handed with no pledges of funds from the rich countries.
Go to NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory for the latest info on the concentrations of CO2, CH4, SO2 and several other greenhouse gas.
The concentrations are for dry air at STP and dates for the measurements
are given.
The actual mass of a gas in real air will depend on temperature, pressure, and humidity. For example, in air at 70 deg F and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 14,730 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 11.3 g of H2O, 0.79 g of CO2, and has a mass of 1.20 kg/cu. m. at STP. However, I did not make a slight correction to the concentration of CO2 due to H2O which would be ca. 1.5%.
Harold, don’t be confused by specific heats and so on in this situation. As an organic chemist you are familiar with IR spectroscopy. In spectroscopy you only worry about the band wavelengths that don’t come out the other side of the sample because they are absorbed by the sample. Needless to say the bands that don’t come out of the other side of the sample are energy that has been absorbed by the sample.
So, it is actually Sunlight that heats the air using CO2 as an intermediary. CO2 absorbs IR and rattles its atoms a bit faster, and rapidly (microseconds) distributes the energy to its surrounding 2500 N2 and O2 molecules. .
In the height of the atmosphere, there is equivalent to just over 1 meter of CO2 column, if it was pure CO2….Needless to say, a tube 1 meter long of CO2 doesn’t absorb much IR that passes through it, with the exception of Absorption bands centered at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm, which correspond to Weins law temperatures of about -80,400,800,1200 C. So sunlight can stimulate CO2 molecules since on the Planck curve, sunlight contains many photons of those temperatures. Earthly surface temperatures, say -50 to +60 C contain many photons in the -80 range, so cause a bit of greenhouse effect heating as do H2O molecules in the atmosphere at other frequency bands.
if you have a 300 watt (per square meter) sunlight simulating lamp at the end of your 1 meter long tube, and increase the length to 2 meters, thereby doubling the amount of CO2 through which the sunlight passes, only about 3 additional watts (per square meter) will be absorbed by the additional CO2. So the effect is pretty small, and in the real world, overwhelmed by cloud cover that can reflect 70% of the incoming 340 watts (per square meter) average solar (that varies from 0 to 1360), and varies randomly over the Earth’s surface from 0 to 100% coverage. Anyone with better numbers on that CO2 tube-in-a-lab-setting absorption, please feel free to correct me…I’m just doing this from memory of calcs done a couple of decade or two ago…
I stand by what I posted. However, I should has stated: The is too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going long wave IR radiation emanating from a surface to cause heating of such a large mass of air.
There is very little IR light in 0 to 4000 wavenumber range in in-coming sunlight.
Here is empirical temperature data that CO2 doe not cause heating of air. Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was ca. 303 ppmv (0.59 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to ca. 371 ppmv
(0.73 g of CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at the remote desert. There reasons there was no increase in air temperature at this arid desert are quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air and there is very low humidity.
The chart was obtained from the late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “NA”, scroll down and click on US Pacific. Finally, scroll down and click on
“Death Valley”. John Daly found over 200 weather stations located around the world which showed no warming up to 2002. Go to Oz, there are 21 stations which showed no warming. In particular, check the chart for Adelaide which show a cooling since 1857.
Look what this CO2 greenhouse nonsense has done to the economies of the UK, Germany, Australia, and California, for example. Gov. Gavin N. wants to phase out all cars and light trucks with gas and diesel engines by 2035. This is crazy.
PS: If you click on the chart, it will expanded and become clear. Click on the “X” in the lower right to return to text.
I stand by what posted. However, I should have stated: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorbed sufficient out-going long wave IR radiation emanating from surface to heat up such a large mass of air.
There is very little far IR light (i.e.,0-4000 wavenumbers) in in-coming sunlight.
H2O would absorb some but this would cause only slight warming.
You said “There is no way this trace amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air if at all.”
I was just pointing out that it is Sunlight that heats the air and the surface due to the absorption and re-radiation of photons mostly by water vapor and CO2 despite both of them being quite low in concentration. If you assume planetary albedo=.3 then H2O and CO2 heat the air approximately an additional 30 C by this means, which is quite a bit more than “if at all”…doubling the amount of CO2 only causes an additional approximately 1 degree depending on how much additional water vapor you assume due to ocean surface warming.
if you have a 300 watt (per square meter) sunlight simulating lamp at the end of your 1 meter long tube, and increase the length to 2 meters, thereby doubling the amount of CO2 through which the sunlight passes, only about 3 additional watts (per square meter) will be absorbed by the additional CO2.
I’ll accept whatever figures you think are fair. The point is that, as John Tyndall showed 150 years ago, the more energy absorbed within the tube, the less reaches a temperature sensor beyond the tube. No CO2 heating at all! Rather, the complete opposite, of course.
Hence, the highest surface temperature are found where the mythical “GHGs” are least. Also as John Tyndall pointed out, being a keen mountaineer, and measuring ground temperatures at different altitudes. His publications explain his speculations and experiments.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
Michael Flynn
June 1, 2025 6:35 pm
It’s an open thread so why not?
Why is anybody at all concerned about their local thermometer’s temperature?
Why the insane preoccupation with recording thermometer temperatures? It’s not a measure of air temperature (although some think so), it’s certainly not a measure of the ground temperature, and completely irrelevant over the 70% of the planet covered by oceans, ice, dense vegetation, arid desert and all the rest.
Aircraft pilots might depend on the temperature of the air surrounding the aircraft, as it affects lift and engine power.
However, for the vast majority it’s just a pointless number, If it’s hot, it’s hot. Or cold. Wet bulb temperatures were also recorded to calculate relative humidity, just as often. Who cares? Atmospheric pressure? Cloud cover and type? Wind speed and direction? If your house has just been flattened by a tornado or tropical storm, knowing the wind speed or direction won’t help to restore your life.
It all started off in the belief that weather could be forecast – particularly for shipping.
Maybe the observational structure could be pruned significantly without noticeable adverse effects. A combination of satellite pix, weather radars, and looking out the window, combined with a bit of basic knowledge, should be good enough.
Many years ago it was postulated that because the USA built and continues to so many wood frame housing it had enormous carbon sink maybe its carbon foot print is smaller than thought.
Here is the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999):
Burl, we were discussing SO2 effects on the Earth’s temperatures a couple of Open Threads ago, and I have a few questions.
I agree that volcanic eruptions can temporarily reduce the Earth’s temperatures. We have evidence that this is indeed the case.
NASA has als done a study recently attributing all the warming we have experienced since the 1980’s to reduced cloud cover.
In the chart above you say that a small difference in SO2 caused the increase in temperatures from 1937 to 1940, and then the concentration of SO2 changed enough to cause the temperatures to cool after 1940.
Perhaps you have found the “tipping point” for SO2? A certain amount of SO2 causes a rise in temperatures and a certain amount, or lack thereof, os SO2 causes the temperatures to increase.
So the period from 1937 to 1940 should tell us which way the temperatures are going, up or down.
So what were the levels of SO2 during this time period? And what were the levels of SO2 at the time the Earth’s temperatures stopped cooling in the 1970’s and started warming in the 1980’s?
Would the SO2 levels during the 1937 to 1940 period equal the same levels at the 1970’s inflection points? It would seem that the level in the period 1937 to 1940, would have to be duplicated during the 1970’s to 1980’s inflection points in order to change from a cooling period to a warming period, if SO2 was indeed the driving force.
What say you, Burl?
Sorry I took so long to carry on this conversation, I got sidetracked for a little while. 🙂
I’m not saying SO2 isn’t the driver of temperatures, I just haven’t seen enough evidence to confirm it yet..
One thing missing is SO2 is one agent involved in cloud formations.
SO2 is a factor with opinions varying from great to miniscule, but it is a factor.
Everything for that matter is a factor.
Even the EM radiation emitted from thinking is a factor.
The problem is when IPCC or anyone else assumes a single factor explains all.
Did you know there is a “global energy fixer” in the atmospheric component of climate models?
Here are quotes from the current CAM5 (Community Atmosphere Model) Scientific Guide from NCAR (National Center for Atmospheric Research):
“To compensate for the loss of total energy due to horizontal discretization, we apply a global fixer to add the loss in kinetic energy due to “diffusion” back to the thermodynamic equation so that the total energy is conserved. The loss in total energy (in flux unit) is found to be around 2 W/m2 with the 2 degrees resolution.”
“The energy fixer then changes dry static energy (s = CpT+ Phi) by a constant amount over each grid cell to conserve total energy in the entire computational domain.”
Source:
https://ncar.github.io/CAM/doc/build/html/cam5_scientific_guide/dynamics.html#global-energy-fixer
In other words, there is a ~2 W/m2 heating effect (influencing internal energy + potential energy)applied equally to all grid cells at every time step of the interated computation. This is necessary to “conserve total energy in the entire computational domain” because of the “loss of total energy due to horizontal discretization” (i.e. due to the numerical necessities of computing the dynamics by discrete grid cells).
Correct me if I’m wrong about this, but this “global energy fixer” smears ~2 W/m2 of energy over the whole planet. How can such a model ever produce a reliable diagnosis or prognosis of the equator-to-pole climate system response to a so-called “forcing” – from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O – that is assumed to be rising at about 0.035 W/m2 per year?
Nothing is being hidden here, to the credit of the modelers in this documentation. But this issue is “hiding in plain sight,” is it not? The only way to use such a model to support AGW was to pre-stabilize the simulation and add prescribed “forcings” through the radiation transfer parameterization.
Lee Zeldin at the EPA should consider this and be the honest “fixer” of the 2009 “Endangerment Finding.” That regulatory action relied on the models up through IPCC AR4 to make the case of harm from emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, etc. It was an utterly circular exercise all along.
Here is another example. This one is from NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, describing how their atmospheric model AM4.0 handles the issue. Same 2 W/m2 magnitude.
“The dissipation of kinetic energy in this model, besides the part due to explicit vertical diffusion, occurs implicitly as a consequence of the advection algorithm. As a result, the dissipative heating balancing this loss of kinetic energy cannot easily be computed locally, and is, instead returned to the flow by a spatially uniform tropospheric heating. This dissipative heating associated with the advection in the dynamical core in AM4.0 is ∼ 2 W m−2.”
Source – see the first full page here of Supplemental Information S1:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/downloadSupplement?doi=10.1002%2F2017MS001209&file=jame20558-sup-0001-2017MS001209-s01.pdf
This is the main paper to which that S1 document applies.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017MS001209
Willis Eschenbach wrote about this issue a few years ago in relation to the GISS model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/18/gavins-falsifiable-science/
There is also a mass fixer. It is common in computational fluid dynamics. The point is that the equations being solved are the equations for conservation of mass, energy and momentum. They try to achieve a solution that does that conservation locally. But it isn’t exact, and so a discrepancy builds up globally. Now you know that should not happen, and you know the extent of discrepancy, so it is legitimate to make a correction to achieve the aim of conservation. If you don’t, then the total energy (or mass) drifts, with unphysical results.
The fixer is applied in a way that does not create gradients, which are the source of weather phenomena. So it does not distort the solution.
The fixer is applied…
Funniest post I’ve read in a while.
Cheers, Nick.
The fixers make the discrepancies an offer they can’t refuse.
“Fixer” sounds a lot like what we used to call a “fudge factor”.
“Fudge Factor: a figure included in a calculation to account for error or unanticipated circumstances, or to ensure a desired result“
Aren’t there a number of people in jail because they got caught “fixing the books”?
Thanks for taking the time to reply, Nick. You have confirmed that the discretized computation of the global atmosphere’s mass and energy flows is inherently unsuited to reliably hindcast or project a response to incremental CO2. The resolution is at least 100 times too course for this reason alone. I don’t disagree with your sense that the “fixer is applied in a way that does not create gradients” as an explanation for the method.
No, it’s just correct mathematical pde solution. Here is another way of looking at it. If you tried to solve just heat conduction on the surface of a metal sphere – for simplicity suppose hollow interior. The heat equation tells what the gradients should be to conserve energy. But it has an extra degree of freedom – to add uniform heat everywhere. That adds no gradients, and so is also a solution of the same equation. The heat equation can’t distinguish.
But you can distinguish – you know how much total heat there should be. So you can choose which of that class of equivalent solutions is right. In math terms this is regularising the solution of a set of equations with a nullspace. Totally legit.
“Totally legit.” Agreed, if your objective is to stabilize the simulation so you can then apply the “forcings” and claim to have diagnosed the thermal response.
But wait. Why perform the time-step-iterated gridded simulations at all, if you are already convinced that the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 MUST result in sensible heat gain? You don’t need a discretized model.
I know what you’re getting at Nick. My friendly suggestion is to “stop digging.”
And by the way, take a few minutes to appreciate energy conversion as described by Lorenz and computed in the ERA5 reanalysis. See, I don’t discount discretized computation for what it is good for! Be sure to take the time to read the “Readme” text at this time-lapse video.
https://youtu.be/hDurP-4gVrY
Be well. I appreciate your straightforward manner.
In Nick’s defense, these problems with numerical dispersion and disappearing mass/momentum/energy have been around since the advent of discretized approximations for partial differential equations. I faced problems like this during my modeling of geothermal systems in the 1970s. Fortunately in my case the flows were so large that small amounts of numerical error didn’t impact the results significantly.
In this case adding 2W/m2 is larger than what I might consider significant over long time intervals, which is maybe half a watt per squared meter. I’m not certain about the uniform addition being totally benign. What the numerical climate system does with this uniform addition, may, itself, produce a gradient different from what it would be otherwise.
“In Nick’s defense…” Agreed. He’s not wrong about the nature of the computational challenge. I’m glad he responded.
“I’m not certain about the uniform addition being totally benign.”
Agreed also.
There is no way to know how closely the ~2 W/m^2 uniform heating adjustment (or whatever value is computed at each time step) matches what would be the correct value for each grid cell if computed locally. It reveals an epistemic uncertainty at every time step at every grid cell, which cannot be assumed to average out across the globe or across time.
“There is no way to know how closely the ~2 W/m^2 uniform heating adjustment (or whatever value is computed at each time step) matches what would be the correct value for each grid cell if computed locally.”
You do know that it matches. The reason is again that the pde can’t distinguish.
Think again of the spherical shell surrounded by perfect insulation (both sides), this time with no drivers. What is the steady pde solution? It is constant T – any constant. But it isn’t indeterminate. T should remain at its initial value.
If you actually tried to compute the solution, there might be some noise, and total heat would drift. You would move away from the initial constant value. But you know this can’t be. and you know solutions can be superimposed (linearity). So you can add an appropriate value of the constant solution to restore the original total energy.
Hi again Nick,
“You do know that it matches.”
No, not grid cell by grid cell. If they computed the dissipative heating locally, they could apply a local value locally, and there would be no need for the “global energy fixer”. The wording of the GFDL example seems pretty clear about this: “the dissipative heating balancing this loss of kinetic energy cannot easily be computed locally.”
Nick,
How is this adjustment mathematically incorporated into estimates of uncertainty?
Surely, the larger the fix, the larger the uncertainty is.
But then, some climate change studies calculate and report uncertainties calculated by their methods, seemingly because a proper comprehensive estimate would limit the value of the research. Geoff S
If you already know how much total heat there should be, why bother with the calculation at all?
Also, adding a “global constant” to radiation assumes that there are no conditions that cause a varying value over the globe.
Your excuse lacks substance. It is a fudge factor that has “confirmation bias” written all over it.
Darn, beat me to it!
You know how much heat there should be because energy is conserved, both globally and locally. So do the accountancy.
Who said anything about adding a global constant to radiation?
The Earth has cooled over the last four and a half billion years, in spite of absorbing four and a half billion years of sunlight.
Energy is conserved? You’re joking, of course.
Energy is conserved. The trick is finding the equilibrium point, which is likely well out in space.
Not with respect to the Earth, which lose 44 TW.
“You know how much heat there should be because energy is conserved, both globally and locally”
And the model requires a “fudge factor” to make it all add up properly..
Something is majorly WRONG with the model.
Really? How much is stored every day in the oceans and land for later release at hours, days, months, years lag times?
I’ll say it again, if you already know the answer, there is no reason to calculate anything. The NEED for a calculation implies that there is a reason to find a different result.
Adding “adjustment factors” because your model doesn’t work properly.
That is NOT science. !!
Oof. “coarse” not “course”.
Fixers exist in “gangster” films too.. They “fix” things that are the boss doesn’t like !!
Its a Hollywood thing !!
In the case of climate models , it is obviously used to “fix” the result that they want.
In this case it appears to be just another number plucked out of thin air, (or someone’s behind)…
… and has absolutely zero scientific relevance whatsoever.
Let’s be careful not to get the wrong impression here. The “global energy fixer” is a computed value, and the objective of maintaining conservation of energy in the “entire computational domain” is valid. The problem is that the necessity for this computed global correction helps to expose the circular nature of the entire “climate” modeling exercise, in my assessment of it, as applied to “GHG” “forcing.”
Fixer is a chemical solution used in the film and paper developing process to stabilize images by removing unexposed silver halide.
Reminds me of my early days at the water plant I retired from. We didn’t have a SCADA system yet. We walked around and read gauges that were to show MGD based on the pressure differences. There were times we questioned the reading because, if say, we were running a 20 MGD pump and a 10 MGD pump, we’d expect it read around 30 MGD. If it read only 20 MGD or 40 MGD, we’d write a work request for one of the instrument techs to look at it.
We had one tech that was famous for working on it then asking us, “Does that look about right?”. It always did … until we made a pumping change. Then it was off again.
He wasn’t checking the lines, hooking up the manometer (mercury filled) or anything like that. He’d just adjust the needle on the gauge until it pointed to the expected number.
“He’d just adjust the needle on the gauge until it pointed to the expected number.”
That sounds like a remarkable good analogy to what GISS et al produce. !! 😉
How do you know what “should” happen? Crystal ball? Escrying chicken entrails?
Real scientists sometimes wonder why results are not what they thought. This led to the “discovery” of chaos by Lorenz. He could just have just “fixed” the computer input which didn’t give him the desired result.
The electron magnetic moment was expected to be precisely 1 in a particular unit.. Experiment showed it to be a little different – 1.00115965246. Luckily, one person didn’t apply a “fixer”. Turned out the theory was a bit wrong.
Sometimes it’s important to believe the measured results. As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong”.
“Escrying”??!! I learn something new on this website.
What a laugher!
There is no temperature gradient between fresh water ice/snow at 32 de-F and liquid water at 32 deg-F, yet there is a huge difference in specific enthalpy between the two phases.
There is no temperature gradient between liquid seawater at, say, 68 deg-F (the world’s average SST) and water vapor in the atmosphere at 68 deg-F laying directly above the liquid surface due to evaporation, yet there is a huge difference in specific enthalpy between the two phases.
“Weather phenomena” are greatly dependent on the phase changes of water, reference Earth’s hydrologic cycle, and thus not necessarily dependent just on (temperature) gradients.
The question then becomes: does the adding of the fixer reduce the relative gradients?
A related question is if increasing numeric precision in the calculations would reduce the magnitude of the fix needed?
No. Put mathematically, if you have a linear differential equation (pde) A(y)=f, and z is a solution of A(z)=0, then A(y+a*z)=f – ie y+a*z is also a solution for any constant a. This linearity argument also applies to the discretized equation. a*z is the fixer.
Numerical precision is not the problem. Discretization necessarily gives an inexact solution.
Adding in a “fudge factor” to correct for model inaccuracy.
Not science. !
“They try to achieve a solution that does that conservation locally. But it isn’t exact, and so a discrepancy builds up globally.”
Interesting way of stating the model is a steaming pile of excrement.
In reading your link about the fixer I find this quote to be intriguing. “ The loss in total energy (in flux unit) is found to be around 2 w/m^2.” (My copy didn’t work correctly so I had to add the w/m^2.)
The fixer really isn’t a fixer because they say it is only “around” 2. Does that mean it is 1.7 or 2.4? The science isn’t settled.
Throughout this post, when you see “W/m2” please understand it means W/m^2. The superscript “2” does not carry through to be pasted into the comment or reply boxes here.
And if W/m² is written using [Alt 0178] for the superscript “2” ==> ( ² ) Then what?
Nice.
I like Alt 0176 [ ° ].
Nicer with curved brackets (° )( °)
Some of these won’t print or paste depending what browser you are using….
‘It was an utterly circular exercise all along.’
It’s utterly circular because ‘they’ assume radiative transfer models (RTMs) are applicable to the lower troposphere and the introduction of any radiative ‘forcing’ to a radiative transfer model inevitably results in warming. Different degrees of warming occur, depending on whether the RTMs are applied ‘straight up’ or buried in the code of the GCMs.
At first I understood the fixer to be superglue used to fix protesters to tarmac.
If without the fixer the results would be ‘unphysical’ (according to Nick), how can anyone be sure that with the fixer the results are ‘physical’? Your calculations are hostage to the hack being realistic and the simple balancing exercise with a flashy name looks to me like another ‘Nature trick’.
Sounds like “fixative” which immobilizes a specimen on a slide for microscopic examination. 🙂 The good thing is that it is all documented. Surely the modelers who wrote this up would have known that sooner or later someone would pick up on the obvious non-random uncertainty at each time step at each grid cell that this “fixer” represents. The fact that the method is computationally valid as a whole does not mean the model is suitable for the investigation.
Another “oof” typo – “iterated computation” not “interated computation.”
If their lips move you know they’re lying but they’re aware what happens to their necks if the lights go out-
Gas project extension will need to meet net-zero
Climate action? Just walk around carrying a placard saying “Stop climate change”! That should be “sufficient”, surely.
Oh well, nobody says that politicians are any less gullible and ignorant than the majority of the population. They should pass a law stopping the climate from changing. How hard could it be?
Good news for Nigel Farage and Reform UK.
The dumb Tories haven’t learned anything at all. Remember the man who declared that the ticking time bomb of the climate crisis began with the Industrial Revolution in Britain? Carrie has his manhood in her handbag…
Boris Johnson handed huge comeback boost in major new poll
New polling shows Tory backers want to bring back the charismatic former premier. https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2062678/boris-johnson-comeback-kemi-badenoch-tories#
ph… ph… phwoar Crikey.
You evidently missed their recent blessed news.
No, I didn’t fail to see he’s added another sprog to his collection. It is in her handbag, after all.
If you find your backyard duck pond at 60N is a few degrees Centigrade warmer this year than it was way back in 1700 I can give you the explanation.
On March 20 this year, the Sun zenith moved north of the equator. Since then tilt today, June 1, every square metre of your pond has been exposed to an extra 11.6MJ. So making a heap of assumptions that all the extra solar EMR was thermalised; all additional heat was absorbed into water (the sort of “realistic” assumptions the climate models incorporate) and your pond averages 1m deep it will be 2.8C warmer this year than in 1700. I anticipate the ice was just melting back on March10 so the starting conditions taken at 0C in both years.
Today, Earth is 131,000km closer to the Sun than in 1700 on the same date. The declination is 0.024 degrees higher today compared with same day in 1700. The average daily solar EMR at 60N is up 1.07W/m^2.
From June 30, the NH energy surplus in 2025 relative to 1700 will be in decline. But the additional heat input will not be forgotten until the Sun zenith passes back over the oceans. By the end of the year, the deficit at 60N will be 19.7MJ/m^2 from the peak surplus on June 20. That will drive a lot of heat advection from lower latitudes after September. Expect record snowfall in the NH in 2025.
I will continue the story next week on how the year will unfold relative to 1700.
Those people longing for the blissful weather of 1700 when the water in their pond was 2.8C cooler at 60N than today will not achieve their objective by avoiding fossil fuels. They need to find a way to get Earth’s orbit back to what is was in 1700. Elon Musk may be able to help with a few thousand of his Startship and a long tow line:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nMfW7T3rx4
If you are curious about how the Sun is changing in your neck of the woods I may be able to help.
Yes indeed. I noticed all that while out in the garden (45°N) yesterday.
Are you sure it is not the additional mass of all the humans on the planet is what has caused the orbit planet to draw nearer the sun? This would be another argument for decimating the human population!
/sarc
I have few questions about these climate models:
Does the earth rotate?
Does the moon orbit the earth?
Does the earth orbit the sun?
How are the winds taken into account?
How are the type of clouds and movement of the clouds taken into account?
How is snow taken into account?
How is water vapor taken into account?
Are there models that use only water as the only greenhouse gas?
All climate models can be reduced to a blackbox with a global temperature response a simple logarithmic relationship with CO2.
All other stuff is irrelevant.
If you go back to any day in 1980 and look at the weather a particular location then you will be better informed on what the weather will be in 10 years rather than consulting any climate model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/22/a-test-of-skill-for-climate-models/
A bit data now but still applicable. Climate models are unphysical claptrap.No skill and no use.
“Climate models are unphysical claptrap. No skill and no use.”
That deserves repeating ! 🙂
‘All other stuff is irrelevant.’
I’d argue that 1) the effective thermalization of excited IR-active GHG species within meters of the Earth’s surface via collisions with non-IR active gas species, and, 2) the complete failure of GCMs to show that presumed anthopogenic forcings are not dwarfed by the radiative effects of cloud uncertainty, are entirely relevant.
Might I respectfully ask that you say what you mean by “thermalization”?
One definition is “attain or cause to attain thermal equilibrium with the environment”. Is that what you mean?
You mention “excited IR-active GHG species”, which might be misleading as the phenomena of excitation might not be what you really meant. The phrase “IR active GHG species” looks like meaningless “climate science” jargon to me, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Maybe you are trying to imply that the increased presence of supposed “GHG” in the atmosphere results in higher temperatures, but this is demonstrably untrue.
The hottest air temperatures occur where the “GHG” content is least!
Examples might be Death Valley and the Lut Desert.
Maybe I misunderstood you. What were you trying to say when you wrote
‘Might I respectfully ask that you say what you mean by “thermalization”?’
Sure. My understanding is that thermalization refers to the process in which an IR-active gas molecule in an excited state returns to its (unexcited) ground state after colliding with a non-IR active gas molecule, thereby increasing the kinetic energy of the latter. Effectively, this process converts the energy of an absorbed photons into sensible heat, which can then be measured as an increase in the overall temperature of the gas pool.
And might I respectfully ask that you take a look at what these guys have to say on the subject?
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
Frank. Done.
First definition from your link –
OK. I’m not sure why the word “thermal” is added to “radiation”. I suppose the author thinks it sounds more “scientific”.At least he states categorically “All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation.
Presumably you agree?
‘Presumably you agree?’
Yes, but with their added caveat that ‘Thermal Radiation is a property of condensed matter, i.e., solids and liquids. Gases do not emit thermal
radiation.’
‘I’m not sure why the word “thermal” is added to “radiation”’
As they say, it’s because it is caused by the thermal motion of particles in matter. Thermal radiation is a subset of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), which is one type of radiation.
That’s not what your reference says, does it? Are you trying to disagree with your reference?
Here’s the definition you provided
Now you claim
Maybe you should read your reference, which clearly states “Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation”.
No “subset”. No “one type” of radiation (as opposed to another which you can’t name!).
Not “All matter with the exception of some matter which I find inconvenient . . . ”
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, no matter what you believe. No GHE.
‘That’s not what your reference says, does it?’
Actually, it does. Read more, troll less.
Go ahead, prove it. I quoted your reference, not the contents of your imagination.
Discussions about CO2 are never-ending.
Wind/Solar “solutions” were found disastrous in Spain/Portugal
The mere failure of DC/AC back-end power systems of solar systems caused a total blackout for 50 million people.
Here are some operational realities of W/S systems that are at the core of their problems:
.
Synchronous Rotational Inertia, SRI, Stabilizes the Grid
Closing down traditional plants (nuclear, gas, coal, hydro), with rotating generators that provide SRI, de-stabilizes the grid; a death sentence for the grid.
.
Wind/solar systems provide ZERO SRI to help stabilize the grid, because their variable outputs are digitized, then reconstituted into an artificial sine wave with the same phase and frequency as the grid.
Super expensive battery systems provide ZERO SRI.
Battery systems can provide virtual inertia, at very high c/kWh, by means of their inverters (which failed in Spain/Portugal), which can quickly counteract voltage/frequency drops for a short time.
.
Connections Between Grids
Almost all grids have connections to other grids for import and export purposes.
About 50% of such connections are high-voltage, direct-current lines, HVDC
Such DC connections transfer power, but transfer ZERO SRI to other grids.
.
Reactive Power
No AC grid can function without positive reactive power; say power factor of 0.8
Wind/solar systems take reactive power FROM the grid; say power factor of -0.8
All traditional power plants are automatically set up to provide positive reactive power TO the grid.
.
Synchronous Condenser Systems
The weather-dependent, variable/intermittent, wind/solar feed-ins to the grid often create transmission faults.
Those faults are often minimized with synchronous condenser systems that provide positive reactive power TO the grid.
Blackouts
In case of too much W/S power, it needs to be curtailed.
Owners usually get paid for what they could have produced.
.
In case of too little W/S power or a W/S outage, reliable, quick-reacting CCGT plants, in Hot Synchronous Standby, HSS, mode, would provide:
.
1)) Instant SRI to the grid for “ride-through” to give switches time to switch, and
2) Provide power to the grid, within seconds, to counteract voltage/frequency drops due to W/S outages, 24/7/365; if battery systems were used, they would be empty after a few hours, with no prospect of a black grid to refill them.
.
Spain/Portugal would have needed about 10,000 MW of CCGT plants in HSS mode to avoid its recent blackout.
They would operate at 50% output throughout the year, and quickly provide up to 5000 MW, in case of a W/S outage.
.
Black Start Procedure for a 100 MW CCGT Power Plant
Initial Power Source: The on-site auxiliary generator is started. It provides power to critical plant systems, including control, safety, and communication systems.
Plant Startup: The auxiliary generator then powers the CCGT plant’s essential systems. This includes cooling systems, fuel handling systems, and starting the gas turbine.
Connecting to the Grid: After the CCGT plant is spinning at 3600 rpm at the same phase and frequency as the grid, it can be connected to the grid to supply power to its section of the grid. That section powers another power plant, etc., until all sections are up and running. Only then, grid-destabilizing W/S systems are connected.
Net-zero by 2050 to-reduce CO2 is a super-expensive suicide pact, to increase command/control by governments, and enable the moneyed elites to get richer, at the expense of all others, by using the foghorn of the government-subsidized/controlled Corporate Media to spread scare-mongering slogans and brainwash people.
.
Ignore CO2, because greater CO2 ppm in atmosphere is an absolutely essential ingredient for: 1) increased green flora to increase fauna all over the world, and 2) increased crop yields to feed 8 billion people.
I’d appreciate people critiquing these videos and posting ideas for possible future videos.
https://app.screencast.com/ZMpNTvkLD7DDJ
https://app.screencast.com/DFd1viHxsRjq7
https://app.screencast.com/OWq7twX7ELhEa
Also, here are my best arguments against man-made global warming. Where am I wrong?
I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts.
Link
‘I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer.’
You (we?) mean one where everyone agrees with you (we?) that CO2 doesn’t do anything because dry ice is really cold?
Paraphrasing Shula & Ott:
“Implicit in (your assertion, above) is the assumption that individual molecular (GHG) species will spontaneously radiate according to a Planck distribution as though they were part of a blackbody, which is invalid though commonly assumed. This is conflating Kirchhoff’s Law for condensed matter bodies with individual molecules which does not apply.”
Your first video is too long and nobody will sit for such a long time to watch it. These videos flash info so fast that it hard to comprehend it. I prefer printed info.
Could you get a temperature plot for Death Valley using RSS. Below is a plot of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv (0.59 CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased
to 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m.) but the was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this remote desert. The reasons there was no increase in air temperature at this arid desert are quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb out-going long wave IR radiation emanating from the desert floor to heat up the air.
The plot was obtained from the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on a region or country (e.g., Oz) to access charts of temperature from over 200 weather stations located around the world which showed no warming up to 2002.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air currently is 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1.29 kg and contains 0.843 g of CO2. This small amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air by a very small amount if at all.
Most all people do not know how little CO2 there is in the air. The main mechanism for the heating the air above a surface is conduction and convection.
If you have any more questions post them here or try an AI bot such Grok.
Follow the money.
From CNBC:
JPMorgan hired NOAA’s chief scientist to advise clients on navigating climate change.
Sarah Kapnick is the scientist who left NOAA in October of 2024.
Did she leave NOAA because Trump was about to win the presidency again?
After I read the article (interview), I couldn’t imagine soliciting advice from her on investments. What’s harder to model: global climate or the global economy?
Just read the astrology column in your local newspaper. Much cheaper. The predictions can be interpreted any way you want them. Pay particular attention to lucky numbers – 4 is a good one. Often found on $100 bills, winning lottery tickets, dice – even playing cards.
Climate models depend heavily on the number “4”. There are 4 seasons, 4 weeks in a month, and leap years are divisible by 4 (unless they are century years, in which case they must be divisible by 400). See how important the number “4” is?
Gavin Schmidt says “2” (as in CO2 or H2O) controls the world’s temperature. He’s wrong – it’s 4. Ask any “climate scientist”. If you pay enough, they’ll tell you what you want to hear.
Making the rounds from 1992. Carlin, “The planet is fine.”
Totally agree the planet will be fine. It’s the inhabitants that will struggle.
Why? Do you mean because of an extra degree of warmth?
No I mean because of the extra “degrees” of warmth to come.
Ah….. a budding Nostradumbass. !
Predictions based on crap meaningless models..
“It’s the inhabitants that will struggle.”
Only if they keep going down this idiotic anti-CO2 route that only the most scientifically illiterate still espouse. !!
Hydrocarbon based fuels are what has allowed human society to expand rapidly and become massively productive.
They are what most modern societies around the world are built on.
Removing those hydrocarbon fuels based on some anti-science garbage from rabid activists is already destroying several of those societies.
Says the man who thinks it is “El Nino what done it.”
Can you show me any warming in the UAH data that is NOT associated with El Nino events..
You have failed completely so far.
Can you tell me why when El Ninos have been happening for at least the last 10000 years we are not continually warming? And while you are at it, find a scientist on the planet who thinks your childishly simple theory is real?
From sea to sky: Microsoft’s Aurora AI foundation model goes beyond weather forecasting
https://news.microsoft.com/source/features/ai/microsofts-aurora-ai-foundation-model-goes-beyond-weather-forecasting/
Once again, we learn that giant curve-fitting machines are better at predicting the future than any sort of understanding or computation of actual physics. Especially where physics can’t be computed because the problem is too large.
Didn’t Willis E. reduce the entire body of climate models to a simple pde?
Story tip: Estate of Juliana Leon v Exxon Mobil Corporation (filed May 28, 2025)
3 critical points to this otherwise pointless new effort to sue Big Oil for the wrongful death of a single individual:
The judge, after dismissing this frivolous lawsuit, should reprimand the plaintiff’s lawyer for bringing the suit to court, and allow the defense to sue for court costs/legal fees. Only then will these nosense cases stop.
Sue the Sun god. Or the doctor. Or somebody.
If you lose, your lawyers have to pay the defendant the amount of money you were seeking, all the defendant’s legal costs, and spend 30 days in the slammer with assorted vagrants, drunks, fine-evaders and other low level criminals. Good luck with finding a lawyer who will represent you if they have to accept responsibility for wasting everyone else’s time.
It’ll never happen, but one can hope.
Australia’s Kati Thanda-Lake Eyre
CliSci’s say “Hall marks of a warming planet”
https://www.bbc.com/weather/articles/cdj9ry9m30ro
Of couse no mention of how very obvious that it has happened many times before….
They even have a boat regatta for the occasions it does get water.
From 2019
Lake Eyre flooding inspires first yacht club regatta in three years
According to NASA
Did the world start warming after that? Or am I being too clever by half?
All week, various ‘news’ outlets were warning about an impending heat wave in the US West, imploring people to stay indoors and “out of the sun.” Known hot-spots, such as Redbluff (CA) were forecast to reach 107 deg F on Friday and Saturday. Checking the weather reports yesterday, it appears that Redbluff and surrounding areas reached 101 deg F, which in the dry heat of California would actually be a pleasant day if one doesn’t have to do hard, manual labor in the sun. However, the ‘news’ media has been quiet about the overestimate in predictions. No acknowledgment that the forecast didn’t happen, let alone an apology for the unwarranted alarmism.
When I first saw the news articles advising people to stay out of the sun for two days, my first thought was that perhaps a Coronal Mass Ejection had disrupted the ozone layer. It turns out it was just an all too frequent alarmist prediction that didn’t come true. A friend who lives in the SF Bay Area informed me that it got to 93 deg F there. That is the reason so many people moved to California, not a reason for alarm.
I remember Redding having 119ºF highs for at least 3 days in a row back in 1978, so 107ºF in Red Bluff sounds pretty normal.
Current mid afternoon temp, June 1, 2025 in the Phoenix metro area: 80°F (screencapture here, for posterity)
“Clima-Change™” increasingly causes really pleasant weather conditions.
What keyboard entries do you use to make the degree symbol?
On an iPad, change to numeric entry – .?123, °press “0” and slide up. Like this – °.
It’s the only symbol I’ve memorized, Alt-shift-8 held down together for my iMac keyboard. For any others, I cheat by doing an internet search for ’em, such as “copyright keyboard shortcut”, and then I just copy ‘n paste ’em into my comments.
On windows, I use [alt] 0176. Hold down the [alt] key while you type the numbers.
story tip:
Greta heads for Gaza to solve all the problems:
https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/06/01/a-delusional-greta-thunberg-heads-to-gaza-to-break-the-siege-n2189900
How much aid can a sailing yacht deliver and only once in a 4 week round trip?
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
CO2 Update.
At the MLO in Hawaii the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 429 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere 0.849 g of CO2. There is no way this trace amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air if at all. Those IPCC guys are liars and perpetrating the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man.
either that or they are simply ignorant and gullible. Liars know the difference between truth and falsehood.
The claims by the IPCC that CO2 causes “global warming” and is “the control knob for climate change” are fabrications and lies are to provide the justifications for (1) the continued maintenance and generous funding of not only the IPCC but also the UNFCCC and the UN COP and (2) for the distribution of doner funds from the rich countries to all the poor countries.
The IPCC does no research, has about 400 workers in the head office in Geneva and is living off the global warming gravy train. Who are these workers? I tried to search for info on them, but got no results. The UNFCCC has over 1,000 workers.
The budgets for these organizations are many billions of dollars. The pledges by the countries for COP 28 was 58 billion dollars. At COP 29 in Baku, the poor countries came begging not for billions but trillions of dollars. The left the conference empty handed with no pledges of funds from the rich countries.
What date for the 42(?
The observatory moved 200 miles away due to volcanic eruptions.
Go to NOAA’s Global Monitoring Laboratory for the latest info on the concentrations of CO2, CH4, SO2 and several other greenhouse gas.
The concentrations are for dry air at STP and dates for the measurements
are given.
The actual mass of a gas in real air will depend on temperature, pressure, and humidity. For example, in air at 70 deg F and 70% RH, the concentration of H2O is 14,730 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 11.3 g of H2O, 0.79 g of CO2, and has a mass of 1.20 kg/cu. m. at STP. However, I did not make a slight correction to the concentration of CO2 due to H2O which would be ca. 1.5%.
Harold, don’t be confused by specific heats and so on in this situation. As an organic chemist you are familiar with IR spectroscopy. In spectroscopy you only worry about the band wavelengths that don’t come out the other side of the sample because they are absorbed by the sample. Needless to say the bands that don’t come out of the other side of the sample are energy that has been absorbed by the sample.
So, it is actually Sunlight that heats the air using CO2 as an intermediary. CO2 absorbs IR and rattles its atoms a bit faster, and rapidly (microseconds) distributes the energy to its surrounding 2500 N2 and O2 molecules. .
In the height of the atmosphere, there is equivalent to just over 1 meter of CO2 column, if it was pure CO2….Needless to say, a tube 1 meter long of CO2 doesn’t absorb much IR that passes through it, with the exception of Absorption bands centered at 15, 4.3, 2.7, and 2 μm, which correspond to Weins law temperatures of about -80,400,800,1200 C.
So sunlight can stimulate CO2 molecules since on the Planck curve, sunlight contains many photons of those temperatures. Earthly surface temperatures, say -50 to +60 C contain many photons in the -80 range, so cause a bit of greenhouse effect heating as do H2O molecules in the atmosphere at other frequency bands.
if you have a 300 watt (per square meter) sunlight simulating lamp at the end of your 1 meter long tube, and increase the length to 2 meters, thereby doubling the amount of CO2 through which the sunlight passes, only about 3 additional watts (per square meter) will be absorbed by the additional CO2. So the effect is pretty small, and in the real world, overwhelmed by cloud cover that can reflect 70% of the incoming 340 watts (per square meter) average solar (that varies from 0 to 1360), and varies randomly over the Earth’s surface from 0 to 100% coverage. Anyone with better numbers on that CO2 tube-in-a-lab-setting absorption, please feel free to correct me…I’m just doing this from memory of calcs done a couple of decade or two ago…
I stand by what I posted. However, I should has stated: The is too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going long wave IR radiation emanating from a surface to cause heating of such a large mass of air.
There is very little IR light in 0 to 4000 wavenumber range in in-coming sunlight.
Here is empirical temperature data that CO2 doe not cause heating of air. Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922, the concentration of CO2 was ca. 303 ppmv (0.59 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to ca. 371 ppmv
(0.73 g of CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at the remote desert. There reasons there was no increase in air temperature at this arid desert are quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air and there is very low humidity.
The chart was obtained from the late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, scroll down to the end and click on “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on “NA”, scroll down and click on US Pacific. Finally, scroll down and click on
“Death Valley”. John Daly found over 200 weather stations located around the world which showed no warming up to 2002. Go to Oz, there are 21 stations which showed no warming. In particular, check the chart for Adelaide which show a cooling since 1857.
Look what this CO2 greenhouse nonsense has done to the economies of the UK, Germany, Australia, and California, for example. Gov. Gavin N. wants to phase out all cars and light trucks with gas and diesel engines by 2035. This is crazy.
PS: If you click on the chart, it will expanded and become clear. Click on the “X” in the lower right to return to text.
I stand by what posted. However, I should have stated: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorbed sufficient out-going long wave IR radiation emanating from surface to heat up such a large mass of air.
There is very little far IR light (i.e.,0-4000 wavenumbers) in in-coming sunlight.
H2O would absorb some but this would cause only slight warming.
You said “There is no way this trace amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air if at all.”
I was just pointing out that it is Sunlight that heats the air and the surface due to the absorption and re-radiation of photons mostly by water vapor and CO2 despite both of them being quite low in concentration. If you assume planetary albedo=.3 then H2O and CO2 heat the air approximately an additional 30 C by this means, which is quite a bit more than “if at all”…doubling the amount of CO2 only causes an additional approximately 1 degree depending on how much additional water vapor you assume due to ocean surface warming.
Sorry, no. As Einstein said “No amount of experimentation can prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong”.
John Tyndall did more than a single experiment to show that CO2 and H2O don’t heat air at all! So you’re wrong.
It doesn’t really matter, because you can’t support your assertion with any reproducible experiment at all.
I’ll accept whatever figures you think are fair. The point is that, as John Tyndall showed 150 years ago, the more energy absorbed within the tube, the less reaches a temperature sensor beyond the tube. No CO2 heating at all! Rather, the complete opposite, of course.
Hence, the highest surface temperature are found where the mythical “GHGs” are least. Also as John Tyndall pointed out, being a keen mountaineer, and measuring ground temperatures at different altitudes. His publications explain his speculations and experiments.
Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter.
It’s an open thread so why not?
Why is anybody at all concerned about their local thermometer’s temperature?
Why the insane preoccupation with recording thermometer temperatures? It’s not a measure of air temperature (although some think so), it’s certainly not a measure of the ground temperature, and completely irrelevant over the 70% of the planet covered by oceans, ice, dense vegetation, arid desert and all the rest.
Aircraft pilots might depend on the temperature of the air surrounding the aircraft, as it affects lift and engine power.
However, for the vast majority it’s just a pointless number, If it’s hot, it’s hot. Or cold. Wet bulb temperatures were also recorded to calculate relative humidity, just as often. Who cares? Atmospheric pressure? Cloud cover and type? Wind speed and direction? If your house has just been flattened by a tornado or tropical storm, knowing the wind speed or direction won’t help to restore your life.
It all started off in the belief that weather could be forecast – particularly for shipping.
Maybe the observational structure could be pruned significantly without noticeable adverse effects. A combination of satellite pix, weather radars, and looking out the window, combined with a bit of basic knowledge, should be good enough.
Oh well.
I did when I was a kid because it was interesting and the weather station was a birthday present.
in most places in the world, a weather forecast of 1 degree warmer tomorrow means better weather is expected. That’s a whole century worth of GW….
Many years ago it was postulated that because the USA built and continues to so many wood frame housing it had enormous carbon sink maybe its carbon foot print is smaller than thought.
Maybe 80 years later when new trees have grown to replace the lumber you cut down.
Continuing the discussion on SO2 with Burl Henry:
Here is the U.S. surface temperature chart (Hansen 1999):
Burl, we were discussing SO2 effects on the Earth’s temperatures a couple of Open Threads ago, and I have a few questions.
I agree that volcanic eruptions can temporarily reduce the Earth’s temperatures. We have evidence that this is indeed the case.
NASA has als done a study recently attributing all the warming we have experienced since the 1980’s to reduced cloud cover.
In the chart above you say that a small difference in SO2 caused the increase in temperatures from 1937 to 1940, and then the concentration of SO2 changed enough to cause the temperatures to cool after 1940.
Perhaps you have found the “tipping point” for SO2? A certain amount of SO2 causes a rise in temperatures and a certain amount, or lack thereof, os SO2 causes the temperatures to increase.
So the period from 1937 to 1940 should tell us which way the temperatures are going, up or down.
So what were the levels of SO2 during this time period? And what were the levels of SO2 at the time the Earth’s temperatures stopped cooling in the 1970’s and started warming in the 1980’s?
Would the SO2 levels during the 1937 to 1940 period equal the same levels at the 1970’s inflection points? It would seem that the level in the period 1937 to 1940, would have to be duplicated during the 1970’s to 1980’s inflection points in order to change from a cooling period to a warming period, if SO2 was indeed the driving force.
What say you, Burl?
Sorry I took so long to carry on this conversation, I got sidetracked for a little while. 🙂
I’m not saying SO2 isn’t the driver of temperatures, I just haven’t seen enough evidence to confirm it yet..
One thing missing is SO2 is one agent involved in cloud formations.
SO2 is a factor with opinions varying from great to miniscule, but it is a factor.
Everything for that matter is a factor.
Even the EM radiation emitted from thinking is a factor.
The problem is when IPCC or anyone else assumes a single factor explains all.
Except for possibly SO2 in the stratosphere, enough SO2 at surface to show Burl’s claimed effects would be pretty stinky….
What fiber is this thread made of?
50 denier?