Essay by Eric Worrall
What does it take to properly cross one of these tipping points?
Overshoot: The World Is Hitting Point of No Return on Climate
With warming set to pass the critical 1.5-degree limit, scientists are warning that the world is on course to trigger tipping points that would lead to cascading consequences — from the melting of ice sheets to the death of the Amazon rainforest — that could not be reversed.
BY FRED PEARCE • JANUARY 28, 2026
The world is poised to overshoot the goal of limiting average global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as for the first time, a three-year period, ending in 2025, has breached the threshold. And climate scientists are predicting devastating consequences, just as the world’s governments appear to have lost their appetite for tackling the emissions that are causing the warming.
…
“We are rapidly approaching multiple Earth system tipping points that could transform our world with devastating consequences for people and nature,” says British global-systems researcher Tim Lenton, of the University of Exeter. If he and other scientists are right, then hopes currently being expressed of a temperature reset by reducing emissions after overshoot may be fanciful. Before we know it, there may be no way back.
…
A three-year breach of 1.5 degrees does not mean we have broken the Paris limit, which is framed as a long-term average. Conventionally, scientists measure this over 20 years, to smooth out year-on-year aberrations caused by natural cycles such as the El Niño oscillation. Using this method, it will be several more years before researchers can say for certain if warming has reached 1.5 degrees. But according to two studies published last year, the world has likely already surpassed this critical threshold.
Without an abrupt change of course, the warming will only accelerate. James Hansen, the Columbia University climatologist who first put climate change on the world’s front pages during testimony to Senate hearings in 1988, believes we could hit 2 degrees C as soon as 2045, a forecast based on several climate models under a high-emissions scenario.
…
Read more: https://e360.yale.edu/features/1.5-degrees-tipping-points
I have a theory about 1.5C. Climate scientists appeared to be building up to a big dramatic tipping point crossed media frenzy, then the world spoiled the media campaign by abruptly jumping above their doomsday limit, likely due to the Hunga Tonga eruption.
Hunga Tonga was an unusual eruption, because rather than blasting vast quantities of sulphur into the atmosphere, which would have temporarily cooled the planet, it blasted vast quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere, which has a strong warming effect.
The impact on climate scientists of blowing up their 1.5C limit was just as devastating as the impact of the eruption on Hunga Tonga on anyone nearby. I mean, here they were building up to a carefully orchestrated 1.5C climate disaster, then nature goes and spoils everything by shoving the world past their doomsday limit before they were ready.
The distinct lack of any noticeable doom hasn’t helped matters.
Now climate scientists seem to be flailing about, trying to figure out how to put their climate doomsday campaign back on track.
For a while there was an attempt to quietly memory hole the 1.5C limit, by pushing the new 2C limit, as if 1.5C wasn’t that important anyway.
But the attempt to switch to 2.0C didn’t really gain traction. Everyone knew the 1.5C red line, so it was just too embarrassing to backflip the narrative by claiming it never really mattered.
So climate scientists were forced to try to rescue their 1.5C narrative.
Passing a red line, that has some psychological impact. But passing a deadline then waiting years for anything interesting to happen, that’s just boring.
Obviously these struggling climate scientists need our help to try to think up a new way to engage the public, to get past the embarrassment of their flopped 1.5C red line. What do you suggest?
Update (EW): Added “on anyone nearby” to clarify what I meant by the impact of the eruption of Hunga Tonga.
I thought 1.5C was an irreversible tipping point that couldn’t be recovered from.
Are they now saying that wasn’t quite correct?
No, they’re saying 1.5C has to be measured differently from other temperatures. It’s special, you see.
It’s like changing the definition of sex and gender to get around the awkward fact that anti-discrimination laws are based on male+female, not 57 genders.
No, 1.5°C is seen as an indicative global average temperature increase (relative to 1850-1900 global average temperatures), at which the risk of reaching multiple regional tipping points are significantly increased.
Sorry, what pardon!?!?
1.5C is a number pulled out the recesses of “somewhere”..
It is totally and absolutely meaningless and irrelevant to anything remotely scientific.
Yes, just like more than 2 genders, it is a total fantasy.
More than 2 Genders is a Fairy Tale. Pulllllease
Gender is a fact of grammar. English has 3 genders male, female, and neuter. French has two genders, male & female. Turkish has no genders.
Sex is a fact of biology there are two sexes male and fenale in the real world. et c’est tout.
And the world also has 3 genders
Male = sperm donor
Female = ova donor and womb holder
Neutral = voluntarily/involuntarily spayed/neutered rendered infertile
No, Neutral started as either Male or Female..
Doesn’t matter if they are neutered, they are still either a male a female, same as they started out.
Technically they’re neither regardless of their chromosomes. They’re just neutral neither Testosterone nor Estrogen production can be measured.
Yet you frequently refer to the UAH global average temperature.
You appear to have ‘issues’.
What an incredibly stupid and nonsensical statement.
…. the 1.5C value has absolutely nothing to do with UAH.
Remember as well we are all supposed to be dead or french fried when CO PPM exceeds 350. As in 350.org. What happenned to that tipping point or was that bad measurement of CO. What is your absurd answer for that one?
And your powers of comprehension have once again abandoned you.
And before that the 2.0 C was similarly pulled.
No, 1.5°C is seen as an indicative global average temperature increase (relative to 1850-1900 global average temperatures),
“Gobal average temperature” is meaningless. The average annual temperature at the South Pole is somewhere between -59C (July) and -26C (December). “Averaging” these temperatures with temperatures in other, more temperate, climates yields a meaningless number.
Sort of like the average telephone number in the New York directory.
Tell Anthony that.
He features two global average temperature indices prominently on the side panel of this site.
He features the monthly updates for UAH here each month.
Did you not notice this?
That is true. What’s worse is that to be scientific one must also provide the Standard Deviation of the measurements used to calculate that mean. Ask any of the folks that describe 1.5 degrees change in temperature and they will look at you like you are crazy. If they can’t give you at least a 2 sigma SD, then they don’t have a leg to stand on.
However you wish to define it, 1.5°C HAS BEEN BREACHED so this imaginary thermopocalypse can’t be stopped … so stop complaining!!!
Sit back and eat some popcorn, or clutch your pearls, depending on your point of view.
No, it hasn’t been ‘breached’.
You provide no evidence to support your claim because no such credible evidence exists.
It has been surpassed on an annual basis only (2024); but the long-term linear warming, which is what the IPCC and co are referring to, is still around 1.35C
The extra 0.15 degrees matters and we are all doomed then 🙂
We could ask you for credible evidence it matters but all you do is deflect the argument. So tell you what I will go burn some more emissions and make up that 0.15 degree and lets talk then and if I don’t China and India will help out.
Maybe learn something about linear regression. Any further increase in the long term value would obviously be indicative of continued and increased warming.
trends in nature can go one way- then change direction- so to say it’s long term is a wild guess
You have provide zero evidence that human CO2 causes any warming whatsoever.
Atmospheric warming since 1979 has zero evidence of any human caused warming at all.
Lots of people have done so numerous times, to no avail. You’re confusing ‘evidence‘ with ‘things I agree with‘.
evidence doesn’t always represent truth
Which gives some their preferred option of denial and reversion to (as TFN says) “things I agree with”.
However, as in a court trial we can only “prove beyond reasonable doubt”.
And reasonable has to to come from the reason of those best qualified to reach said verdict. …. scientists.
Sorry but it is just common sense (in a grown-up civilisation).
That they overwheliming do, all we can “reasonably do” is to act on it should any adverse effects require it.
Sorry, but there will always skeptics (even outright deniers) on any subject. It is just human nature, and they absolutely do not not have the right to veto a judgement because the verdict goes against their preferred paradigm.
Adverse effects? Any change in climate anywhere is going to have adverse effects for some, beneficial effects for others. Always the way it’s been. Warming has been much more beneficial than cooling would have been. Do you think we’d be better off if it had been cooling for the last 150 years?
If the 1.5C limit was breached in 2024, it was breached. Absolutely nothing untoxard happened.
You alarmist bedwetters are so slippery.
Linear regression is mathematics. You’re literally arguing with mathematics.
Math is precise, nature is not. It swings one way then it can swing a different direction so to think a trend in nature will continue along any path is confusing reality with abstractions.
Thinking a trend would continue is Climate Science Du-Jour. It brings about “The Ice Age Commeth” back at the end of the 1970s
What makes you think linear regression has ANY relevance to a chaotic, non-linear phenomenon like climate? Imposing straight lines on it is utterly fatuous.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. A linear regression would only be useful if there was just one independent variable. Time is not one, because time has not been shown to be a fundamental quantity in determining temperature.
These warmists never show any desire or knowledge about doing time series analysis to isolate the actual trend from auto-correlation and seasonality. Their idea is that enough smoothing and averaging will hide any seasonality.
Linear regression was designed to show how well a functional relationship predicted a dependent variable when using an independent variable. Show a function that describes the time series you are trying to trend.
I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again. How do you remove the auto-correlation in the underlying data and how do you remove the seasonality in the underlying data before you create a trend. Tell us specifically the tests and results from the statistical tools to perform those removals.
“If the 1.5C limit was breached in 2024, it was breached. Absolutely nothing untoxard happened.”
That statement leads me to think that you think that the real world is like the climate disater movie “The Day After Tomorrow”. (See above also)
Do you?
As in an response to a stimulous will cause irreversible harmful planetary effects of the order of weeks/months following?
It will of course be decades to a century/s
That would at the very least imply some enormous tipping-point, which is a phrase that I thought was verboten here!
Amazing comprehension deficit. (likely cognitive dissonance at play)
The IPCC introduced the 1.5C as a limit when we should have taken some sort of effective action and is not a distinct scientific tipping point.
Meanwhile, even at 1.5C the Earth will still continue to warm as anthro GHGs will take decades to diminsh even if we achieve a stop to rising emissions.
According to you therefore, we will have to wait centuries before the effects of breaching the 1.5 C limit become apparent.
How incredibly convenient for you alarmists.
wow, and accurate to 2 decimal places– oh, no, actually it’s AROUND 2 decimal places 🙂
Mathematically it’s closer to 20 decimal places 😎
TheFinalNail
Reply to
Bryan A
January 29, 2026 4:07 pm
So Yale 360 is Wrong?
No you are wrong.
They say …
“The effects of imminent 1.5-degree overshoot are already apparent in a rising tide of weather catastrophes: …..”
Except, as has been demonstrated many times, there is no “rising tide of weather catastrophes”.
Exactly 1.5°C “overshoot” aka breached, surpassed, crossed, overstepped, left standing on the side of the road crying for it’s Mama!
And you supply no.credible.evidence that reducing ambient CO2 will actually lower temperatures. In fact there is empirical evidence that, despite the Tens of Trillions already spent, neither CO2 increase nor temperatures have been affected to any degree whatsoever.
So you have this magic paper that proves the 1.5C limit? Please share. And no models are not proof of anything, Some are himbos/bimbos and others quit clever but not proof of either.
The 1.5C limit is indicative of an escalated scale of danger.
It’s not a cliff-edge scenario and no one has said that it is (no scientist, anyway and certainly not the IPCC).
Just as well, because we’ve no chance of not surpassing it now.
Who’s in Denial now???
Was it dangerous during the Holocene Climate Optimum?
“multiple regional tipping points”
OMG! /s
It was 2C at first then revised to 1.5C, neither of which were anything but political.
I’ve always preferred 1.627 °C as the hard limit.
/sarc
You rounded up! Fantastic. I never liked 20 decimal places.
You should have opted for 1.618, the Golden Ration or φ (phi).
That would have got the warmongers peeing their pants
The 1.5-degree target was set at the Paris climate conference a decade ago, at the insistence of the more vulnerable nations.
Have a chat with them about it.
Does that include the Maldives? They seem to be doing fine for a drowning nation, especially as they are currently constructing five new airports.
Don’t know
You’d better ask them.
i would think they would know either way.
No.
You think it’s up to them to correct your misunderstanding?
Anything else you want them to do for you? Run a bath, maybe?
Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels has always been considered a critical tipping point to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate impacts. But now that point has been reached, alarmists are scrambling for new definitions of doom.
The measured global average temperature increase has not yet reached +1.5C above pre-industrial. That is measured by the long-term linear trend, which I believe is currently around 1.35C.
Yes, there are certain irreversible ‘impacts’ that the IPCC say will likely result from +1.5C above pre-industrial warming. Continued ice sheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica will be more or less nailed-on, for example. Also species loss in various regions.
MarkW’s claim that events like this can’t “be recovered from” applies to specific examples such as this, many other things can be recovered from.
NO the 1.5C is pure fantasy.. it has no scientific relevance whatsoever.
Ice loss in Greenland was greater in the 1930s, 40s
Antarctica basically nothing going on
Species loss.. where ??.. Did you know species have always migrated.
There was a lot more sea life in the Arctic than now for most of the last 10,000 years, for example.. It is still too cold and with too much ice for many creatures that once lived there. Arctic still hasn’t “recovered” from the LIA.
World has been far warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years, and species, including humans, flourished..
“World has been far warmer than now for most of the last 10,000 years, and species, including humans, flourished..”
Yes, we know bnice … you say it in most threads.
“The world human population 10,000 years ago (approximately 8000 BC to 10000 BC) is generally estimated to have been between 1 million and 15 million people”
“The world human population 2,000 years ago (around 1 A.D./C.E.) is estimated to have been between 170 million and 300 million people”
“As of 2018–2022 data, over 1 billion people—approximately 15% of the total global population—lived within 10 kilometers (about 6.2 miles) of the sea. ”
Now we have a world population of near 8bn and humans of the last “10,000 years” would not have been bothered about it.
And now?
Those 1bn peeps on/near coastlines in multiple major cities
are not quite so easily placed to order a removal truck (sarc) and relocate.
Staggering false equivalence in a desaprate side-swerve to deny that there is an evident problem at hand.
Well the world is going there so we will get to find out .. so relax break out the popcorn and enjoy the show.
Why would you use a linear trend line on a phenomena that isn’t linear. Choosing 100 years out of millennia is the ultimate cherry pick.
Better yet a global average temperature is meaningless. Show us the locations that are near that mean with large Tmax and Tmin increases. An average should have large quantities of data points close to the mean. It shouldn’t be hard to find some locations to chart (and that are not affected by UHI). By the way, show us the location on the minus side of the mean also.
Linear trends are conventionally used in temperature time series precisely because temperatures are not linear; they have numerous short-term variations. Linear trends and values smooth these out over the long term.
This short-term rise above +1.5C is a perfect example. Long term, we are not quite at +1.5C yet.
Roy Spencer quotes the linear trend in his UAH data set every month here. Why not visit Roy’s site and ask him why he does this?
Of course they hide short term variations! On the other hand, that also removes the ability to ACCURATELY track the points where temp goes up and CO2 goes down or when temps go down when CO2 goes up. Those are just noise right?
Dr. Spencer doesn’t attempt to tie his temperature series to CO2 as a cause either. He has even attempted to show some warming is due to UHI.
Long term, 200, 500, or 1500 years, do you think that linear trend is going to continue? I hope not because the earth has never done that. What do you think may cause the trend to change its slope?
Funny how you alarmists are so quick to dump your failed predictions.
We have always been at war with East Asia.
I bellyfeel that comment. Doubleplusgood.
Funny how all you ‘skeptics’ think they are the only people who read Orwell.
It’s that like lefties who all they read is a steady diet of Karl Marx?
Never read Marx and not a ‘leftie’., so…. ?
So, just a religious zealot?
Agnostic.
Sorry it would be “mein Kampf” for you .. my bad.
How does it go:
You shall all stop emission now or it will be straight up against the wall and be shot now.
I don’t care whether emissions stop or not. I think it’ll be very interesting to see the consequences.
Just like watching the antics of Trump as he takes away the US’s democracy, while US citizens stand around seemingly impotent to stop him.
It’s like watching a slow-motion car crash and equally horrific and fascinating at the same time.
I’m with TFN, and not bothered. it’ll be very interesting to see the consequences.
Personally I just abhor hubris from ignorance and lies/
fake-facts which are both very much the modus operandi here and with Trump.
“Just like watching the antics of Trump as he takes away the US’s democracy”
If you believe that, well, that would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
It’s the people who set up “sanctuary” cities/states that are trying undermine democracy, circumventing longstanding federal law. Incidentally, we’re a representative republic, not a democracy.
We don’t use it as a guide though. !
You clearly haven’t read Orwell, or if you have, you’ré too dense to understand.
“Funny how you alarmists are so quick to dump your failed predictions.”
And just what are these “failed prdiections” (actually projections dependent on the course of fossil carbon burning emission?
That should have happened now?
Because, quite obviously, those projected for the future cannot be adjudged yet (all).
And I mean those from the IPCC and not from some random big-mouth scientist giving his personal opinion that the sensationalist press eagerly pounce on.
So, how do you think it can be recovered from? Net Zero? I’m presuming you personally have a zero carbon footprint, right? If not, why not? After all, you don’t want to contribute to such devastation, right?
IF CO2 were the control knob AND
“Carbon dioxide CO2 emitted into the atmosphere stays there for a long time, with a significant portion remaining for hundreds to thousands of years. While about 50% is absorbed by oceans and land within 30-200 years, roughly 20-30% can linger for thousands of years”
THEN how would a climate alarmist claim _any_ emissions reduction could lead to short-term temperature reduction?
(ie all temperature increases become “permanent” per human time scales)
It’s questions like this that force me to retract the benefit of the doubt from these professorial paper writers.
Far too logical Kevin. You’ll get into trouble with thinking like that.
If CO2 is the control knob, then never reducing CO2 in the atmosphere as currently measured accomplishes nothing.
This is the current result from 40 years of talking and legislating about it.
You’re ignoring ocean emissions of CO2.
Familiarise yourself with the law of partial pressure.
Oceans control the rate of growth of CO2 levels,
CO2 has zero effect on ocean temperatures.
Another one who is unaware that the natural carbon cycle’s concentration dominates the flow of sources to sinks.
You will not find that the increase of atmospheric CO2 follows SSTs because the natural carbon cycle greatly out ways anthro emissions.
and that is how the NCC works (for millenia excepting events like the PETM – when GHGs were spewed into the atmosphere).
However anthro GHGs (including CH4 etc) are outstripping the ability of the biosphere’s sinks to absorb and we are seeing a excess of 2-3ppm annual build up in the atmosphere.
You will not see that ~ 50% of anthro emissions lead SSTs on that graph, when there is 750 Gt of natural carbon driven by global temperature and 35-40 Gt driving global temp.
PS: I know this will just cause your usual response bnice, but hey, someone has to state some scientific facts here.
And not ignorantly post graphs that do not mean what you think they mean.
Nice to see you admit that “Anthro. Emissions are practically meaningless especially since the Natural Carbon Cycle is far more powerful (greatly outweighs).
Cool so all we need to do is make the ocean bigger and you told us we are melting the ice and sea level is rising. So we got this, it’s like perpetual motion.
I’ve reviewed partial pressures and ended at the thought I started with. What does it have to do with my “IF a AND b THEN c”? bn2k replied with a chart of c02 etc, but that doesn’t address the point either.
if the air has “too much” co2 (not saying it does) and if there’s no foreseeable way to eliminate it (not saying there isn’t) then the air would have “too much” co2 for a long time.
Partial pressures can be used to guess at an equilibrium (b2k chart) but the ocean vs air percentages should change according to a fairly stable pattern after however long you think Earth has been here.
(thinking you might be suggesting a setup for a positive-feedback runaway heat-co2 loop, but N years of history says it isn’t there. You didn’t say it, but if that was the argument, it fails logic tests)
If you understood anything about Physical Chemistry you would immediately see the absurdity in this statement;
“Carbon dioxide CO2 emitted into the atmosphere stays there for a long time, with a significant portion remaining for hundreds to thousands of years. While about 50% is absorbed by oceans and land within 30-200 years, roughly 20-30% can linger for thousands of years”
“THEN how would a climate alarmist claim _any_ emissions reduction could lead to short-term temperature reduction?”
Because…
It can lead to short-term temperature stabilization or reduced warming rates because atmospheric CO2 concentration acts as a direct amplifier of the greenhouse effect. While long-term, deep cuts are needed to reverse warming, slowing emissions reduces the immediate rate of heat trapping, preventing further rapid increases.
Or maybe James Hansen got his pet model disproven, along with all his predictions since 1989?
Most Millenarian preachers eventually admit they were wrong on naming a date, and sit down and shut up.
Climate hysterics just push the date out to some irrelevant point in the future.
Yeah, like 2045.
I thought the next doomsday was going to be 03:14:07 UTC on 19 January 2038.
2545?
😉
Look at that. We crossed the apocalyptic1.5°C line and…
Guam is still upright
Rain sill falls
Sun still shines in the day time
Clouds still form
Plants still grow
Oasification is still happening
Speed of Ocean level rise still hasn’t increased
Tornadoes haven’t increased
Hurricanes haven’t increased
And Guam is still upright.
Crisis cancelled.
Greta, you out there anywhere?
I know you’re out there somewhere.
https://youtu.be/a97d5bUCFVQ?si=vfoAT7CVH7s9e7Gx
“Sun still shines in the day time”
This was true in Arizona… not so much in the Pacific NW.
The sun is shining in the Pacific NW – you just can’t see it through the rain clouds.
I think you mean,
The sun is still shining in the Pacific NW – you just can’t see it through the Localized Albedo Increase
Do you really believe all that should have happened by now (or at least be seeable)?
Again, we don’t live in the fictional world of “The Day After Tomorrow”.
And I can presume you are being facetious?
(the kind interpretation)
Otherwise please provide an IPCC ref that verifies your belief that those things should be evident now.
I wouldn’t reference the IPCC for anything.
IPCC…I Prefer Communist China
Look at Solecki, he uses FF every minute of every day of his life, and wants to rule over the little people, those who should live in mud huts so that he can use even more FF.
“The impact on climate scientists of blowing up their 1.5C limit was just as devastating as the impact of the eruption on Hunga Tonga. I mean, here they were building up to a carefully orchestrated 1.5C climate disaster, then nature goes and spoils everything by shoving the world past their doomsday limit before they were ready.
The distinct lack of any noticeable doom hasn’t helped matters.
Now climate scientists seem to be flailing about, trying to figure out how to put their climate doomsday campaign back on track”.
So then, it seems that Mr Worrell was expecting some sort of “Day after Tomorrow” scenario where a “noticeable doom” should have happened over this last 3 years?
Will someone tell him that the real world isn’t a disaster movie where events that actually take centuries happen in weeks/a few years.
Ah so nothing to worry about for a few hundred years? Then we can all relax?
You can if you don’t care about those that will be around at that time.
I sure hope people 500 years in the future can withstand warm weather.
Polar bears on Norwegian islands fatter and healthier despite ice loss, scientists say
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2l1xpz03no
But there’s a downside
“While this is unexpected good news for these Arctic predators, the researchers think it is unlikely to last.”
So far enhanced CO2 has been an unmitigated good thing, and there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the belief that this will change at any time in the future.
It’s not my responsibility to plan the future for unborn generations. They will be perfectly able and willing to plan their own existence by themselves.
Unless of course, you feel superior in thinking than future generations will be. If that’s the case, then you also must explain why you think you can predict the future they will live in.
Am I my brothers keeper?
That’s a nail-on-the head comment.
They don’t care.
We just know it is TOTALLY BOGUS..
Base on absolutely nothing scientific or rational.
What we do care about is the MASSIVE DAMAGE BEING DONE TO ECONOMIES by the utterly stupid anti-CO2 agenda.
The economic cost to future generation is enormous.
The cost of the damage to stability of future electricity and energy supplies is incalculable.
I agree we don’t care because it’s a bit like being worried about a comet hitting Earth or Nuclear War or any of the other end of world stories … us caring about it won’t change anything.
For all your caring about it have you made one shred of difference?
Gullible fools like TFN have certainly made a huge difference to Western societies today by imposing ruinously destructive environmental policies.
“Worrying about a Comet hitting Earth”
That is something we can do nothing about.
(though I think there are attempts to put in place a process for possible interception in any case).
Whereas we can do something about the build up of GHGs.
No-one says you can’t do anything about all you need to do is spend the entire economy of the planet on the problem and I am sure we can solve it … same as net zero really.
No.
What we can do is responsibly move reducing our dependence on burning fossil fuels for energy with what we can afford.
It’s not all or nothing.
“We” and “Can” need definition here.
So far, “We’ are only leftists and 40 years of “can” has achieved absolutely nothing as far as stopping GHG increase is concerned.
So in other words, what you are saying is “This time socialism will work”.
Because that is really all that you have.
Same question to you…
Sooo, what do you plan to do about the asteroid that will impact off the east coast of the US in 2137 and drown Long Island and Manhattan washing inland as far as Lake Erie. Shirley there’s something you can do to Protect those future kiddies in the Blue State Zone!
Why should we, they won’t care about us.
Sooo, what do you plan to do about the asteroid that will impact off the east coast of the US in 2137 and drown Long Island and Manhattan washing inland as far as Lake Erie. Shirley there’s something you can do to Protect those future kiddies in the Blue State Zone!
I personally don’t plan to do anything, and as I said, there’s nothing anyone can do about it (at least until we see the “whites of its eyes”).
But think about those future generations… It’s nothing more than you are asking of us right now WRT CO2 and global temperatures.
Only children and religious zealots worry about fairy-tale prophecies. !
I think you mean only ideological bigots ignore the scientific facts with cognitive dissonance to preserve their world-view and stay in its comfort.
The sensible (thankfully the majority), when they come across evidence of coming problems act before it’s to late.
If it were the “Majority” as you intone then the solution is simple.
Since the Sensible “Majority” feel as you do then such that >50% of the populace would/should (by moral imperative) cease using anything and everything produced by the use of FF or Petrochemical derivatives. Start with Gasoline and Diesel fuel. Take your ICVs to the scrap yard and buy bicycles with steel rimmed wooden wheels. Rubber tires are a petrochemical creation. Then, like a prostitute, pedal your a$$ everywhere. (No EVs as they have lightweight plastic parts dependent on petrochemicals too, And synthetic Rubber tires, and plastic insulated wiring, and electronic components whose silicon was produced using Coal, and…). You can also toss your cell phone, ipad, laptop, PC etc as they too needed Oil and Gas extraction and refinement. Also, don’t buy anything in the grocery store packaged in single use plastic containers (almost everything is though)
The gasoline alone, consider if 50% of people stopped using gasoline tomorrow there’d be no affordably recoverable oil anywhere as the price of gas would fall to the point that trying to produce more would drive any company to insolvency.
But your ilk is more “OK for me but not for thee”.
The only problem is in trying to solve one problem you are making another … law of unintended consequences.
That is why the whole net-zero story is failing because it has become obvious to people it will create an economic collapse and that is worse and far faster.
There are NO scientific facts in the entire alarmist narrative, only worthless computer models and speculative handwaving.
There are multiple corroborative scientific facts.
And causative science drawn from clever peeps and tech, stretching back more than 150 yrs.
Not that I expect you to know about them, as this place is an echo-chamber intent on ignoring any, gathering here to kiss and hug yourselves lest you all suffer cognitive implosion.
All the time thinking you know better and underthe erroneous impression that this place matters.
I know I should spend my time more fruitfully, but it’s useful for me in revisiting and refreshing my knowledge.
And fills in time on a rainy day.
You mean like fictional movies such as “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth”? But, but, but their fantasy narratives are what sell people on the idea of climate doom. When you tell them the truth, that climate change is very gradual and mostly beneficial they stop worrying and all is lost. /sarc
That is EXACTLY what the climate doomsayers have been saying for 50 years.
Precisely. Arguing with Anthony Bunter and TFN is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
And so they should, if they have evidence that it might.
Actually for around 150 years if you go back to Arrhenius – in the sense that he discovered the warming effect of CO2’s excess beyond the natural carbon cycle.
And if you want to imply that it’s wrong because nothing’s happened yet, that’s likely to be because nothing’s expected to have happened yet.
In 1906, Arrhenius reviewed his earlier work, acknowledged his errors and concluded that any additional SLIGHT warming that MIGHT come from CO2 would be ‘benign and beneficial’.
“we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
None of you alarmists quote this later work. Funny, that.
Nothing is expected to happen yet, can we get a date on when something exciting is going to happen?
You know the sun will burn out in about 5 Billion years is it going to be before that?
We are probably going to get splattered by an asteroid long before that we are well overdue .. so will it be before that?
My reading of mankind’s history tells me that something else will likely be far more challenging than 2 degC of warming in the next couple of centuries.
Funny how they all disavow their alarmism each time the disaster they predicted fails to arrive on time.
FIFY
You seem not to realise just how stupid this makes you look.
No I do thanks.
It is a measure of success in this ideologically motivated cognitive dissonce raging forum.
And will always be thus.
I look for the -ve reds as a success.
Me and the likes of TFN (+ a few others) are happily accepting of you seeing us as fools.
Because we of course reverse that into you are the fools.
All we do is recount the consensus science – and so what you are saying is that the world’s experts are fools.
Now in a sensible world it should be obvious that they are not.
Ergo you are the “Fools”
You’re welcome
The words “consensus science” constitute a contradiction in terms.
No, there will always be contrarians and bad-actors in anything and climate science is no exception.
That is human nature.
And there will be contradictions there, plus new findings being brought forward all the time.
Hence we have consensus science
They will claim that the delay means it will be even worse than it would have been, when it does tip.
The are currently lost and confused by the current Arctic freeze.
They are neither lost nor confused.
It’s part of the game and the narrative and follows 2 rules
1 ) Exaggerate whenever you can every anomaly and use it as proof and/or to generate fear
BUT
2)You must not, under no circumstances do so with the endgame.
The endgame is the the evil twin brother of communist utopia.
Communist utopia is the HOPE – it will never be reached but always kept alive.
The tipping point operates from the opposite side.
It is fantastic to generate fear but must not be reached, as reaching the irreversible tipping point means also the end of the narrative, the end of hope.No hope = no reason to pay co2 taxes.
People are not willing to pay protection money, when there is nothing left to protect/save.
They will only buy food as long as they believe that Schroedingers cat is alive.
The fictional tipping point was originally 2C. They changed it to 1.5C when the pause happened because that trend wasn’t going to produce 2C this century.
Amazing they can get anyone to believe this nonsense. The Holocene Thermal Optimum was an average of 2C warmer than today for 4,000 years and gave rise to human civilizations world wide without modern technologies. We are still in a long term cooling trend from then.
The other reason the alarmists changed from 2C to 1.5C a few years back was that the observational energy budget method of estimating ECS was producing about 1.7C, which meant 2C would never be reached. 2C was a ‘safe’ tipping point alarm back when the IPCC models said ECS was 3.
So they picked 1.5C<1.7C
I think it was also related to the Potsdam Institute running Nordhaus’s DICE model with various tweaks to get 1.5 degrees C as the point where the cost of warming exceeds the cost of reducing CO2 emissions.
Nordhaus had it at around 3.5 degrees, and a number of earlier economic modelling showed warming of up to 2 degrees would be net positive.
The tipping points seemed to be at around 5 degrees C. Were they revised down at some stage?
No .
“The 1.5°C limit was incorporated into the 2015 Paris Agreement largely due to the intense pressure and advocacy of the most vulnerable nations, such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), who famously framed the goal as “1.5 to stay alive”.
Mr. Banton: Hard to believe you guys are failing at that 1.5 deg. thing, with such a kicky slogan!! Did it come with a jingle? You CliSci guys forgot the jingle??!!
Explains alot.
The other thing to remember that although it was 2C higher on average, I would bet the variance had 100-year periods much warmer than that.
“I would bet the variance had 100-year periods much warmer than that.”
You would win that bet! Regional proxies which have better resolution show that many areas of the planet had temperatures 8C warmer than today for centuries.
Posted by idbodbi on
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/01/27/trumps-withdrawal-from-collapsing-climate-narrative/
CLIMATE SCIENCE –
FALLING APART AS WE WATCH!
The Verdict: Climate Science isn’t falling apart because the climate isn’t changing; it’s falling apart because the simplistic CO2 model cannot survive the complexity of a multi-planetary, non-linear, and chaotic Earth system. The “scramble” is the final stage of a failed paradigm trying to justify its existence to a public that is currently freezing in the dark.
Google Gemini Tells All
https://gemini.google.com/share/0468c328750a
From where did the graph originate?
Neither NASA’s nor NOAA’s yearly claims match the graph, IF we are to consider their yearly postings as having any validity.
As just one example, the “claimed” GMT has dropped in each of the last three years. This is not shown on the graph.
As another example, according to NOAA, the mid to late 90s were much warmer than anything in the 2000s.
What gives?
From the cited article:
Average global temperature compared to the preindustrial average. Source: Copernicus Climate Change Service. YALE ENVIRONMENT 360 / MADE WITH FLOURISH
“From where did the graph originate?”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/1.5-degrees-tipping-points
“As just one example, the “claimed” GMT has dropped in each of the last three years. This is not shown on the graph.”
No, 2024 was the warmest and 2023 and 2025 was more or less a tie.
Which is what the graph shows.
El Nino events do that.
They give a nice little peak, which excites the climate worriers into little orgasms.
“El Nino events do that.”
Did I say it didn’t?
That terribly HOT 2024 ??
The highest temperature in Kansas for the year was 14 F BELOW the 1936 record .
Where is my GLOBAL warming ?
😉
Sweet Ol’
The clue is in your second to last word there …. “GLOBAL”
And not local.
You are aware that NV exists, in the climate system?
And 38 of 50 state high temperature records were in the 1950 s or earlier .
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/scec/records
as were many others worldwide .
Your donkey is lame …
😉
Interestingly, the Valentia Island met station in SW Ireland (a pristine site devoid of UHI) also shows the 1930’s as hotter than today.
As I have said elsewhere to bnice. Valentia is pristine from UHI (as are most sites globally and 70% are ocean readings anyway).
Problem is you have replaced UHI with OCC (my term for ocean cooling contamination).
Whereby a false impression of land-based heating is masked by proximity to ocean/lake/water.
Anywhere that is in receipt of onshore winds will be affected and Valentia is a fine example.
Its prevailing winds are SW’ly, meaning for the bulk of the time the temp of the air blowing through the stevenson screen holds the temp of the SST just beyond the beach + a little extra due the v short and track to the screen.
As I have said elsewhere to bnice. Valentia is pristine from UHI (as are most sites globally and 70% are ocean readings anyway).
That’s odd. The usual data sets shows SST is increasing, albeit at a lower rate than land.
Two things re required.
One, that the sun provides all the energy in the system. CO2 provides no energy whatsoever over and above what the sun supplies.
Two, that CO2’s effect on heating is logarithmic. That means that as CO2 concentration increases, the effect on temperature is reduced. Why? Because there is only so much of the sun’s energy that is reemitted by the earth that is at CO2’s absorption frequency. It is basically a fixed amount. At some point, all the fixed mount of energy emitted by the earth will have been intercepted regardless of anymore CO2.
These two precepts must be constantly and consistently pushed in order for people to question how CO2 can drive the ever growing linear trends of increasing temperatures.
“One, that the sun provides all the energy in the system. CO2 provides no energy whatsoever over and above what the sun supplies.”
Correct it doesn’t.
However neither does your winter coat , but it keeps you warmer than without it.
What does it do then?
Insulate, by slowing body heat from from escaping more easily to the surrounding air
So does any GHG in the atmosphere by dint of slowing terrestrial LWIRs escape to space.
Thing is Jim, you are a long term denizens here and you (ought to) absolutely know this.
It is after all the only other option in warming an object (via slowing heat escape).
Why is it so hard for it to take residence in your brain?
And I’m not about to enter one of your usual rabbit-holes if that overwhelming logic still raises your cognitive dissonance.
Wow, on the mantra regurgitation today..
Too bad its all nonsense.
CO2 does not slow escaping energy, it absorbs it and passes it on.
The atmosphere acts to COOL the surface when the surface gets warm.
The “blanket” analogy is so naïve, that only a mindless zealot could continue to use it.
“Too bad its all nonsense.”
I should keep on saying that evidence free sound-bite nice.
It will obviously come to be if you do it often enough.
Write a paper indeed with hundreds of lines of it (sarc)
I’m sure those here would peer-review it positively (well maybe not all).
“CO2 does not slow escaping energy, it absorbs it and passes it on.”
Thing is nice, it’s not like tipping a row of dominoes.
Not like passing the parcel.
It is passed on back down as well as sideways and up.
However those above are colder.
Now you do know of the SB relation?
That a colder object emits more weakly?
And so terrestrial LWIR is indeed slowed exiting to space.
Do you know if climate models are written with 50% CO2 emitted LWIR being re-emitted back to Earth or with 49% being re-emitted back?
Talk about cognitive dissonance!!
And that affliction seems to enable you to completely ignore CO2’s logarithmic impact, that impact making it progressively . . . irrelevant.
That you appear to refuse to accept this reality – indeed, you don’t even mention it!! – surely this demonstrates . . . your own bloody cognitive dissonance!!
Or is there no cognitive dissonance because you don’t want to know and you’ve got your fingers in your ears while screeching I’m right I’m right I’m right . . . like a bloody child?!!
Doesn’t your winter coat also stop air circulation so energy is extremely localised?
The CO2 you claim is akin to a ‘winter coat’ is in an open environment so the analogy fails
He is once again using the cheap -ass climate trick, to ignore
the difference between gas and solid stuff.
Just as with the greenhouse it is not the co2 that keeps things warm,
but the solid “cage” that separates the object from the environment.
That is too difficult for some climate worriers to comprehend.
They don’t understand the difference between air movement and radiation.
“That is too difficult for some climate worriers to comprehend.”
So only getting your info from here (and of course ignoring our pointers to what the science says) merits you being more able to “comprehend”?
Which is only what career scientists comprehend.
You really couldn’t make it up.
FFS
And even more! …
“They don’t understand the difference between air movement and radiation.”
Yes indeed nice — this retired professional meteorologist has no idea how convection and radiation works (sarc).
That’s only the founding physics of meteorology.
FFS again
“Doesn’t your winter coat also stop air circulation so energy is extremely localised?
The CO2 you claim is akin to a ‘winter coat’ is in an open environment so the analogy fails”.
Of course it does it is not an “open environment”.
it’s a closed sysem for convection which stops at the tropopause.
Thus the energy in the atmosphere can only escape to space as radiation.
Terrestrial LWIR.
Insulation can involve any/all of the 3 modes of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiation.
However the Earth is closed to conduction and convection into space.
Only by it emitting LWIR does it lose energy;
So give up with the false analogy of “stopping air ciculation”, eh.
Thus the analogy is sound.
“That is too difficult for some climate worriers to comprehend.”
So only getting your info from here (and of course ignoring our pointers to what the science says) merits you being more able to “comprehend”?
Which is only what career scientists comprehend.
You really couldn’t make it up.
FFS
Correct. There is zéro analogy between a coat (which impedes heat loss by preventing convection) and CO2 (which absorbs and reradiates IR).
Mr. Banton: Gee, your winter coat analogy is so persuasive! Until one imagines a coat as thin as 4 parts per ten thousand (if I’m off a decimal, feel free to correct me). Which is SOOOOO much more insulation than 3.5 parts per ten thou.
Is there anything funnier than a CliSci trying to make an analogy?
The SO2 from Mount Tambora caused the year without a summer in 1816. The amount…0.0001 parts per ten thousand.
That blocked INCOMING energy.
CO2 does not block outgoing energy.
What is the saying about something burns.
It took me about 10 years to work through Planck’s treatise on Heat Radiation. One really needs to know trig identities and calculus rules to get the gist of what is summarized in his treatise. People forget that he derived the math behind quanta (photons). He didn’t extend others work on the subject, quanta are purely his invention. I’ve had some folks pooh pooh his work because it is old and doesn’t deal with quantum effects. They don’t realize that Planck wasn’t concerned with molecular and atomic effects from heat. He only dealt with volumes that were large enough that those effects could be ignored with radiative heat.
Really, check out this data!
https://seos-project.eu/earthspectra/earthspectra-c03-p06.html
SO2 forms aerosols. CO2 does not.
The point is that small quantities can have large impacts.I used Mount Tambora’s SO2 as an example here because 1) it was a very small amount relative to anthropogenic CO2, 2) had a very large impact, and 3) is generally accepted by even the most hardened contrarians. paul courtney’s insinuation that small things cannot have large impacts is thus an argument from incredulity.
Mr. x: So you agree with the winter coat analogy? Please explain it to me, Mr. Banton appears to be unwilling to defend it.
Of course I agree with it. I agree because I accept the 1LOT which states that ΔE = Ein – Eout. When you put a coat on ΔEout < 0 which obviously means that E is higher than it would be otherwise. And since ΔT = ΔE/(m*c) it follows that T is higher than it would be otherwise. It’s the same concept with CO2. The analogy isn’t equating the mechanism by which Eout changes. It is equating the direction why by which it changes.
BTW…if the more contemporary applicable form of the 1LOT I presented above is offensive to you then understand it works exactly the same way using the more traditional ΔU = Q – W and Q = mcΔT forms.
BTW #2…No, I did not forget about latent heat. We can also include Q = mL into the analysis if want to get pedantic.
Another analogy I often use is that of a kitchen oven. If you set your oven to high (so that it doesn’t cycle) and open door it will achieve a steady-state temperature To. If you then close the door and allow a new steady-state you will observe temperature Tc such that Tc > To. This happens because the oven door reconfigures the system such that ΔEout < 0 while ΔEin = 0 thus causing ΔE > 0 which is consistent with the 1LOT. It is also consistent with the 2LOT since the flow of heat is still from the burner (hot) to the door (warm) to the outside (cool).
Now there are people here that vehemently reject this result so I encourage you to do the experiment and prove it out for yourself.
The salient point…similar to the door on an oven or a coat on a person resulting in a higher inside and body temperature respectively than would happen otherwise the layer of CO2 in the atmosphere also causes the climate system to achieve a higher temperature than it would otherwise because of the constraint the 1LOT places on those systems specifically in regard to the Eout term.
Mr. x: An oven door of 4 parts per ten thou will stop E from getting out in theory and you can even construct some math, but the heat “stopped” by that oven door would be too small to measure. To you folks, that seems to be a feature.
The irony is that even cheap NDIRs available on Amazon can tell the difference between concentration levels in parts per ten thousand of CO2 based on how much attenuation of the IR energy by the gas is sensed as it traverses the cuvette from the lamp to the thermopile. So you’ll have to forgive my skepticism of your argument by incredulity.
Mr. x: If by “argument by incredulity”, you mean I like to point out when you don’t pass the laugh test, then you can put your phrase dictionary away. But you have come up with the perfect experiment! Go to your hot oven with one of your cheap NDIRs that you think is reliable to .0001, a CO2 meter, and a can of CO2. Open the door and spray the CO2 and tell us your measurements. Surprised you bright lights didn’t think of it, wouldn’t it be great to show us all?
The laugh test, overcoat and oven doors……resolved.
I mean arguments in which a proposition is said to be true or false because the person making the case personally finds it incomprehensibly difficult to believe or understand effectively substituting this belief for actual evidence.
Just because you don’t understand how closing the door to a running over can cause the inside to get warmer than it would be otherwise doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Just because you don’t understand how miniscule amounts of CO2 can block enough IR radiation from pass through a cuvette that it can be detectable doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
Mr. x: Just because you don’t understand the difference between SO2 and CO2, or between cooling and warming, doesn’t mean that CO2 will keep your oven warm. Or did you try my experiment?
So here, I disagree with what you say and I suddenly don’t understand what an oven door does, huh? Nice try, but you are the one with analogies that don’t pass laugh tests, comparing oven doors with thin air.
No. I don’t even know how you could reasonably do this with a household kitchen oven.
I’m curious though…what do you think this is going to show? How do you think it is going to 1) falsify the 1LOT or 2) falsify the hypothesis that a coat, door, and CO2 in the atmosphere perturb the egress of energy out of a system such that the internal energy is higher than it would be otherwise?
You’re the one challenging the result and its similarity with a coat and CO2 in the atmosphere causing ΔEout < 0 and thus ΔE > 0. The analogy isn’t with how a coat, door, and CO2 in the atmosphere impede the egress of energy. The analogy is that they all do it. And they all do it without violating either the 1LOT or 2LOT as many people claim.
I’m explaining the 1LOT and how it relates to the cases of the oven, coat, and CO2 in the atmosphere. You say it doesn’t “pass laugh tests”. Be specific. What do you think is wrong exactly? Is my formula for the 1LOT wrong? Is my math wrong? Does a winter not reduce Eout as I claim? Does an oven door not reduce Eout as I claim? Does the atmosphere not reduce Eout as is widely accepted?
Tell me exactly what is wrong with what I said. I’m not interested in hearing about what is wrong with the strawmen you create. Like I tell everyone…I’m not going to defend your arguments especially if they are absurd. So make sure you are addressing something that is actually being said.
Mr. x: You’re wrong to compare solid substance to thin air. It’s not an argument that “I don’t believe it”, it’s that no oven door or coat is as thin as CO2 in the air, where it’s effect is overwhelmed by other factors like humidity. I thought you were a weather guy, how does humidity factor into your analogies?
These analogies are self-evidently absurd, and your attempts at math only serve to obscure that they are not comparable. How does humidity matter under your coat? It does though, doesn’t it?
You say CO2 is thin, but it’s actually really thick. Here are some facts that should help illustrate this.
The cross sectional density of liquid H2O in the atmosphere required to reduce visibility to a few meters is on the order of 0.1 kg.m-2.
The cross sectional density of smoke particles in the atmosphere required to reduce visibility to a few meters is on the order of 0.001 kg.m-2.
The cross sectional density of CO2 in the atmosphere required to block all 15 um “light” originating at the surface from reaching space is only 0.02 kg.m-2. The actual amount of CO2…6.8 kg.m-2.
CO2 in the atmosphere is actually optically thick. It is so thick, in fact, that it is 2 orders of magnitude thicker than is required to block all 15 um light. And based on the figures for WV and smoke you can see how little is required to completely “fog” out visible light. The salient point…small amounts can have a huge effect.
Indeed. I’m definitely more a weather guy than a climate guy for sure. Anyway it is the same for H2O both in gaseous and liquid forms and both for infrared and visible wavelengths of light.
For example, you can see how dramatically H2O traps energy by looking at the GOES-16 satellite images. Look at channel 10 (low level WV). Find areas with a homogenous surface temperature, but with a shortwave trough moving though. On the leading edge of the trough WV will accumulate blocking the surface UWIR from reaching the satellite. You can see this clearly over the Gulf of Mexico this morning.
Mr. x: In the midwest USA, one doesn’t need your GOES images to know what humidity can do. But it strikes me that you, once again, identify an instrument that can show H2O effect, but you don’t tell us where this same tech is used to show the same alleged effect of the thick, thick CO2 in the atmosphere. In fact, nobody in CliSci is attempting to use any instrument to show us proof of your theory, even though you tell us those instruments are out there.
The CO2 is not the thick substance here.
Sorry I missed this on the first swing, but your comment here blows fog, then smoke, compared to gas only Greta can see. No comparison too far out there for you folks!
Well, I did mention that CO2 NDIRs detect how much energy is attenuated within the cuvette. But on a planetary scale we have AIRS, IASI, CrIS, GOSAT, etc. that have radiometers observing near the 15 um band. And, of course, GOES-16 observes the far left wing of the primary 667 cm-1 bending mode at 13.3 um from channel 16 (the so called “CO2 channel”) which you can see at the link I posted. Meteorologists exploit the GHG effect of CO2 observed by satellites on a daily basis to help forecast the weather.
“In fact, nobody in CliSci is attempting to use any instrument to show us proof of your theory, even though you tell us those instruments are out there.”
That’s because it cannot be done in a lab….
We would need:
A tube the length of the depth of the atmosphere (say 6mls) with surface pressure at one end and the other at the tropopause pressure (say 250mb).
(and that’s still not including the stratosphere)
Do that and you’ve cracked it !!
See the Beer-Lambert relation ….
“Formally, it states that the intensity of radiation decays exponentially in the absorbance of the medium, and that said absorbance is proportional to the length of beam passing through the medium, the concentration of interacting matter along that path, and a constant representing said matter’s propensity to interact.”
“You say CO2 is thin, but it’s actually really thick.”
This is a visual demonstration of ppm concentrations ….
Not the first time I have see someone try to liken an oven door to the atmosphere.
It was incredibly stupid then.. and it is incredibly stupid now.
But we expect nothing else.
It is like the atmosphere because in both case they configure the system such that the outgoing flux on the cool side of the boundary is less than the outgoing flux on the warm side.
Want to prove this curmudgeonly skeptic wrong? Simple…show me that the UWIR at TOA is equal to or greater than the UWIR at the surface.
I have multiple times in this thread.
Like the poopooing of the word greenhouse, just because it involves a different form of heat transfer/retention does not invalidate it.
Coats insulate humans and CO2/H2O/any GHG has an insulating effect within our atmosphere.
That you don’t believe in the GHE is your problem and not mine or climate science’s.
Roy Spencer and our host here belive it. They may be “lukewarmers” but they concur that there is such a thing as the GHE.
That being the case, then they agree that there is an insulating effect at work.
For the hard of comprehension “insulate effect” as in slowing the release of energy via LWIR to space..
Mr. Banton: I comprehend OK. Does wool have an insulate [sic-insulative] effect? Can’t deny it, can you? So take 4 wool fibers, spread ’em across your body, and voila- insulative effect! Too small to detect, but your “insulate effect” is a fine little truism.
Are you gonna try the oven door experiment above, or tried it with a coat? Mr. x can get you the sensors. Boy would that stick me good!
A coat insulates.
CO2 has an insulating *effect* within the atmosphere (just as H2O does).
One does it via reducing convection and radiation.
The other by movement of LWIR.
Ergo the analogy.
Mr. Banton: One is dense, and the other is thin air.
Can you guess the dense one?
There is little difference between the thermal conductivity of air and CO2. Air is about .024 w/(m K) and CO2 is about .015 w/(m K).
You seemed to pass right over part about there being a limited amount of energy for CO2 to intercept.
Jim has been a long term denizen here and knows of what he speaks. You could learn from him.
Except that Anthony is correct. GHGases also include WV, and the GHE includes that cloud bottoms are much warmer than outer space when the surface radiates through the atmospheric window…and one can make a case for CO2 being part of the source of photons that keeps the surface at 288 K instead of 255 K (approximately). So various responders to Anthony have faulty physics thoughts running through their minds.
The difference between 288K and 255K is an artifact from incorrectly analyzing the amount of insolation absorbed by the earth. It is based on averages and a flat earth.
Assume a spherical earth, the sun moves around the equator, and a plane wave of 1370 w/m^2. Do the trig and integrals to see how much the earth receives over 12 hours. What is the average temperature? I’ll bet it is closer to 300K.
Then make up and exponential function that approximates 12 hours of cooling. See what you get for an average of the function.
You and your brother’s trig and integrals on spherical geometry of the incoming solar radiation is grossly incorrect. The Earth does NOT receive 552 W.m-2 as you claim.
As I’ve already explained and proven mathematically S/4 is spherical geometry. Your hubris on this matter almost defies credulity.
Yet none of it is linked to the differential warming over the surface due to trigonometry and rotation
You can’t just use 1/4 the energy.
Climate science does treat the surface as a flat surface..
All their silly diagrams use totally unrealistic, totally meaningless, non-rotational 2D flux diagrams based on a flat Earth.
After quartering the sun and making the earth flat, they proceed to transform solar radiation into exactly two wavelengths—”long” and “short”.
We are then told this is “scientific”.
“You can’t just use 1/4 the energy.”
Yes you can because.. …..
Solar SW only shines on half of the globe at any one time.
That being one half of the total area (4πr^2)/2 = 2πr^2
But that energy is spread across the whole spherical area of 4πr^2 in 24 hrs.
Therefore the total solar energy received by the Earth in 24 hrs is
2πr^2/2 =πr^2
Voila = the area of a circle.
And we have done 2 halvings = 1/4
This what Jim says (re bdgx’s link) ….
“My first comment is that if the average flux at every point on earth is S / 4, then how does one explain the tropics and the poles being at vastly different temperatures?”
So refuting the 1/4.
Then he somehow goes down a rabbit-hole and gets lost in his trig.
There is no need to do that, as it is intuitively obvious (a problem he has it seems in not seeing the wood for the trees in all his analyses)
The answer to his question here is because they don’t receive the same insolation and both poles are covered in ice anyway with an albedo of 50% to 85%
In this I surmise he thinks that because we end up with the area of a circle then somehow the sun must be orthogonal at the poles and over all the “circle”.
Err, no.
It is still a sphere.
It is indeed.
Almost as gob-smacking as arguing that the Earth is flat.
Yet that is exactly what climate science uses… A flat disc facing the sun.
What math mistake did I make here that is causing my computation of the average solar flux of S/4 to be for a flat surface as opposed to a spherical surface?
BTW…the Gormans think S/4 is for flat geometry while S/2.46 is for spherical geometry. Make that make sense.
Oh, and thanks for showing that basically nowhere receives 1/4 of the Sun’s energy..
As soon as you average and use 1/4 of the Sun’s energy , you are using a flat disc calculation of the effect of that energy.
This statement is patently false. Given S of 1360 W.m-2 at 1 AU the math says…
…a flat body receives S.
…a spherical body receives S/4.
And as soon as you use that average , you are assuming a flat disc.
You are treating it as though all that surface receives the same..
Which, as you have just shown , it doesn’t.
You just calculated the average insolation as if it is divided over the whole earth. It is not.
Every point on the earth sees a sine wave from sunrise to sunset, every point. There is no insolation after sunset, ever.
For a point directly under the sun, at sunrise the insolation is zero, it follows an increasing sine function to the peak, and then follows a decreasing sine function to zero at sunset. IT IS NOT AVERAGED OVER THE WHOLE AREA OF THE EARTH.
Let’s look at “S•cos(Φ)” from 0 to π/2. That only covers 1/2 of a side. It needs to be doubled just to cover a whole side.
Now, how about the area part. Your equation shows, “2πr²•sin(Φ) dΦ”. Using what show under the globe (A = πr²) this turns into “2•πr²”. In other words two flat plates.
A plane EM wave means every point has the same intensity value. When the earth encounters a plane wave every point on it is subjected to to that intensity.
The difference between points is in what is absorbed which varies by cos(Φ). So at any instant, 1/2 of the surface area of the earth is subjected to the sun’s insolation.
“You just calculated the average insolation as if it is divided over the whole earth. It is not.”
Incredible!
Of course it is – we are working out the insolation that impinges the Earth during one rotation.
One day.
But as the sun is not overhead all points on the Earth (a sphere)
we have to work that out by relating said insolation to an orthagonal at all points on the globe.
And lo and behold that’s a circle, as one flat disk is the orthogonal to the surface throughout the 24 hrs.
That has integrated the orthagonal without resorting to trig and in your case getting the wrong answer.
This is from Wiki (just as an example) …
“This means that the approximately circular disc of the Earth, as viewed from the Sun, receives a roughly stable 1361 W/m2 at all times. The area of this circular disc is πr2, in which r is the radius of the Earth.
Because the Earth is approximately spherical, it has total area 4πr2 meaning that the solar radiation arriving at the top of the atmosphere,averaged over the entire surface of the Earth, is simply divided by four to get
340 W/m2. In other words, averaged over the year and the day, the Earth’s atmosphere receives 340 W/m2 from the Sun. This figure is important in radiative forcing.”
So I suggest you go there and make your amendment to it becasue I refuse to be suffocated in your rabbit-hole.
You are arguing against the whole of academia here and if you have the hubris to do that then I or anyone else will fail to crack your carapice of Dunning-Kruger.
You are the one that is incorrect. Look closely at this page from a textbook that is available online here. https://collection.bccampus.ca/textbook/TtPJNW8X/
Practical Meteorology: An Algebra-based Survey of Atmospheric Science. Version 1.02b
Look closely at the value striking the surface at a 30° angle. It is 1361, the same as what strikes the earth at 90°. Why is that? It is because the EM wave that strikes the earth is a “plane wave”. A plane wave has the same intensity at every point. You can divide the intensity by 10⁹ nm² and every nm² will have a similar value.
Try doing this for a point at 90°, i.e.,zenith on the equator. Do it for every 10° of latitude from 0 to 90°, I.e., the north pole. See what you get for an average.
No. I’m not. The Earth receives 340 W.m-2; not 552 W.m-2. Don’t believe the math? Look at the CERES observations here. Select Solar Flux | Incoming Solar Flux and make sure Global mean is ticked and then click Visualize Data.
First…that has nothing to do with what we are discussing and in no way refutes the 340 W.m-2 value. Second…it doesn’t even show the 552 W.m-2 you claim.
“You seemed to pass right over part about there being a limited amount of energy for CO2 to intercept.”
No, there is all the LWIR around 15 microns to intercept, which is worked out and and calculated within Modtran.
Consult it.
Data shows that any tiny increase in absorption is channelled to nearby frequencies..
Why doesn’t co2 insulate on Mars then.
At 95% co2 and way higher concentrations it should insulate way better.
Maybe one day, we will get to the point to consider that the overall matter electromagnetic waves have to pass is the decisive factor.
It does insulate Mars. The most influential difference for Mars vs Earth is that its spectral radiance in the 14-16 um band is a lot lower thus there is less energy to trap. There are reasons that further reduce CO2’s effectiveness as well. Note that trap in this context is in reference to the 1LOT ΔE = Ein – Eout where ΔEout < 0 resulting in ΔE > 0. If you find the word trap here offensive or is otherwise a barrier for discussion feel free to use whatever term you feel comfortable with as long as you define it that same way mathematically..
CO2 does NOT TRAP ENERGY. !
“Why doesn’t co2 insulate on Mars then.”
Because its atmosphere is so thin.
It has a surface pressure of 0.6 to 1 mb.
Compared to Earth’s (average) 1013 mb
“Because its atmosphere is so thin.”
Yep, it is the ATMOSPHERE that regulates the Earths temperature.
CO2 is such a tiny part of it that it has no measurable effect whatsoever.
“Yep, it is the ATMOSPHERE that regulates the Earths temperature.
CO2 is such a tiny part of it that it has no measurable effect whatsoever.
It takes enough GHG absorbing molecules to intercept outgoing LWIR Mr nice.
Mars doesn’t cut it. Sorry.
Earth’s atmosphere is 1000 times denser and additionally the N2 and O2 molecules crowded next the CO2 molecules are warmed via collisions.
I know you wont becsue it’ll just be another thing to deny, but try watching this …
Does your winter coat ever get warmer than you? If it doesn’t, it can’t warm you. Granted it may cause a lesser gradient based on time, i.e., it may take longer for heat to escape, but escape it will.
Otherwise, your coat will become the hot body and warm you. Not likely, from a thermodynamic standpoint because it would mean that you would never have equilibrium. And, you will have just created a perpetual warming machine.
Look at this image.
See the brick, that is the lining in your coat. See the insulating layer, that is the wool in your coat. Do you see a gradient that is reversed making T1 warmer? I sure don’t. This is what you are talking about.
Here is a quote from Planck’s thesis on Heat Radiation.
You and most in climate science want to add the sun’s flux (Body Bi) and the flux from CO2 (Body B) and say that the total flux is what heats the earth. Until you figure out that radiation from a cooler body is not added to heat in the middle body, you will not have a grasp on how radiation works.
Oh, I do know how it works, you are the one with little knowledge. Look at this image.
See that big dip labeled “CO2”. At 220K that is about a -53°C. Do you think CO2 can get much colder? From the top of the curve, that is about an 80°C drop. Do you think it can get larger?
If you could remove more and more CO2, would that curve begin to move up, i.e. let more radiation go to space? If you could add more and more CO2, would that curve block more and more radiation, or would the incremental value become smaller and smaller?
Lastly, discuss what radiation saturation truly means. It doesn’t work like a sponge but the other way around.
You need to brush up on trigonometry and vector calculus and wade your way through Planck’s book that I show above. He has a more detailed and mathematical derivation of how heat radiation works than most thermodynamic textbooks. The textbooks just take for granted some of the derivations he developed.
See those temperature curves in the image above? Those are Planck curves derived in his work from 125 years ago. Can you derive them or do you just take them for granted like climate science does without knowing what they really tell you and what they don’t tell you.
“See that big dip labeled “CO2”. At 220K that is about a -53°C. Do you think CO2 can get much colder? From the top of the curve, that is about an 80°C drop. Do you think it can get larger?”
See below
“If you could remove more and more CO2, would that curve begin to move up, i.e. let more radiation go to space? If you could add more and more CO2, would that curve block more and more radiation, or would the incremental value become smaller and smaller?”
Yes.
“If you could add more and more CO2, would that curve block more and more radiation, or would the incremental value become smaller?
Yes.
“Lastly, discuss what radiation saturation truly means. It doesn’t work like a sponge but the other way around.”
I (by implication the world’s scientists) don’t say it does.
Yes 220k is around the level of the Tropopause, however co2 molecules build up throughout the entire atmospheric column where the Beer-Lambert relation is at play that acts to reduce emission from lower layers and force emission at higher colder layers. (See below)
Now to a process that takes place to allow “Do you think CO2 can get much colder?” To give an affirmative …….
You are aware of the effect that “pressure broadening” has on the emission of terrestrial LWIR?
You need to read this then …..
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii/
“Pressure broadening prevents radiation from being “trapped” by a single sharp frequency. Because lines are wider at lower altitudes, radiation emitted from the wings of these linescan pass through the thinner, sharper lines of the upper atmosphere and escape into space, helping regulate the planet’s temperature.
Thus at higher colder altitudes more LWIR can escape to space giving ample opportunity for increasing CO2 concentration in the lower layers whilst not saturating the emission of it.
“You need to brush up on trigonometry and vector calculus and wade your way through Planck’s book that I show above. He has a more detailed and mathematical derivation of how heat radiation works than most thermodynamic textbooks. The textbooks just take for granted some of the derivations he developed.
See those temperature curves in the image above? Those are Planck curves derived in his work from 125 years ago. Can you derive them or do you just take them for granted like climate science does without knowing what they really tell you and what they don’t tell you.
I thank you to not teach me to “suck eggs”.
You seem to believe that your interpretation of the science is correct and the scientists who developed it wrong.
That is majestic, towering Dunning-Kruger.
…..Just like that your assertion that the Earth intercepts 1/2 of the Sun’s radiation instead of 1/4
Why can’t you grok that a circular plate facing the Sun has the incident radiation orthogonal (overhead) and that a half sphere facing the sun increasingly doesn’t towards its rim?
How then can it absorb an equal amount of radiation as a flat circle?
Says he, fully expecting the usual Gorman rabbit-hole to open up here.
Pressure broadening of a gas molecule does not increase the area under the peak, meaning that the proportion of incoming IR absorbed at a particular wavelength decreases as the peak broadens.
Pressure broadening is an irrelevance.
Pressure broadening only compounds the issue of CO2 saturation. You refuse to admit that there is only so much radiation occurring. At some point CO2 will capture all the radiation there is at CO2’s small aperture and more CO2 will do nothing. There isn’t enough CO2 to change the mass of of the atmosphere and change any pressure.
I put my trust in actual physicists who have studied radiative physics. Happer and van Wijngaarden. See this.
https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-happer-radiative-transfer-paper-for-five-greenhouse-gases-explained/
You seem to believe that your interpretation of the science is correct and the scientists who developed it wrong.
You know, at least I show quotes from resources. You seldom do, instead you rely on your “prestige” to show how correct you are. ROTFLMAO!
A circular plate has an area of πr2. What do you think the surface area of 1/2 of a sphere is?
You really do need to understand what a “plane” EM wave is and what it’s intensity is at each point on the plane.
I’ll post this again and pose you a question.
See that sunlight yellow arrow?
What does the “E = S0 = 1361 W/m² at +30° mean to you?
What do you think the S0 value is for a sunlight ray at 90° to the earth?
How about the S0 value of a ray at +60°.
Does that give you an inkling about the intensity at each point on a plane EM wave?
I see you have failed to answer the questions I posed to you about what the value of insolation exposed to each square meter of surface on the earth is. Why is that? Is knowing the correct value not important to you?
I’ll repeat them here.
What does the “E = S0 = 1361 W/m² at +30° mean to you?
What do you think the S0 value is for a sunlight ray at 90° to the earth?
How about the S0 value of a ray at +60°.
Does that give you an inkling about the intensity at each point on a plane EM wave?
Now, you obviously believe the alarmist nonsense that CO2 ‘traps heat’ or ‘acts like a blanket’. Well, at this time of year it’s easy enough to test that claim with a simple, zero cost experiment. Fun for all the family! Firstly, turn off the heating in your bedroom and open the windows long enough to ensure that the temperature and CO2 level (~430 parts per million) matches outside air, 2-3 hours should do it. When it’s time for bed close the windows and door but leave the heating off. Take off all your clothes and lie on top of the bed. No cheating now, do NOT get under that duvet. Yes, you’ll be cold, but worry not! Your core temperature, assuming you’re human, is 37ºC, and your skin will be around 33ºC. If we were to point a FLIR camera at you, your image will be all shades of orange and red. Your extremities will be a bit cooler, so let’s assume your body averages an emission temperature of 30ºC, which is the equivalent of a asphalt road surface on an average summer’s day in the UK. Every breath you exhale is around 4% CO2 (or 40,000 ppm in ‘climate speak’) so you’ll soon raise the level in your bedroom. You will at least double the initial level in around an hour, so you will quickly experience the toasty warmth of your CO2 ‘blanket’! As each hour passes and CO2 level gets higher and higher, you will wonder why we EVER put heating in our houses in the first place! Think of all the money you’ll save from now on! Do let us know how you get on.
Mr. Shark: Excellent! Experiments in the desert have also been suggested, but our CAGW fans here prefer keyboard tapping to actually proving their theory.
Not my rabbit hole. Just simple thermodynamics where you have misanalyzed the process.
Here is a diagram from a tutorial on conduction.
Exactly where in the diagram is a gradient showing that T1 is warming. This is an exact analogy to your coat example. It shows hot warming cold all the way through. I don’t see any cold warming hot anywhere.
Show us an equivalent resource that has the information needed to prove your conjecture.
Until a concise definition of optimum climate, stated in measurable metrics, testable by anyone, is established, we cannot say if we are moving away from the optimum climate, moving towards the optimum climate or wiggling between the upper an lower bound of the optimum climate.
Was 1850 the optimum climate?
1850 was one of the coldest year in the 19th century and CO2 was at its lowest measured concentration.
Funny that 1850 was also the date of the first oil well in Pennsylvania.
“1850 was one of the coldest year in the 19th century and CO2 was at its lowest measured concentration.”
The Little Ice Age was the coldest period in the last 10,000 years. We are still 2C below the Holocene Thermal Optimum which would be a concise definition because it gave rise to human civilizations world wide.
Tree lines and other proxies show the HO was probably 4-5 degrees warmer than now,.
I doubt we even reached MWP temperatures at the max point of the 2023/4/5 El Nino event.
And it has cooled significantly since then.
Questions are, how much more cooling will we get, and when is the next major El Nino event likely to occur.
Regional proxies which have better resolution show that many areas of the planet had temperatures 8C warmer than today for centuries. The 2C figure was an average over 4,000 years.
The point is, that the 1.5C or 2C imaginary warming number doesn’t bring the planet anywhere near the Holocene Optimum…
… probably not even up to the MWP.
“The point is, that the 1.5C or 2C imaginary warming number doesn’t bring the planet anywhere near the Holocene Optimum…”
Yes, the point I was making!
The next El Niño is likely to occur at the end of this year, whether it will be ‘major’ we will see.
True.
But the start of the temperature graphs always is 1850 giver or take and the measurements are always relative to the “pre-industrial” age which seems to be defined as the beginning of the use of petroleum. Note: The trans-reality alarmists to not start their mythology when coal was first used for fuel (late 1700s).
Note: The trans-reality alarmists are trying to push the pre-industrial date back to the advent of steam engines in the late 1700s. Moving the goal posts as it were.
Should note that coal has been burned by humans for heat since circa 25,000 BCE.
Coal was used for industrial purposes (metal smelting and weapons manufacturing) since about 4000 BCE.
But this is all about Just Stop Oil. And there it is.
Reality is not Alarmist’s thing.
1850 is more correctly the end of the Little Ice Age, which began in the 1300’s with recorded glacial advancements that caused some towns in the European Alps to be abandoned. There are proxies that show similar glacial expansion in South America and Alaska, but sparse nomadic populations in those locations did not keep records.
So the use of the word “industrial” shows a bias to anthropogenic causes….whereas a mention of the LIA shows a bias to natural variation.
Coal is not the only source of CO2. Alarmists conveniently omit the burning of biomass before 1850.
There is no such thing as an optimum climate. As the many Koppens climate zones (for agriculture) show, the biosphere is well adapted for many different climates.
Malthusian eco zealots like to project their own fragility on to nature which is a relentless resilient force for maximizing biologic productivity for whatever conditions exist.
The biosphere has already adapted to use 4X the amount of CO2 than exists today, as demonstrated by C3 plants photosynthesis ability.
It was either evolution or divine intervention that caused that. Take your pick.
That fact alone should calm down any discussion of worry about passing an imaginary red line.
From https://e360.yale.edu as quoted in the above article:
“A three-year breach of 1.5 degrees does not mean we have broken the Paris limit, which is framed as a long-term average.”
That’s absolutely great news to hear! How about we wait for, oh, the next 100 or so years to make doggone sure we have evidence that we HAVE broken the “Paris limit”? /sarc
Of course, that assumes the IPCC and all AGM/CAGW alarmists going forward don’t choose to revise upward the “1.5 °C limit” (actually it’s a delta-T, a change in temperature from the 1850-1900 “pre-industrial” period) once they see that in reality there is no climate tipping point associated with that arbitrarily-picked value.
Yale University, once a deservedly-renowned “institution of higher education”, now gone completely unscientific and focusing on PC-ism and virtue signaling. What a shame!
in reality there is no climate tipping point
PERIOD
Except for the potential of an E.L.E. asteroid hit.
They don’t like talking about the 0.6 C decrease over the last 2 years, shown on UAH and RSS…while still talking about the 1.5 C “breach” that didn’t really occur, just prior, according to newspaper articles on expert opinions worldwide….
We Still Have Time to Reverse Climate Change
They believe this complete and utter bilge. Bonkers.
WHAT!!! We’re 1.5 C warmer than 1750 (start of the industrial revolution, a year firmly in the Little Ice Age)? Sacre Bleu. And for 3 years! I blame Mikey Mann and Al Gore. You boys should of laid on your b.s. much harder.
“Hunga Tonga was an unusual eruption, …, it blasted vast quantities of water vapour into the atmosphere, which has a strong warming effect.”
Eric, there was too little water vapor ejected from Hunga Tonga compared to water vapor already present in the whole atmosphere to have this outsized warming effect as you claim.
The amount of Hunga Tonga ejected water vapor was estimated to be 146 teragrams.
That was equal to just 0.0001% of the world’s estimated 2022 precipitation, and only 0.000038% of the total 2022-2024 world precipitation.
The 2022 HT WV almost equaled the 150e6 cubic meters of 2022 total precipitation for the tiny island Montserrat in the Carribean, ranked only #218 among all countries.
I have asked numerous times for the mechanism for how stratospheric WV could warm the ocean.
The answer is it didn’t, it doesn’t, it can’t. HT WV did not cause the 2023-24 ocean warming spike. Absorbed solar radiation caused the warming spike.
Then that would be from an absence of apparent stratospheric water vapor (clouds) 😘
Hardly. The very small amount of stratospheric WV can’t compete with tropospheric WV.
The albedo change partly responsible for the ASR increase was from lower tropical water vapor caused by the cooler triple-dip La Niña years producing less tropical evaporation.
Given the weight of the atmosphere at 5.15E18 kilogram, and the average water vapor content at 0.25%, this equals 1.2875E19 grams water vapor.
The HT water vapor at 146E12 grams is 0.000011% of ave atmospheric water vapor content.
… is
0.000011%0.00011% of ave atmospheric water vapor content. oopsYou’ve heard of the story of the tail wagging the dog. This is a story of the hair on the tail of the dog wagging the dog.
The climate is confused by all the “carbon”. You see, the “carbon” has gummed up the works, and it will take a few years (or more) for climate to respond appropriately.
Yes, “Climate Confusion”. That’s the ticket.
‘And climate scientists are predicting devastating consequences,…’
I’ve just checked the BBC website and we have already had devastating consequences.
The coral reefs are virtually dead. We had a big storm in Britain this week, and people in Britain are lucky to still be alive.
‘Extreme weather is also making it harder to grow food. Staples like wheat, corn and coffee are already being affected. ‘
In a virtual world, virtually everything is affected by Climate Change.
Why would we want to REVERSE THE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT BENEFICIAL warming since the MISERY AND SUFFERING of THE LITTLE ICE AGE?!
Yet another example of experts, professionals, academics, scientists and or politicians making fools of themselves giving us yet another reason to put no stock in what they say. The ones they are hurting the most are the honest people in their community. A few honest ones have called the dishonest ones out but the rest of the community has remained lazy and afraid.
The temperature chart should show the rebound from the Little Ice Age which began a century before significant increases in atmospheric CO2.
That chart is TOTALLY BOGUS.
The data just DOES NOT EXIST
There is absolutely no way they could have even a clue of the “global average temperature” much before 1979.
Over that period from 1979 the graph does not remotely compare to the atmospheric temperature.
Over the post-1900 period the graph does not remotely compare to real measurements taken from all around the work, which show the 1930,40s period at least as warm as the first 2 decades of the 2000s.
The oceans cover 70% of the atmosphere and before 2005 and ARGO there was no reliable data on ocean temperature.
The chart is TOTAL MAKE-BELIEVE
That’s not a temperature chart. Try again…
That is not a temperature chart. Anomalies ARE NOT temperatures. They are a metric that shows the growth in temperature. You can’t derive an absolute temperature change at any given point from a metric. It like me telling you I went really fast because I changed my velocity by 2 mph.
The large growth you show can easily be nighttime temperatures and winter temperatures increasing, and they are. Does that mean the world is burning up? Maybe it means longer growing seasons and less need for winter heating!
Show data that explains what is occurring. Your chart is nothing more than a high school students attempt to have an AI show something.
Its a BOGUS Anomaly chart, then 🙂
A bit like reducing your car speed by 2mph just before a traffic camera.
Oh! it still flashed…
The must be something wrong with my theory…
AS many have asked before: what’s been happening now that we’ve passed that point? Are populations and life expectancies declining because of lowered agricultural outputs leading to widespread famines? Have infant mortality and pandemics been increasing? Are lengthy heat waves adversely affecting people? Has global GDP been dropping while poverty levels have been rising? Have formerly productive farmlands turned into semi-deserts? None of this is occurring except in the wishful thinking of the climate nihilists who yearn for them so that they can reap some sort of benefits from their occurrences and never mind the negative impacts on ordinary people.
One day, I wanted to see if I could survive 1.5⁰ of warming. So I drove from Tucson to Phoenix. I honestly couldn’t tell if I needed to drink more Powerade than usual, so it’s probably not that bad.
I’ve suffered 10° of global cooling since I got home from work. Guess that proves climate change theory is correct.
Can you post a link to the global average temperature showing a -10 C change within a few hours? I’d like to review it if you don’t mind.
Fell straight in.. So funny !!
“Fell straight in .. So funny !!”
I suspect strongly that bdgwx was using sarcasm bnice.
LOL
For US temperature check, I went to:
https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/countries/united-states/average-temperature-by-year. The average annual Tmax and Tmin data are displayed in table. Here is the temperature data for these two years:
Year——-Tmax——-Tmin——-Tavg Temperatures are ° C
2024——-16.8———4.3———10.5
1901——-14.9———1.6———-8.2
Change—+1.9——-+2.7——–+2.3
Tmax Range: 14.7-16.8
Tmin Range: 0.7—4.3
CO2 In Air Data
2024: 427 ppmv (0.84 g CO2/cu. m. of air)
1901: 295 ppmv (0.58 g CO2/cu. m. of air.)
Although Tavg has exceeded the 1.5° C limit by 0.8° C, I don’t recall seeing on the TV reports of any recent climate catastrophes in the US. Note how little CO2 there is in the air. This limit is another fraud being perpetrated by the IPCC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists
“scientists are warning that the world is on course to trigger tipping points”
Wasn’t/isn’t it mostly the lamestream media, not scientists, whining about tipping points?