By Kenneth Richard on 25. May 2026
According to a recent presentation by climate scientist Dr. Ole Humlum published in Science of Climate Change:
Real-world observations show both cooling and warming trends in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Tropical oceans since ARGO monitoring was introduced in 2004.
Real-world observations show no trend in global precipitation since 1979.
Real-world observations show global cloud cover decline since 1985. A decline in cloud albedo means more solar radiation can be absorbed by the surface. Thus, the decline in cloud cover can easily explain the warming of the last 40 years.
Image Source: Humlum, 2026
Also less air pollution over much of land and sea surface, despite more over China and India.
And the explanatory modest decline in cloud cover since ~1985 is easily causally further explained just by reduction in sulfate aerosols (which are cloud nucleating agents) from better coal fired generation pollution control—even in China (India is still a problem).
None of which is in IPCC climate models, because their clouds have to be parameterized thanks to the CFL computational constraint.
The changes in cloud cover follow the AMO:
Central-European sunshine hours, relationship with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and forecast | Scientific Reports
The tiny human forcing is dwarfed by natural variability. That will determine future climate change as it has throughout Earth’s geologic history.
Congratulations, gyan 1, you get an “A” in Sequence Stratigraphy.
The heading is ambiguous, Prof Humlum states that “there is no manmade climate catastrophe in the foreseeable future” and that CO2 “is not overly important to understanding meteorology and climate.”
He does not claim that human greenhouse gas emissions have no effect as the heading implies.
But neither the rainfall or the atmospheric temperature data show any sign of human influence…
… so Kenneth’s conclusion is spot on. !
And the paper clearly says…
“The observed sequence: first warming of the sea surface, then deeper sea, atmosphere and land suggests that the sun is the source of the warming, modulated by clouds.”
In Prof Humlum’s entire essay it is clear he is not dismissing the increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration as a climate factor simply as the dominant climate factor as in: “The hypothetical CO2 temperature signal originates in the upper troposphere, and – if dominant – we would see the signal in the satellite data from the lower atmosphere, before we see the signal arriving at the ocean surface. Measurements show that the opposite is the case. To the degree CO2 influences atmospheric temperatures, its effect is clearly subordinate in relation to other influences.“
Well there is that inconvenient climate record. Until I hear a rational explanation of how TEN TIMES today’s atmospheric CO2 could not prevent GLACIATION in the distant past, I’ll remain completely skeptical of ANY atmospheric CO2 “effect” on the Earth’s climate.
Ditto for the “temperature driving atmospheric CO2, not the other way around” ice core reconstructions.
As CO2 concentrations increase, the amount of increase caused by each additional unit of CO2 goes down.
At current CO2 levels, there’s less than 10% remaining to capture.
The headline implies no such thing. There is a very wide gap between having an effect and actually causing a thing. It could indeed have some effect, even if it is not measurable or of large significance.
“gas emissions have no effect as the heading implies.”
The heading doesn’t imply “no effect.”
In the heading, “Do Not Support” means ‘no evidence for.’
No evidence means that even if there is some effect, it’s invisibly small. Presently indiscernible from zero.
If carbon dioxide affects the climate, which climate zone is most affected by carbon dioxide?
Is the climate most affected in the climate zone where the sun’s heat radiation is highest?
Or is the climate most affected in the climate zone where the sun’s heat radiation is lowest?
The Earth’s temperature change is least in the temperate / tropical climate zone and greatest in the Northern Hemisphere. Are these temperature changes consistent with the alleged effect of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s climate?
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 431 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g and contains a mere 0.85 g of CO2 at STP. CO2 does not have enough “molecular muscle” to any effect on air temperature , weather or climate.
Are you really implying that CO2, at an atmospheric concentration of 431 ppmv, does not absorb any LWIR energy emitted off Earth’s surfaces (24/7/365) and then distribute that (thermal) energy to the rest of the atmosphere, mainly N2 and O2, thus affecting “air temperature”?
Really?
As I said, 0.85 g of CO2 per cubic meter of air does not absorbed enough IR light energy to warm up the air.
Professor Bill Happer has presented his mathematical calculations (including use of the well-respected MODTRAN computer code with HITRAN database) . . . please show your calculations.
Each molecule of CO2 is capable of absorbing and thermalizing millions of photons per second.
I stand by what I said: there is too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on air temperature. In winter CO2 hibernates.
Being proven wrong has no affect on your opinion. You would make an excellent climate scientist.
Actually, in the northern hemisphere Winter is when the CO2 increases. It doesn’t start declining until about May the following Spring, and continues its decline until Fall. You might want to think about why that would happen.
CO2 has the greatest impact where there is the least amount of water vapor in the air and the least impact where there is the greatest amount of water vapor in the air.
The strength of sunshine has nothing to do with it.
The atmosphere COOLS faster where there is minimal water vapour.. ie desert at night
Water vapour is a sort of “regulator”.
CO2 has no measurable effect whatsoever… anywhere.
Anywhere?
Not on planet Earth.. never been observed or measured.
Actually, it has, in the laboratory in isolation chambers. As such, it would be absurd to insist that it has zero effect in the world at large. Is it measurable? Undetermined. Is it a crisis? No.
The Earth’s atmosphere is not remotely like an enclosed glass jar.
It is ABSURD to suggest otherwise.
I suggested no such thing. I said it was absurd to assume zero effect.
It is safe to assume that the radiative properties of CO₂ are the same whether the gas is in a jar or freely circulating in the atmosphere, assuming general similarities in pressure. The difference would be how the system surrounding the molecule of gas reacts to those effects.
You said “CO2 has no measurable effect whatsoever… anywhere.”
That statement is false.
Because something can be observed and measured in isolation does not mean that the effect in the real world will be similar, because of the various feedback loops. That is the error made by alarmists who are fond of citing Tyndal et al. One has to look at the net effects of the entire dynamic system as the independent variable (CO2) changes.
Exactly correct. It is fallacious to insist that there is no effect, just as it is to insist that said effect must be extreme. CO₂ appears to be a bit player in a complex production.
You insist on believing that not being able to measure something in a noisy environment is proof that the something does not and cannot exist.
Absolute statements are the realm of the Sith and the climate scientists.
Saying that the signal is too small discern given the other perturbations in the system is a scientifically defensible statement.
Declaring that failure to measure small signals in a noisy environment is proof that it doesn’t exist, is nonsense.
Exactly so!
The absorption of Long Wavelength Infrared (LWIR) radiation by CO2 has been extensively measured in laboratory settings. Early demonstrations—dating back to John Tyndall’s experiments in 1861 and heavily refined by mid-20th century scientists like Darrell Burch—demonstrated that CO2 strongly absorbs infrared radiation in specific bands, most notably around 15 microns wavelength.
The absorption process is well understood in physics, although it is governed by the statistical quantum mechanics of photon absorption and photon-relaxation as well as by statistical thermodynamics of mixed gases (equipartition of transferred collisional energy into allowed mechanical degrees-of-freedom) of all molecules in the continuum density of Earth’s troposphere.
See https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=35 for a nice summary of scientific observations (both in laboratories and in the field) demonstrating that gaseous CO2, as present in Earth’s atmosphere does indeed absorb LWIR radiation off Earth’s surface based on direct physical measurements.
The issue really isn’t whether or not CO2 absorbs LWIR. The issue is how much snd what happens to it.
“The issue is how much snd what happens to it.”
Again, those issues have been directly addressed by Professor William Happer in numerous scientific articles and in public presentations.
One prime example is this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA1zUW4uOSw
wherein at the 19m10s time hack into this video he directly addresses both the capabilities as well as the limitations of CO2’s interplay with Earth surface radiated LWIR.
And my favorite of all his video-recorded presentations is at this link:
https://videohighlight.com/v/v2nhssPW77I
wherein at the 16m35s time hack into the video he presents his “most important viewgraph of the evening”, followed by his elegant, simple explanation of CO2 absorption “saturation” at the 26m00s time hack, followed by him waxing eloquent and poetic in the last third of this video!
Just an amazing, objective, scientific mind!
As above.
William Happer and many other subject-matter experts have scientifically and mathematically calculated—and published in peer-reviewed papers—the measurable effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperature . . . even to the point of saying that logarithmic effect became “saturated” (ineffective) at atmospheric CO2 concentrations above about 300 ppmv.
I don’t think that is the “measurable effect.” What they calculated is the ceiling on the hypothetical effect of atmospheric CO2.
There has never been any measurement of an ACTUAL effect, which could not possibly be combed out of natural variation. What they calculated was still dependent upon the implicit assumption “all other things held equal.”
You should check out:
“The Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere ” by Dieter Schildknect available at: https://arixorg/pdf/2004.00708v1
In 1920 the concentration of CO2 in the air was ca. 300 ppmv i.e. 0.59 g CO2 per cubic meter of air. Any warming of air after 1920 is not due to CO2. After passage of the Clean Air Act in the early 1970’s, there is substantial reduction of air pollution. This allows more sunlight to heat the earth’s surface.
Yeah, but no reduction of atmospheric CO2 concentration, which continued on its smooth exponential rise rate (Mauna Loa data).
So, do you or don’t you consider CO2 to be “air pollution”?
Not to mention the fact that we are still in the midst of an acknowledged interglacial, which has yet to reach the temperatures of the Holocene Optimum, let alone the Eemian when the Greenland Ice Sheet melted and vegetation came back. Nobody is complaining that the ice hasn’t come back to the levels predicted by Milankovitch.
It is interesting how often the unstated assumptions are also the unexamined assumptions.
Being unable to pick out a small signal in noisy data is not evidence that there is no signal to begin with.
Basic science.
So just “imagine” that it exists.. yep, that is real science. !
We have science that shows that in the absence of other signals, the signal we are looking for exists.
It is not imagination to declare that the signals could be there.
Your constant denigration of anyone who dares to disagree with your non-scientific absolutist statements earns you no friends or allie.
Indeed you constantly alienate those who agree with you 95%,
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of the average annual seasonal temperatures and a plot of the average annual temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 was ca. 303 ppmv (0.60 g CO2/cu. m. of air) and 2001 it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.73 g of CO2/cu. m. of air) but there was no corresponding increase in air temperatures.
The reason there was no increase in air temperatures in this remote desert is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light to warm up the large mass of air in this arid desert. The empirical data falsifies the claim by the IPCC that CO2 cause warming of air.
The chart was taken from the late John L. Daly’s website: “Still Waiting For Greenhouse”. From the home page, go to the end and click on:
“Station Temperature Data” On the “World Map”, click on “North America” then scroll down and click on “Pacific”. A list of stations is displayed. Finally, scroll down and on “Death Valley.” Use the back arrow to redisplay the list of stations. Use the back arrow again to return to the “World Map”.
NB: Click on the chart and it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to contract the chart and return to Comments.
The error bars on those temperature readings are greater then the potential impact of CO2.
Just because you can’t find a small signal in noisy data is not evidence that the signal doesn’t exist.
There are no error bars on the data points of the plots. The temperature data was obtained from the GISS database. The measurement error is +/- 0.1° C. The plots show there is a typical year-to-year variation. This might be due variation in specific humidity.
I just checked: Temperature is 35° C and RH is 14%.
I
There are always error bars on all measurements.
The fact that they aren’t shown is not evidence that there are none.
There are no error bars on the data points. The temperature data was obtained from the GISS database. There error in temperature data is +/-0.1° C. Adding errors bars to the data points would just clutter up the plots
Nor is it evidence that the signal does exist. We simply don’t know.
Actually, that is not quite true. If you look at the CO2 graph from ResearchGate that I posted above, it is obvious that the amount of CO2 is least at the South Pole where the air is notoriously dry. One has both stasis in East Antarctica and melting that many alarmists are concerned about in West Antarctica.
Much is often made of the fact that CO2 is supposedly “well-mixed.” If that is the case, then I think that one should expect that its effect would be approximately uniform for large areas, such as continental masses. Thus, as in “A rising tide floats all boats,” global warming caused by CO2 is a poor excuse for the recent heat wave in Europe.
Actually, the mantra about CO2 being “well-mixed” is not true:
Real world observations.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth would become much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no vegetation, no 30% albedo & for that matter no oceans becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
Real observations:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
The GHGs require “extra” energy upwelling from a surface radiating as a BB.
Real world imbalanced & erroneous graphics:
According to TFK_bams09 atmospheric power flux balance, numerous clones and SURFRAD the GHGs must absorb an “extra” 396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd net W/m^2 LWIR energy upwelling from the surface allegedly radiating as a BB. These graphics & data tables contain egregious arithmetic and thermodynamic errors.
Because of the significant (60% per TFK_bams09) non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body.
Real world observations:
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
Real world conclusions:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
There is no such thing as “space” – it is now nearly ancient history that the Michaelson-Morley experiments demonstrated as much. As it is not stuff, it can possess no temperature.
There’s some space in my closet.
. . . and what about human space exploration?
Is that when I can’t find that other shoe in the closet?
Well, did you first check the “spaces” behind the couch or under the bed, well known for being the refuge of missing socks?
Consider yourself lucky!
Temperature is by definition and application the KE of stuff.
ISR EMR flowing through void is not stuff and cannot have a temperature.
But when EMR encounters stuff it converts to KE.
How do we know?
Stuff gets hot.
How hot?
At Earth’s distance, 1,368 W/m^2 & 394 K.
GHE say wo it, Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
Just flat wrong.
Refute that.
Nicholas Schroder’s usual incorrect claim that 396 fore -333 back IR photon flow violates laws of thermodynamics, which is some kind of flat earther curmudgeon nonsense….Space is hot not absolute zero, there is no GHE, etc, etc.
Weekly rebuttals to his nonsense at WUWT are here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/08/open-thread-180/#comment-4172712
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/22/open-thread-182/#comment-4176910
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4179950
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181
160 arrives at surface, 160 is the max that can leave.
396 violates LoT 1.
396 is the 16 C GMST for denominator of emissivity.
396/33/2nd 63 are 100% imaginary.
Leaving the surface boundary placed at “top of dirt and top of water” and averaged over years….is about
82 watts evaporation, 21 watts convection, 398-342=56 radiation, which equals the 159 solar absorbed across the same boundary but in the opposite direction.
You have been mentally compromised by an inadequate education in thermodynamics with respect to electromagnetic emission (which isn’t heat until absorbed). Read this response to the same issue here…to update your knowledge.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181.
398 is bogus!
342 is bogus!
Second helping of 56 is bogus!
398 is the EMR emitted by a surface at 16C that is approximating the BB emittance, ie the Stephan Boltzmann curve. It is foundational to modern physics and quantum mechanics and has been proven many times in labs and the equations are even used in my IR camera…
Saying it is “bogus” means your knowledge is lacking.
…Means you assume the 398 is heat in the classical sense, when it only becomes 398 of heat if absorbed by a surface at absolute zero. It is an accounting method for Electro-Magnetic Radiation…not HEAT in the Carnot thermodynamics sense…your microwave is cold but it can heat your popcorn, so breaks the 2nd LoT as you interpret it…by being 30 C your face is emitting about 480 watts per sq.M of EMR…your 22C walls are emitting about 430 watts per sq.M back to your face….your metabolism only need produce 480-430=50 watts per sq.M of face area to keep your skin at 30C…not 480…
Got it now Nicholas ? You can blame the rather confusing way the energy budget Sankey diagrams show EMR, which I have to say, caused me to think for a while about what they were really showing, despite long experience calculating radiative transfer in boilers and fired heaters….
This is not about handwavium thermodynamics; it’s about accounting & 56 + 56 = 56.
First solar balance
Entering.
A discular 1,360 W/m^2 arrive at ToA.
Divide by 4 to average over spherical ToA. (Dumb!)
340 W/m^2
Deduct albedo 100/342 = 28.4%
Net albedo 240 W/m^2 enter ToA/ASR.
79 W/m^2 absorbed in atmosphere (Not really.)
161 W/m^2 arrive at surface.
Per LoT 1 161 is ALL that can leave.
Leaving.
84 W/m^2 latent + 20 W/m^2 sensible + 1st 56 W’m^2 LWIR (by remainder) + 0.6 imbalance = 160.6
BALANCE IS CLOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Fini, done, complete!!!
Second S-B BB calculated balance.
Imaginary 398 W/m^2 “extra” upwelling appears out of thin air without explanation, plus is 237 W/m^2 more than 161, violates LoT 1.
2nd 56 W/m^2 copied from solar balance, double entry violates GAAP w downwelling only option.
342 W/m^2 downwelling, “back” radiation cold to warm wo work violates LoT 2.
398 up + 56 down + 342 down = ZERO!!!
398/342/56 can be erased from the graphic and solar balance unaffected.
It’s not about thermo, the numbers just do not work.
You are proving beyond doubt that your knowledge is lacking…
You did pretty good until you mixed 161 of absorbed sunshine, which is actual heat with 398 EMR flux. Net radiative heat is 398-342=56….then add the 56 plus evap plus convection and you get the 161 so that the surface remains the same temp…
56 appears twice, once in the solar balance and second in the calculated balance.
You use only one.
Where is the other? Up your sleeve?
TFK_bams09 and all of its clones don’t just violate LoT (160 in & 396 out LoT1 & 333 “back” from cold to warm wo work LoT 2) but GAAP.
The same 63 W/m^2 LWIR appears twice, once from the real solar balance: 160 – 80 – 17 = 1st 63 & the calc’d /“measured” /imaginary BB 396 – 333 = 2nd 63.
Only one of these is needed to balance OLR at ToA so that means the other is free floating, unaccounted for, looking for a home and apparently dropped down someone’s boot top.
Only one of these balance loops belongs on the graphic.
I suggest the keeping the real one.
I admire your efforts but frankly it is pointless. Been there and got the T-shirt with this guy and quite a few others on here over at least 10 years.
You see, they know for an unwavering fact that they are right and the rest of the world wrong – experts, text books , empirical laws and all. They brook all criticism.
Even the mere fact that you have eventually have to give up out of sheer exasperation and fatigue convinces them even more that they are correct!
If you delve into the psychology of such people you will find it illuminating.
If the surface gets 160W/m^2 and is a perfect black body it will only radiate at 160W/m^2. How can the earth radiate at a higher value? The earth is not on fire. The atmosphere is not on fire. The whole biosphere is a passive absorber/radiator – exactly what a BB is.
Heat transfer associated with a non-BB is a TIME function. Heat absorbed by a non-BB takes TIME to diffuse across an internal gradient. For that heat to be re-emitted the internal gradient has to flip from surface-to-depth to depth-to-surface. That means you will *never* see a balance between radiation-in and radiation-out at any point in time. Since for the ocean the TIME involved (for the heat-in to be seen as heat-out via radiation) can literally be centuries. How do you balance flux in and flux out in such a situation?
EMR is not heat until absorbed. Read
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/31/toa-eei-versus-surface-net-flux/#comment-4180181
Which is exactly my point.
I use it as a learning experience so that casual readers don’t get ensnared in their bullshist.
I used to think that – so fair enough.
The earth’s surface is *NOT* a black body. Absorbed radiation is *NOT* immediately re-radiated. Not everything that hits the surface is absorbed. That means the S-B law simply doesn’t apply. You can’t use it to calculate the temperature of the Earth at any point in time based on the sun’s insolation because of the gradient between the surface and the depths (of either the ocean or the soil). You can’t use it to calculate emitted radiation at any point in time based on an “average” temperature.
Radiative balance is a phantom. Radiation-in and radiation-out will NEVER balance as far as the Earth is concerned. What will balance is joules-in and joules-out. Because of thermal inertia in the ocean and on land, joules-in and joules-out must be calculated over centuries – and we don’t have accurate enough measurements over a long enough observation period to even begin to identify any impact of CO2 on the radiation curve of the Earth over a decade, let alone more than a century.
A BB requires that all the energy entering and all the energy leaving do so by radiation.
30% +/- of the energy arriving ToA is reflected & therefore not a BB.
60% of the energy leaving the surface does so by kinetic processes, so also not a BB.
Back on track.
Any one yes let alone all 3 = no GHE or CAGW.
Kinetic process have nothing to do with BB radiation…they are different heat transfer phenomena. And emissivity does not include anything but radiative phenomena.
Temperature is function of the kinetic processes.
Radiation is a function of temperature and hence a function of the kinetic.
For example if convection increases because of wind temperature decreases as does radiation.
Kinetic and radiation are joined at the hip.
btw my experiment demonstrates this.
You’ve just introduced convection and evaporation to obfuscate the fact that we are talking about radiation and that you were wrong about radiation.
Convection and evaporation are TIME functions. Of course they impact surface temp and, therefore, the radition flux curve over time.
Well, it’s about 98% correct to use the black body approximation from physics…
I never mentioned CO2, BTW.
98%?
This is a climate science assumption that is decidedly non-physical. A BB is also isothermal and radiation from the surface is equal everywhere. That is *NOT* the Earth. It’s a “spherical cow” assumption that doesn’t match reality.
Or the smaller variant, the “point cow.” The only way to deal with a real-world ‘cow’ is to measure the temperature and emissivity everywhere and use integral calculus to to determine the total outgoing radiation.
Ummmm . . . Earth’s albedo as measured from space is about 0.30. A blackbody approximation of Earth, either as receiving radiation from space or as emitting radiation to space requires an albedo close to 0.0. Big difference . . . way beyond 2%.
Lots of down votes yet not a single refutation of a single thing I said! ROFL!
How many people actually understand that the surface of the earth actually radiates away more heat during daylight than at night?
And why is that?? It’s hotter!
Another down vote for stating the truth? Climate science in a nutshell!
No climate anthro driven warming denial in a nutshell.
“May the Fourth-power be with you!”
This ignores the kinetic cooling processes present on my face.
Spent 35 lucrative years in power generation mostly coal fired. Lots of thermodynamics & heat transfer.
And if one of your boilers failed, you would have to consult the manufacturer who would likely hire a heat transfer expert who can calculate back radiation and knows how to use a Hottel chart with the emissivities of CO2 and H20 and an understanding of the beam length….to find the problem.
A very common knowledge gap amongst engineers who graduated before the 1980’s actually. Had to be fixed in the education system when students started asking about microwave ovens and laser cutting….
“back radiation” is reflected radiation that has already been emitted.
Plank says of this situation:
——————-
For example, if we let the rays emitted by the body fall back on it, say by suitable refection, the body, while again absorbing these rays, will necessarily be at the same time emitting new rays, and this is the compensation required by the second principle.
—————————
The compensation occurs because the slope of the exponential decay curve for the emitting body is decreased. Let T1 be the starting temperature. After some period of time, say t1, let the temperature without reflection after time interval t1 be T2 and with reflection let the temperature after time interval t1 be T3. T3 ≥ T2 since the reflected radiation slows the cooling of the emitting body.
The actual heat loss will be related to the area under the temperature curve. Without reflection the area under the curve will be related to (T1^4 -> T2^4). With reflection the area under the curve will be related to (T1^4 -> T3^4). Since T3 ≥ T2 the area under the curve with reflected radiation will be greater than the area under the curve without reflection. This is the “compensation” provided by the “new rays” that are emitted after absorption of the reflected energy.
This is why reflected radiation (i.e. “back” radiation) cannot RAISE the temperature of the emitting body, it can only slow the cooling rate. The greater the amount of reflected radiation, the greater the compensation provided by the “new” rays because of slower cooling. If *all* of the emitted radiation is reflected and subsequently re-absorbed an equilibrium condition would exist, i.e. the emitting body would never cool but its temperature would not go up either.
The only thing that can *increase* the temperature of the earth is an increase in energy input from a heat source – the sun.
All of these contrary trends makes the idea of an ‘average’ global temperature as a yardstick seem very uncertain? Plus of course the issue of which averaging method is the ‘right one’?
There is nosuch thing as Global Qverage Temperature. It is an unphysical artifact.
“There is nosuch thing as Global Qverage Temperature”
Chuckle.. more like an artefact of bad typing! 🙂
Even more absurd is NOAA calling a particular data point “normal” or above or below “normal”.
Just because one can average a lot of temperatures doesn’t mean that it is meaningful or has any utility. As Tim has pointed out, when dealing with BB radiation, averaging temperatures and then raising that average to the 4th-power will not get you close to the true energy in the real world. One has to know the probability distribution function over the geoid, raise those temperatures with associated emissivity to the 4th-power, and then find the area under the curve.
“Real-world observations show global cloud cover decline since 1985″
Interesting. I’ve seen studies on the effects of air travel and stratospheric cirrus clouds, which was noted during the air travel groundings in mid-September 2001 after 9/11. There was a documented increase in diurnal temperature range during that time.
With a decrease in global cloud cover, one would thi k that this runs against anthropogenic aerosols being a major human-caused factor in anything. The modest warming since 1980 has been both beneficial, probably largely natural, and proof that the world is safe from the global warming hype.
No, we’re not safe from the hype. From warming, yes, but not the hype.
Correct, I should have stated that we’re safe from what the hype is about or represents.
In 2018, Pedersen & Lansner published “Temperature trend with reduced impact of oceanic air temperatures” in which they separated in two groups all available weather stations (from NOAA) whose data were deemed reliable :
They used the row data of the selected stations from 1900 to 2010 to compute an oceanic and a continental temperature aggregate.
The result :
My conclusion :
COP 3.X will freeze over before this information reaches the rational public amid climate crisis-enduced global mental illness increase.
Based on the below description of theory, do climate realists initially cede control of an argument by honoring BS as “theory”?
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated, comprehensive explanatory framework that is supported by a vast body of rigorous, repeatedly tested evidence. It organizes facts, laws, hypotheses, and confirmed observations into a coherent, internally consistent system that successfully explains existing phenomena and makes accurate, testable predictions about new ones.”
“Theory” represents a position on a hierarchical spectrum of confidence, generally considered to be one step below a “Law” and one step above a working hypothesis. Even a ‘chiseled in stone’ law of God can be violated because we have free-will. Therefore, even the ‘laws’ of classical physics were overturned by relativity and it seems that relativity is being questioned by quantum mechanics. There may not be an end to the uncertainty of The Truth — just an infinite series of progressions with no end in sight.
Hmmm . . . the lead-in graph, Figure 9 from the referenced Humlum [2026] SCE publication, shows a 37-month running average curve that is extremely well aligned (i.e., “horizontal”) with just the constant numerical average value of global monthly precipitation over the last 47+ years . . . differences appearing to be on the order of +/- 1%.
Considering all the possible climate variables that would affect precipitation on a global scale over that time interval—dust storms affecting CCN, El Ninos and La Ninas, the PDO, the AMOC, volcano aerosols, increases in atmospheric particulates and GHGs from increased FF use, etc.— that is an amazing display of nature’s self-regulation (aka feedback-induced stability).
“And what, you puny humans don’t think I know what I’m doing?”
— Gaia, 2026
If you live in the UK right now and you still think climate change is a hoax – get out more.
Really, it’s bad when your ideology disagrees with your own senses.
Wow, good weather is proof that CO2 is going to kill us.
Fascinating.
Try watching the weather forecasts. Just a couple of weeks ago it was cool and showery because cold air was being drawn down from the north. Then the pressure differential flipped and now hot air is coming up from the south. Next week looks as though it’ll be cooler ant wetter again. It’s called W-E-A-T-H-E-R. Nothing whatsoever to do with “climate change”.
Weather happens and is just as variable as it always was, However now within the variability that draws warm air northward we are getting temps that are 2C above the instrumental record. Time was when extremes were beaten by a few tenths.
Does that explain why the world record set in Darth(sp) Valley in 1913 still stands?
That is the same line of thinking used by the Ancients — blaming the gods or evil spirits what happens. It is a meteorological phenomenon (heat wave) caused by a ‘heat dome’. Whether humans are in any way responsible for what is admittedly unusual warmth for the locality and season is a whole different issue. We are in an interglacial right now, with no evidence presented that we should have peaked by now.