Do Los Niños cause climatic cooling?

By Andy May

We’ve seen a lot of news stories about an upcoming El Niño, that may turn into a so-called “super” El Niño over the next year. This will affect our weather for a year or two, but what is the climatic effect of this weather feature, if any? Here we examine the history of warm ENSO events.

Los Niños warm Earth’s atmosphere for a few years because they cause excess thermal energy (heat) to be expelled from the topical Pacific Ocean and the heat is then circulated around the planet via atmospheric circulation, especially in the Northern Hemisphere where most of us live. But this is warm weather, not climate. Climate is normally defined as the average weather over a period of more than 30 years. Over 30 years, Los Niños are a cooling event since nearly all the heat they transfer to the atmosphere is eventually radiated to space. Very little of the heat released from the oceans during an El Niño is returned to the oceans because downwelling infrared radiation from the atmosphere cannot penetrate the ocean surface (Wong & Minnett, 2018). Only solar radiation can penetrate to the deeper ocean and significantly warm it.

Many Los Niños are very powerful weather features and can be traced back in time with lake sediment proxies in Ecuador as has been done by Christopher Moy and colleagues at Syracuse University (Moy et al., 2002). Figure 1 shows Moy’s El Niño proxy record and Rosenthal’s Makassar Strait proxy temperature record since 0AD. Moy’s sediment record from the Laguna Pallcacocha drainage basin is well located to record warm El Niño events since these events cause anomalous sea surface temperatures off the coast of Ecuador which initiate strong and widespread convection in the area.

Figure 1. The Moy warm El Niño record in blue (left scale) and Rosenthal’s North Pacific temperature record in orange (right scale) overlain. Data sources: (Moy et al., 2002) & (Rosenthal et al., 2013).

The important point is that during the Medieval Warm Period Los Niños were rare and did not become common until the Little Ice Age began around 1200 AD and then declined as the Little Ice Age progressed and the world became colder. They have since become common again as the world has warmed, as shown in figure 2 which is a plot of the NOAA ERSST Niño 3.4 Index where Los Niños are positive and Las Niñas are negative values.

Figure 2. The NOAA ERSST v5 ENSO index from the end of the Little Ice Age (~1850) to the present. Data source: Climate Explorer. In this plot, an El Niño is positive (0.5 or greater) and a La Niña is negative (-0.5 or less).

Los Niños were extremely rare during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, only increasing in number as the Neoglacial began as shown in figure 3. The paucity of Los Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum is confirmed by numerous geological proxies from around the Pacific basin as discussed in Moy et al. (Moy et al., 2002).

Figure 3. The Vinther Greenland area temperature and Moy’s warm ENSO proxy (number of events each 100 years).

The paucity of Los Niños during the Holocene Climatic Optimum has been connected to Earth’s orbital cycles by Clement et al. (Clement et al., 2000). A discussion of the effects of orbital cycles on climate can be seen here. During the Holocene Climatic Optimum, Northern Hemisphere summer insolation was maximal. It appears that when this happens Los Niños are suppressed. Since the Neoglacial began, around 3800 BC, Northern Hemisphere summer insolation has declined significantly.

Figures 1 to 3 suggest that a warm stable climate is associated with very few Los Niños, but when Earth’s climate is beginning to cool, as at the beginning of the Neoglacial Period or the early cooling years of the Little Ice Age, there are more Los Niños. Los Niños were very common as we cooled into the depths of the Little Ice Age (~1750 or so) and then as we began to warm coming out of the deepest period of the Little Ice Age the number of Los Niños dropped off. We are currently at the end of Modern Solar Maximum or the Modern Warm Period, and we are seeing more Los Niños, suggesting the world is beginning to cool.

Works Cited

Clement, A., Seager, R., & Cane, M. (2000). Suppression of El Niño during the mid-Holocene by changes in Earth’s orbit. Paleooceanography, 15(6), 731-737. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999PA000466

Moy, C., Seltzer, G., & Rodbell, D. (2002). Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch. Nature, 420, 162-165. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01194

Rosenthal, Y., Linsley, B., & Oppo, D. (2013, November 1). Pacific Ocean Heat Content During the Past 10,000 years. Science. Retrieved from http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Vinther, B., Buchardt, S., Clausen, H., Dahl-Jensen, Johnsen, Fisher, . . . Svensson. (2009, September). Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature, 461. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08355

Wong, E. W., & Minnett, P. J. (2018). The Response of the Ocean Thermal Skin Layer to Variations in Incident Infrared Radiation. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 123(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JC013351

5 10 votes

Article Rating

212 Comments

Steve Case

June 17, 2026 2:07 pm

As far as I know, the IPCC does a poor job of predicting
El Niño and La Niña events. Why should we believe them
about anything else?

Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 2:16 pm

“Very little of the heat released from the oceans during an El Niño is returned to the oceans because downwelling infrared radiation from the atmosphere cannot penetrate the ocean surface”

Dumb stuff endlessly repeated. Of course a warm atmosphere can warm the ocean. But what is missing here is mention of La Niña. That is when the equatorial Pacific turns cool and, yes, cools the atmosphere. Heat flows back into the ocean. It’s just as important for total heat flow.

This is all just redistribution of heat, not a long term source or sink. Which is why we had that cycle for centuries with steady temperature.

-30

Phil.

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 2:30 pm

Yes it’s an oscillatory process involving the heat transfer between the ocean and atmosphere, based on nonlinear processes.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 2:40 pm

This was a debate from long ago. I realize that you believe atmospheric IR can warm the ocean significantly, but I disagree, and as pointed out here:

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/02/27/is-the-ocean-surface-a-boundary-condition/

The data and many others disagree with you on this point.

La Nina and Neutral are regular features and follow the solar cycle. El Nino is the odd ball, it is very irregularly paced, and cause of this odd pacing is not understood. Internal variability is clearly not “just [a] redistribution of heat.” This is clear, and demonstrated by the AMO, PDO, etc. Not to mention the very clear 1000-year cycle that is seen in the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Modern Warm Period.

Eldrosion

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 3:05 pm

“This is clear, and demonstrated by the AMO, PDO, etc. Not to mention the very clear 1000-year cycle that is seen in the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, and Modern Warm Period.”

Yes, in cherry picked proxies. Admitted by you:

“Either way your quote is appropriate, thanks. Bottom line, proxies are all over the place sometimes, so you can select a group of proxies to combine to form whatever reconstruction you want. Best to deal with the proxies one at a time and in light of historical records. Basically, all reconstructions, including my own, are crap.”

-19

Andy May

Author

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 3:18 pm

I think you are mixing things that should not be mixed. The AMO and PDO can be seen in real measurements, not proxies. The Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age are in the historical record, these are not proxies.

That said, you are correct, proxies are all over the place and must be chosen very carefully and we have to remember that they are only valid at their physical location, you can’t really use them to build a “global temperature record.” I tried that and realized it didn’t work.

Eldrosion

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 3:31 pm

“That said, you are correct, proxies are all over the place and must be chosen very carefully and we have to remember that they are only valid at their physical location,”

Certain regions, like the High Arctic (where ice–albedo feedback plays a major role) are actually more representative of global temperature changes than others.

https://postimg.cc/ZW5JFBX7

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114

-16

Eldrosion

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 3:34 pm

Here is the image.

-10

Andy May

Author

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 3:43 pm

I agree and disagree at the same time. It is easier to see climate changes in Arctic records because they are amplified there, however the tropics really run things, they are 50% of Earth’s surface.

But in the tropics, changes are dampened a lot by the oceans. I guess the best way to look at it is the Arctic is the trigger and early warning system, but the actual change will be measured best in the tropics.

bnice2000

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 4:36 pm

GISP looks like this.

That tiny uptick at the end starts in 1900 (according to Mann’s hockey stick). And 1940’s at the peak of that spike was similar or warmer than the first decades of this century.

Eldrosion

Reply to bnice2000

June 17, 2026 7:27 pm

#1) That refers to Central Greenland, not the High Arctic, which is the proxy I was citing. Did you read what Andy May just said? He wrote:

“That said, you are correct, proxies are all over the place and must be chosen very carefully and we have to remember that they are only valid at their physical location“

So this doesn’t debunk anything. Andy May even acknowledged the validity of the hockey stick pattern shown in the Agassiz record:

“I guess the best way to look at it is the Arctic is the trigger and early warning system”

As such, perhaps he could write a post on WUWT about the profound future impacts of rapid warming in the High Arctic.

#2) That ice core record only extends to 95 BP, which corresponds to 1855. This would be clear to readers if the chart included an x-axis.

I pointed this out to you in a previous thread, and it was not addressed, yet you are presenting the same chart again.

So the question of whether the chart’s x-axis was deliberately omitted is even more pertinent now.

-2

bnice2000

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 11:23 pm

Others disagree

bnice2000

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 11:24 pm

As do 18O isotopes

bnice2000

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 11:28 pm

and there is no sign of any major uptick in the GHCN data, in fact 1930’s were warmer than 2000-2020

Jim Gorman

Reply to Eldrosion

June 18, 2026 4:59 am

As such, perhaps he could write a post on WUWT about the profound future impacts of rapid warming in the High Arctic.

Perhaps instead of pushing this off on someone else you could use your obvious knowledge of Arctic climate to write it yourself.

bnice2000

Reply to bnice2000

June 17, 2026 11:31 pm

Another Greenland temperature series.

As anyone can see, it was cooler in the early 2000s than it was around 1930.

And there is absolutely zero relationship to CO2 emissions.

bnice2000

Reply to bnice2000

June 17, 2026 11:32 pm

oops… graph didn’t attached

Clyde Spencer

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 8:01 pm

From your PNAS link: “In the case of the melt record, this correction is applied at the location of the ice core to remove the contributions from vertical land motion and changes in ice thickness.” What is missing is an explanation for how to derive a verifiable lapse rate. It is so cold that there is little water vapor present and a small change in water vapor will cause a relatively large change in the ‘dry’ lapse rate.

I believe that your faith in the effect of the “ice-albedo feedback” is unwarranted. The sun is absent for nominally half the year, and during the Summer, the Arctic is notoriously overcast, significantly reducing solar energy arriving at the surface. During the times when the clouds are missing, a significant portion of the solar radiation is reflected forward into space and is neglected in the arguments about the “ice-albedo feedback.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/

Eldrosion

Reply to Clyde Spencer

June 17, 2026 11:34 pm

Your allegation concerns the early Holocene elevation correction associated with Innuitian Ice Sheet thinning.

At most, that affects the amplitude of the early Holocene thermal maximum.

Those corrections are negligible to non existent in the more recent time periods of the record, so it does not directly undermine the hockey stick shape or the conclusion regarding unusually rapid recent warming.

“The sun is absent for nominally half the year, and during the Summer, the Arctic is notoriously overcast, significantly reducing solar energy arriving at the surface. During the times when the clouds are missing, a significant portion of the solar radiation is reflected forward into space and is neglected in the arguments about the “ice-albedo feedback.””

When summer sea ice retreats, highly reflective ice is replaced by darker open water. This allows a greater fraction of incoming solar radiation to be absorbed by the ocean.

Much of this energy is stored in the ocean during summer and released to the atmosphere during autumn and winter, when the temperature contrast between the relatively warm ocean and the colder atmosphere is greatest.

You don’t have the mechanism correct.

Skeptics believe that researchers who specialize in Arctic climate have somehow overlooked the fact that the Arctic experiences months of darkness and frequent cloud cover.

-4

Jim Gorman

Reply to Eldrosion

June 18, 2026 5:08 am

When summer sea ice retreats, highly reflective ice is replaced by darker open water. This allows a greater fraction of incoming solar radiation to be absorbed by the ocean.
Much of this energy is stored in the ocean during summer and released to the atmosphere during autumn and winter, when the temperature contrast between the relatively warm ocean and the colder atmosphere is greatest.

Ok, summer ice melts causing a retreat. That leads to an inference that fall and winter causes more sea ice to occur.

Please explain how the ocean releases heat to the atmosphere through the ice that forms. Is the release much quicker than the storage? I would also like to know the temperature differentials we are talking about. What is the value of the change in temperature that occurs during this heating?

Andy May

Author

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 18, 2026 5:29 am

Jim and Eldrosian,
During the summer ice and snow melts, capturing latent heat that is emitted when the melt water refreezes in the winter. The Arctic is cloudy in the summer, that and the high solar angle minimizes solar impact. The real mechanism to bring heat to the Arctic is convection, this is called Radiative-Advective Equilibrium (RAE) a fundamentally different process from the tropics. It is hard to compare them. See (Cronin & Jansen, 2016) or (Feldl et al., 2026) or here: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/06/08/the-moist-adiabatic-theory-vs-reality/

Frank from NoVA

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 11:33 am

‘See (Cronin & Jansen, 2016)’

Is this the same Timothy Cronin who maintains that even a highly linear relationship between Earth’s heat loss to space and temperature is consistent with radiative energy transfer?

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1809868115

Andy May

Author

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 18, 2026 12:56 pm

I think it is the same Timothy W. Cronin. But you bring up a complicated question that is a bit off topic. I address this issue in another post where it is all laid out, see here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2025/02/01/energy-and-matter/

Basically, the linear trend is consistent with Newton’s law of cooling and not with radiative cooling. His plot is very interesting and important, but as you note, his explanation makes little sense.

Frank from NoVA

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 2:34 pm

Thanks, Andy. I indeed became acquainted with the graphic in your excellent ‘energy-and-matter’ post. Sorry for going off topic – just wanted to drop a hint that this author has a bias towards ‘normal’ science, i.e., defending the radiative-centric AGW narrative.

bnice2000

Reply to Clyde Spencer

June 18, 2026 5:16 am

Greenland ice mass balance was more negative in the 1930s and 40s..

bnice2000

Reply to Clyde Spencer

June 18, 2026 5:18 am

And Greenland ice sheet area is only a tiny amount down from the peak of the LIA.. and far higher than most of the last 7000-8000 years

(note are in this chart includes all the regional islands.)

-2

Phil.

Reply to bnice2000

June 18, 2026 7:30 am

You’re showing this fake graph again! Briner et al. does not include data for 2015 that is your mistaken addition to the graph, in fact no data for the last 75 years was included. This is their representation of the Greenland Ice Sheet and does not include ‘regional islands’, the current Greenland Ice Sheet area is ~1.7×10^12 m^2.

Eldrosion

Reply to Phil.

June 18, 2026 9:00 am

Phil.

This is his tactic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

-1

Jeff Alberts

Reply to Eldrosion

June 17, 2026 5:07 pm

Do you chastise D’Arrigo for her proud cherry picking?

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 3:56 pm

Andy,
I’ve explained the proper scientific way of analysing it, which is balancing heat flux at the surface. But there are elementary indicators that you are wrong:
_1. Our bodies are just as opaque to IR as seawater. But it is common experience that IR warms us.

That is similar to the ocean surface. Heat is emitted by the body. When IR impinges on the surface, the net heat loss is reduced. Our bodies gain heat, but nothing had to penetrate.

_2. The example of La Niña. That is when the equatorial Pacific ocean becomes colder. Then the air becomes colder. How can that be if the air’s warmth does not pass into the ocean?

-14

bnice2000

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 4:38 pm

There is very little sign of any La Nina affect in the UAH data, but the major El Nino events stand out as a spike + step event …

… with basically no warming between them.

Eldrosion

Reply to bnice2000

June 17, 2026 11:55 pm

Red cherry, green cherry, purple cherry.

-9

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 6:14 pm

Several problems with your logic.

IR affects the surface, as explained by Wong and Minnett, this affects the gradient below the surface, but has little effect on the deeper ocean. Sunlight affects the deeper ocean directly.
La Nina follows a solar cycle.

Mike

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 7:44 pm

And, I believe that much of the ocean warming occurs around the coasts where the water is shallow, the heat can then move out into the open ocean by convection and overturning.
I had occasion to experience this in Hawaii. The shallow water near the beach (about 1-2 metres deep) was very warm – almost too warm (perhaps 27C) – but where the coastal shelf suddenly gave way to deep water, the temperature below was icy cold comparably. (perhaps 8C) This shallow water is warmed directly by the sun, not Nick’s stupid atmosphere.

Mike

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 7:35 pm

_1. Our bodies are just as opaque to IR as seawater. But it is common experience that IR warms us.
That is similar to the ocean surface. Heat is emitted by the body. When IR impinges on the surface, the net heat loss is reduced. Our bodies gain heat, but nothing had to penetrate.

Beyond stupid.

Anthony Banton

Reply to Mike

June 18, 2026 8:54 am

“Beyond stupid.”

Not but Ditto

-1

leefor

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 9:11 pm

“_1. Our bodies are just as opaque to IR as seawater. But it is common experience that IR warms us.”

When does IR warm us rather that direct sunlight?

Nick Stokes

Reply to leefor

June 18, 2026 12:19 am

Around a fire on a cold night….

leefor

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 2:20 am

Oh, only on a cold night. Got it. lol

Phil.

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 7:36 am

When I work out on the track in the evening after a sunny day I can feel the warmth radiating from the concrete wall as a walk near it, no direct sunshine.

Anthony Banton

Reply to Phil.

June 18, 2026 9:01 am

And when my radiators are on in winter even though the air temperature remains the same it always feels warmer than when the thermostat switches them off.

Pub garden heaters work via IR. Had one in my parents bathroom as a kid.

Same with my log-burner – kicks out IR.

This really is bizarre – not comprehending the fact that LWIR is thermalised by water and human bodies … but then again WUWT is an alternate Universe.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 3:39 am

“I’ve explained the proper scientific way of analysing it, which is balancing heat flux at the surface.”

Heat flux at the surface can NEVER balance. Since heat flux-in occurs over a different time interval then heat flux-out THEY CAN NEVER BALANCE. What has to balance is joules-in and joules-out over time.

If as Andy says, El Nino is the ocean increasing heat flux-out by dumping heat accumulated in the deeper ocean then *the* joules associated with that will contribute to the joules-in/joules-out balance, NOT to flux-in/flux-out balance.

The “balance interval” needs to be at least as long as the intervals between El Ninos. It actually needs to be *much* longer than that to observe *all* of the cyclical factors affecting the joules-in/joules-out balance.

“Our bodies gain heat, but nothing had to penetrate.”

Our bodies gain heat because of metabolic heat generated inside the body, the body is a HEAT SOURCE. Where is the analog heat source for the earth? Where does the heat gain come from? Slower cooling is *NOT* heat gain, it is slower heat LOSS.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 18, 2026 10:04 am

“Where is the analog heat source for the earth?”

The sun.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 18, 2026 3:21 pm

The sun is *NOT* an internal heat source like the body’s metabolism. There is no internal heat source in the earth that can cancel out the cooling and *raise* the temperature of the earth.

The sun is the ONLY heat source in the system that needs to be considered, all geothermal sources are orders of magnitude less.

Slower cooling is STILL cooling!

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 18, 2026 5:53 pm

It’s irrelevant if the heat source is internal or external.

You keep making this dumb “slower cooling” chestnut, without understanding that slower cooling results in warming. If the sun is warming the oceans by the same amount each day, but each night the oceans are cooling slower, what happens to the temperature?

Andy May

Author

Reply to Bellman

June 18, 2026 6:05 pm

“slower cooling results in warming”

Hilarious! Did you read what you wrote?

Bellman

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 7:37 pm

Yes. Do you understand the point?

Unless Tim believes that the oceans have been always cooling, are currently at the warmest they will ever be and at best will cool at a slower rate in the future, then you have to see the cooling as part of warming/cooling cycles – either day/night or summer winter. Slowing the rate of the cooling phase without also reducing the rate of the warming phase would result in an overall rise in sea temperature.

-1

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 5:06 am

“Unless Tim believes that the oceans have been always cooling”

The entire earth has been cooling over its entire life. Otherwise, we’d be living on a molten rock.

“are currently at the warmest they will ever be and at best will cool at a slower rate in the future”

Again, the cooling function is F(t) = F0 * e^-(t/τ)

What does an exponential decay curve look like? Does the slope of the curve get less over time?

“then you have to see the cooling as part of warming/cooling cycles – either day/night or summer winter.”

How about over glacial/inter-glacial periods? Heat gain/loss is a continual process over ALL time, not a piece of time limited to diurnal or seasonal.

“Slowing the rate of the cooling phase without also reducing the rate of the warming phase would result in an overall rise in sea temperature.”

Bullshite! Slower cooling IS STILL COOLING. Slower cooling DOES NOT PUSH TEMPERATURE BACK UP THE GRADIENT. It just means the temperature doesn’t go down as fast, BUT IT STILL GOES DOWN!

The temperature of the earth either goes down or it goes up. If it has been going up due to CO2, which has existed in the atmosphere over all of the millennia, then it would be either a molten ball as when it started or it would have reached temperature equilibrium with the sun.

If the temperature of the earth is going down then it simply doesn’t matter how fast it is going down, it will sooner or later reach an equilibrium with the sun. Has the earth reached an equilibrium point with the sun? If so, then do you believe there will be another glacial period in our future or do you believe we will never see another glacial period?

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 5:31 am

“The entire earth has been cooling over its entire life. Otherwise, we’d be living on a molten rock.”

Really? You think the earth is colder now than it was during the last ice age?

“Again, the cooling function is F(t) = F0 * e^-(t/τ)”

Just keep ignoring the sun

“The temperature of the earth either goes down or it goes up.”

So you admit temperature can go up. So why do you keep trolling out that cooling function?

“If it has been going up due to CO2, which has existed in the atmosphere over all of the millennia, then it would be either a molten ball as when it started or it would have reached temperature equilibrium with the sun.”

Stop changing the subject. This discussion is about infra red warming the oceans not co2 specifically. But apart from that, you just keep displaying your ignorance. You said yourself in the previous comment that as temperature increases so does heat loss. If you actually tried to think through this you would understand why that tends to equilibrium rather than ever increasing temperatures.

“Has the earth reached an equilibrium point with the sun?”

Nope. And that’s exactly why the concept of the greenhouse effect was discovered.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 5:54 am

“Really? You think the earth is colder now than it was during the last ice age?”

How in Pete’s name do you think the last ice age happened if the earth wasn’t cooling somehow?

“Just keep ignoring the sun”

The sun doesn’t stop the earth from cooling. It only changes the rate of cooling. I.e. “τ”. It doesn’t change e^-(t/τ) to e^(t/τ).

“So you admit temperature can go up. So why do you keep trolling out that cooling function?”

Unbelievable. Does the word “either” not mean anything to you? Your reading comprehension skills are just truly sad.

“Stop changing the subject.”

No changing of the subject. Either the earth is warming or it is cooling. If it’s warming then it would be warming from the very start – meaning it would *still* be a molten rock.

You just don’t want to have to live with what you are asserting so you are looking for an excuse.

“You said yourself in the previous comment that as temperature increases so does heat loss.”

So what? Are you disputing that simple truth?

” If you actually tried to think through this you would understand why that tends to equilibrium rather than ever increasing temperatures.”

You don’t even understand that the system is a three-body system. The sun, the earth, and space (about 0K).

The equilibrium point is where the heat loss to space balances the heat gain from the sun.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 7:33 am

“How in Pete’s name do you think the last ice age happened if the earth wasn’t cooling somehow?”

Dodging the question, as usual. Your claim may or may not be that the world is constantly cooling. I’m just trying to determine what you actually think “slower cooling is still cooling” means in the real world.

“The sun doesn’t stop the earth from cooling.”

That’s quite a take.

“I.e. “τ”. It doesn’t change e^-(t/τ) to e^(t/τ).”

What do you think your equation means? It clearly doesn’t describe anything over a 24 hour period. Temperatures usually rise when the sun’s out.

“Does the word “either” not mean anything to you?”

You said either the temperature goes up or down. That could mean some times they go up and sometime down which would be a sane thing to say, or it could mean the they can be ever decreasing or ever increasing. I take it that’s your opinion. That if temperatures go down they can never go up. But it’s impossible to say for sure as you keep equivocating on the subject. You change the argument whenever it suites you.

“No changing of the subject. Either the earth is warming or it is cooling.”

The subject was about oceans and whether a warmer atmosphere increased ocean temperatures.

“So what? Are you disputing that simple truth?”

Nope. I’m pointing out why that simple truth disproves your assertion.

“The sun, the earth, and space (about 0K).”

Nope, it’s the ocean the sun and the atmosphere. Even if you want to change the subject to global warming, it’s the surface, the atmosphere, space and the sun.

“The equilibrium point is where the heat loss to space balances the heat gain from the sun.”

And that heat loss is slowed down by the atmosphere.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 12:07 pm

“Dodging the question, as usual.”

Why don’t you just admit you don’t know the answer? The only one dodging the question is YOU!

“Your claim may or may not be that the world is constantly cooling.”

The earth *is* constantly cooling. There simply isn’t any doubt about it. The entire earth loses heat to space 24 hours per day. Why is this so hard to understand?

“That’s quite a take.”

You mean you have absolutely no understanding of the thermodynamics of the earth’s biosphere at all. Again, the system has three bodies, the sun, the earth, and space. And space surrounds the entire earth 24 hours per day. Since the earth is warmer than space it moves heat to space 24 HOURS PER DAY.

“What do you think your equation means? It clearly doesn’t describe anything over a 24 hour period. Temperatures usually rise when the sun’s out.”

The earth radiates to space 24 hours per day! The flux it emits is driven by the decay equation F(t) = F0 * e^-(t/τ). It’s not much different from the voltage decay of a capacitor through a resistor!

F0 is a function of its own. If the earth starts with flux determined by 200K then the next second the flux it emits will be 200k – e^-(1/τ). Have you bothered to look up what “τ” is? It’s a function of its own also, it’s just doesn’t have time as an independent variable.! Now, if the earth is getting energy from the sun then F0 will no longer be 200K. F0 will change based on the balance between the energy in and the energy out at 200K.

Why do you think Tmax many days happens around 3pm local while sunset is around 9pm during the summer? The exponential decay of the earth’s temperature doesn’t start at sunset, it starts when the exponential decay value is greater than the input from the sun – about 3pm!

This is why I said this is a difficult equation to calculate. F0 is not a constant.

Apparently the heat *energy* form of the exponential decay doesn’t make any sense to you either. Q(t) = Q0 * e^-(t/τ).

“ That could mean some times they go up and sometime down which would be a sane thing to say,”

Your reading comprehension skills seem to be getting worse and worse. Either that or you are cherry picking again. You left off the full context of what I said (just like you do with the GUM): “ If it’s warming then it would be warming from the very start – meaning it would *still* be a molten rock.” That does *NOT* imply that sometimes the earth warms and sometimes it cools. The earth cools *all* the time, it’s just that sometimes it cools at a slower rate than at other times!

“That if temperatures go down they can never go up”

You are *still* showing a fundamental lack of knowledge of how the biosphere works. That is *NOT* what I am saying at all. If this were the case Tmax for tomorrow could never be higher than Tmax today.

Again, for the umpteenth time, it is HEAT LOSS and HEAT GAIN, not temperature. It is Energy-in vs Energy-in!

” But it’s impossible to say for sure as you keep equivocating on the subject.”

It’s impossible for you to say because 1. you simply can’t read for meaning, and 2. all you ever do is cherry pick rather than trying to actually learn the subject.

“The subject was about oceans and whether a warmer atmosphere increased ocean temperatures.”

And as you’ve been told and shown with MATH that a colder atmosphere cannot warm the ocean. The ocean *always* loses energy to the cooler atmosphere. The loss of energy simply CAN NOT increase the temperature of anything! Only heat input from a heat source can increase energy. CO2 is *NOT* a heat source.

“Nope. I’m pointing out why that simple truth disproves your assertion.”

You have yet to produce ANY math associated with thermodynamics that shows a colder object can increase the energy of a warmer object. That “simple truth” of yours exists solely in your mind and no where else (except perhaps bdgwx and Nick).

“Nope, it’s the ocean the sun and the atmosphere. Even if you want to change the subject to global warming, it’s the surface, the atmosphere, space and the sun.”

Show the math. Show the thermo equations between the earth, the sun, and space that determine the energy-in and energy-out of the system.

“And that heat loss is slowed down by the atmosphere.”

Then why isn’t the earth a molten ball of rock floating in space? If energy in is consistently greater than heat out then it’s no different than applying the flame of an acetylene torch to a gram of silver. That silver becomes molten.

Again, it isn’t the RATE of energy loss that is at issue. It’s the joules-in vs the joules-out.

Phil.

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 8:45 am

Misuse of terminology is a cause of confusion. Regarding the heat transfer, it’s heat input and heat loss, regarding the response of the surface its heating and cooling. When heat loss rate exceeds the heat input rate the surface will cool.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 18, 2026 6:14 pm

If the sun is warming the oceans by the same amount each day, but each night the oceans are cooling slower, what happens to the temperature?

Tmin will rise. I don’t know anyone in climate science that says a rising Tmin will make the earth burn up.

Do you think Tmin can warm beyond Tmax?

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 18, 2026 7:42 pm

“Tmin will rise.”

Which demonstrates the “slower cooling” argument is nonsense.

But if Tmin rises, you should also expect Tmax to rise. If you are starting each day from a warmer minimum, and you get the same amount of energy from the sun, why would you not expect to reach a higher daily maximum?

“I don’t know anyone in climate science that says a rising Tmin will make the earth burn up.”

Why do you keep wanting the world to “burn up”? Has anyone claimed it will literally do that?

-2

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 5:10 am

“But if Tmin rises, you should also expect Tmax to rise”

Tmax has a boundary condition – namely T^4. It’s why Tmax doesn’t just soar without boundary even today.

” If you are starting each day from a warmer minimum, and you get the same amount of energy from the sun, why would you not expect to reach a higher daily maximum?”

Because T^4 goes up faster than T.

“Why do you keep wanting the world to “burn up”? Has anyone claimed it will literally do that?”

That *IS* the result of your hypothesis. You are the one that says an increasing Tmin implies an increasing Tmax. If slower cooling pushes Tmin up continually then Tmax will go up continually – a positive feedback loop progressing to destruction.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 5:43 am

“Tmax has a boundary condition – namely T^4. ”

Yes, if everything else is constant the earch teaches a point where it’s average temperature is sufficient to output the same energy as it’s receiving on average from the sun. But if you block some of the energy from leaving the average temperature has to rise in order to reach a new equilibrium. But that doesn’t just apply to the maximum temperature.

“Because T^4 goes up faster than T. ”

So?

“If slower cooling pushes Tmin up continually…”

It doesn’t, but thanks for resorting to another strawman argument.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 6:05 am

“ But if you block some of the energy from leaving the average temperature has to rise in order to reach a new equilibrium.”

The entire mythical meme that CO2 *blocks* or “traps” heat has been debunked over and over and over again. Yet here you are, trying to revive it. It’s based on an assumption that in and out flux has to balance at any point in time. Flux in and flux out simply can *NOT* balance at any point in time.

If CO2 “trapped” energy the earth would *still* be a molten rock since CO2 has existed in the atmosphere for most of its existence. Meaning heat would have built up and up and up over time until everything melted!

“So?”

joules-in is related to Q which then determines T, a linear relation. Joules-out is related to T^4. Somehow that means nothing to you?

“It doesn’t, but thanks for resorting to another strawman argument.”

You can’t have it both ways. If CO2 traps heat then Tmin is going to go up. So which is it? Does CO2 TRAP heat or does Tmin not continue to go up?

Pick one and stick with it.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 8:02 am

“The entire mythical meme that CO2 *blocks* or “traps” heat has been debunked over and over and over again.”

Debunked in your imagination.

“Flux in and flux out simply can *NOT* balance at any point in time. ”

They don’t have to balance at a single moment in time. They just have to balance over a reasonable time frame.

“If CO2 “trapped” energy the earth would *still* be a molten rock since CO2 has existed in the atmosphere for most of its existence.”

That’s you delusion. It’s not what anybody with even the slightest understanding of the subject says. More energy in the system rises temperature which means more energy is released. Hence a new equilibrium.

“joules-in is related to Q which then determines T, a linear relation. Joules-out is related to T^4. Somehow that means nothing to you?”

Every time I think these arguments can’t get any dumber….

Suppose you have an object in equilibrium. It’s temperature is such that in equals out. Double the energy in flux does not double Q. In order to return to equilibrium Q just has to increase to the point where out equals in. This will happen at the point where out has doubled.

The T⁴ part doesn’t change that. It just determines what the new equilibrium temperature will be.

“If CO2 traps heat then Tmin is going to go up. ”

What do you mean by “traps”. I suspect this is another case of you reading to much into a simple metaphore. I said that greenhouse gases block some of the outgoing energy. That blocked energy eventually radiates back to the surface increasing the temperature. That will increase the energy being emitted and again some of that will be blocked. But eventually the increased energy being emitted will be sufficient to conteract the blocking effect. Temperatures do not increase indefinitely.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 12:49 pm

“They don’t have to balance at a single moment in time. They just have to balance over a reasonable time frame.”

What’s reasonable? Millennia? Centuries? Decades? Years? Days? Hours? Seconds?

“More energy in the system rises temperature which means more energy is released. Hence a new equilibrium.”

You are running away from your own assertion! If CO2 traps heat then a new equilibrium will NEVER be reached. The energy accumulated will continue to go up. It’s only when MORE heat is input to the system that a new equilibrium will be reached. But CO2 is *NOT* a heat source, it is a reflector of emitted heat!

“Every time I think these arguments can’t get any dumber….”

It’s YOUR math, not mine. T goes up linearly, heat loss goes up by T^4. You can’t seem to grasp that means a negative feedback!

“Suppose you have an object in equilibrium. It’s temperature is such that in equals out. Double the energy in flux does not double Q.”

OMG! Let the flux = 10 joules/sec-m^2. In one second 10 joules gets transmitted through every m^2. Double the flux to 20 joule/sec-m^2.

What happens to the joules transmitted every second into every m^2?

(hint: Q is measured in joules)

“In order to return to equilibrium Q just has to increase to the point where out equals in.”

How did you double the flux? CO2 is *NOT* a source of heat energy.

Once again, this is an issue with climate science trying to use flux as a metric for energy. It isn’t!

Once again, if the sun is transmitting 100 joules/sec and the earth is emitting 100 joules per second and CO2 is reflecting 50 joules/sec of that 100 joules/sec being emitted, you have a net of 50 joules/sec out! You do *NOT* have 150 joules/sec going in with only 50 joules/sec out!

You keep forgetting that the 50 joules/sec that CO2 is reflecting HAS ALREADY BEEN LOST by the earth. The earth is DOWN by 100 joules/sec before CO2 can send anything back! All CO2 can do is replace part of what has been lost, not all of it let alone MORE than has already been lost!

Heat transfer is a TIME FUNCTION. You have to analyze it over time.

“That blocked energy eventually radiates back to the surface increasing the temperature.”

It can’t raise the temperature. It is only replacing part of what has already been lost. It SLOWS cooling, that is all! Cooling doesn’t result in increased temperature. Reflected heat simply can’t drive the temperature of the emitter BACK UP THE GRADIENT.

READ PLANCK! The 50 joules/sec that is reflected gets re-emitted. The emitting object now emits the 50 joules/sec that was reflected plus 50 joules/sec based on its temperature (50 + 50 = 100). 50 joules/sec re-emitted plus an additional 50 joules/sec is COOLING. Cooling does not cause a temperature increase.

Think about it for a minute. If CO2 blocks outgoing IR what does it do to incoming IR? If it blocks 50 going out it blocks 50 coming in. 50 – 50 = 0. Where is the warming?

Or are you now going to say what climate sciences says? That CO2 is a one-way blocker?

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 5:47 am

But if Tmin rises, you should also expect Tmax to rise.

A totally unproven assertion. It is based on your faulty assumptions. Look at this graph. It is over a 12:00 am to 12:00 am period (24 hours). The ‘heating” takes place over about 12 hours. The “cooling” takes place over all 24 hours. The predominant rate of cooling is while temperature is highest, but cooling occurs until just before heating begins again.

If you can’t tell by looking, the rate of heating is high, and the rate of cooling is lower but lasts longer. You and many others dwell on rates, W/m². These are time based values. Time matters in the calculation of totals.

Why do you keep wanting the world to “burn up”? Has anyone claimed it will literally do that?

Every time someone shows 0.3°?C/decade in the context of ever growing temperatures, then the assumption is that as long as CO2 grows so will temperature. If you want to express this value with no clarification that is up to you. If you don’t believe that the increase will continue, then you need to state for how long it will continue.

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 6:54 am

“A totally unproven assertion. ”

None of these assertions are proven. They are just one set of interpretations of the models against another. I’m sure it would be possible to set up an experiment to test the claims emperically.

” The ‘heating” takes place over about 12 hours. The “cooling” takes place over all 24 hours. ”

Yet it ends up warmer than it started. I’m really not sure what point you two think you are making with all this 12 Vs 24 hour nonsense. If temperatures stay the same it’s because the total energy in over 24 hours equals the total energy out over the same period. The fact that most of the energy in happens over a 12 hour period just means you are receiving energy at twice the rate over that period. Alternatively it means the average rate of energy in in has to equal the average rate if energy out.

The simple point you keep missing is that if you reduce the rate of energy out, then that means more energy is received over 24 hours and hence you get slightly warmer. If on average you are constantly getting more energy on than out temperatures keep rising, but fortunately, so does energy out. So you end up with a warmer equilibrium, not indefinite warming as you seem to image.

” The ‘heating” takes place over about 12 hours. The “cooling” takes place over all 24 hours. ”

“Every time someone shows 0.3°?C/decade in the context of ever growing temperatures, then the assumption is that as long as CO2 grows so will temperature”

And why do you think CO2 will rise indefinitely?

And how long do you think an increase of 0.3°C / decade would have to continue before the world literally burnt? What do you even mean by the world will burn?

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 10:10 am

“Yet it ends up warmer than it started. I’m really not sure what point you two think you are making with all this 12 Vs 24 hour nonsense. If temperatures stay the same it’s because the total energy in over 24 hours equals the total energy out over the same period.“

Flux is joules per second. Energy is joules. You have to multiply joules/sec by seconds to get joules!

The time intervals involved determines amount.

Since the time intervals are different the temperatures CHANGE over time. In addition you have the complication of latent vs sensible heat.

Since both the ocean and the land are heat sinks with conductive flows that cycle in time, Nyquist requires an observation period long enough to see the longest cycle.

Energy-in and energy-out involve at least century- long cycle periods. NOT radiative balance second to second or even diurnally.

You REALLY don’t do science at all, do you?

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 10:30 am

“The time intervals involved determines amount.”

And as I was explaining, so to does the rate. If you have an incoming flux of 320W/m² for 12 hours, and an outgoing flux of 160W/m² for 24 hours, you have an equilibrium.

Ignoring the rest of you attempts to deflect from this point.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 11:03 am

Ignoring the rest of you attempts to deflect from this point.

No deflection at all! Both you and others have attempted to use flux balancing to justify warming. If you have suddenly changed your mind that it is not fluxes that must balance but actual energy over time, i.e., joules, then great, our instructing has done some good.

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 11:35 am

So you accept that slower cooling can warm the oceans? Good. It the total energy balance has more energy in than energy out, the oceans warm. As the surface are is constant this equates to the average flux in being greater than the average flux out.

-1

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 1:12 pm

SLOWER COOLING IS *NOT* WARMING!

Slower cooling is just that, slower cooling. Temperature keeps on going down, “τ” just changes. e^-(t/τ) doesn’t all of a sudden become e^(t/τ).

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 2:47 pm

“SLOWER COOLING IS *NOT* WARMING!”

Shouting is not an argument.

“Slower cooling is just that, slower cooling.”

It’s just that until you accept the existence of another heat source, such as a sun. You can write your continuous cooling function all you want. It’s just you blackboard math until you factor in that heat source.

Out of interest, what value do you attribute to τ? How long will it take the oceans to freeze using your equation?

-2

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 2:14 am

“It’s just that until you accept the existence of another heat source, such as a sun.”

100 joules_emitted – 50 joules_reflected = 50 joules_cooling.

Where do you think the 100 joules_out comes from? Another dimension? The issue is how does CO2 increase temperature, not whether the sun can increase temperature.
“Out of interest, what value do you attribute to τ”

Here you are, lecturing us all on thermodynamics and you have no idea of what “τ” is or what it’s value is?

There are separate “τ” decay factors for conduction, convection, and radiation.

Go look it up. You’ll just ignore it if I tell you what they are. (hint: for radiation, “τ” is related to T^3. Can you even figure out why it is T^3 and not T^4?

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 20, 2026 5:33 am

“100 joules_emitted – 50 joules_reflected = 50 joules_cooling. ”

Where’s the sun?

“Here you are, lecturing us all on thermodynamics and you have no idea of what “τ” is or what it’s value is?”

Not answering the question. What value is τ?

If you could answer that you could also say how long it will take the earth to cool to 0k. I suspect you won’t answer because it would demonstrate the importance of the sun.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 3:16 pm

So you accept that slower cooling can warm the oceans?

Nice try dude! That is not what I said. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Here is my math. Show us yours.

T₁ < Tₙ₋₁ Cooling
T₁ = Tₙ₋₁ Equalibrium
T₁ > Tₙ₋₁ Heating

Now take a heat equation of your choice and attempt to make it derive a heating inequality.

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 4:40 pm

“Here is my math. Show us yours.”

You are just stating that if one temperature is cooler than another it’s cooling. You are as usual completely ignoring the point. And it’s absurd when you’ve admitted from the start that slower cooling raises Tmin.

My maths? Say at sunset the ocean temperature is 15°C and over night it cools rapidly by 5°C, it’s temperature at sunrise is 10°C. But if on a different night it cools slower, by 4°C and so reaches a temperature of 11°C. Then I claim that

11 > 10.

Hence, slower cooling causes warming.

Now I further claim that if the daytime sun causes similar level of rise each day then as the following day will start from a warmer temperature, it’s maximum will also be warmer.

-2

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 2:20 am

“And it’s absurd when you’ve admitted from the start that slower cooling raises Tmin.”

And what does a higher Tmin indicate?

Apply it to the equation E∝τ

” But if on a different night it cools slower, by 4°C and so reaches a temperature of 11°C.”

And what does the equation E∝τ tell you about the heat loss from the slower cooling?

“Hence, slower cooling causes warming.”

15°C > 11°C
15°C > 10°C

So where did the warming happen? All you’ve done is shown slower cooling!

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 20, 2026 5:42 am

“So where did the warming happen?”

During the day, when that sum you don’t believe in, appears.

But the real problem is how you are equivocating about the word “cooling”. You are trying to imply that it only relates to cooling over the night time, but I’m saying warming happens from day to day, and year to year.

Consider I get paid on the first of the month, then spend money throughout the month. My savings keep dropping, and so you say I’m getting poorer. But I’m saying if I spend less than I earn each month I’m getting richer as my savings increase each month.

When we talk about the oceans getting warmer it isn’t about the second by second change. It’s about wether it’s warmer now than it was a few years ago. And in this case it’s about whether it’s warmer than it would have been if the atmosphere were colder.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 1:10 pm

“And as I was explaining, so to does the rate. If you have an incoming flux of 320W/m² for 12 hours, and an outgoing flux of 160W/m² for 24 hours, you have an equilibrium.”

So now you are repeating what I’ve been telling you this whole time.

THE FLUX WILL NEVER BALANCE!

You have an equilibrium in JOULES-IN and JOULES-OUT, not in flux-in and flux-out.

And joules-in and joules-out have time intervals in centuries if not in millennia. Trenberth’s radiative balance chart simply can’t be correct. It shows rates, not amounts, and it does not show a normalized time interval!

If the flux is not balanced then neither are the temperature profiles.

Again, that’s why Tmax happens before sunset. The joules-out become greater than the joules-in!

So, now tell us one more time how a cold body can increase the joules in a warmer body so the temperature of the warmer body increases.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 2:41 pm

“So now you are repeating what I’ve been telling you this whole time.

THE FLUX WILL NEVER BALANCE!”

I’ve literally just pointed out an example of an equal input and output over a day. The balance is zero. There is no net warming or cooling. I can’t help it if you don’t understand why a net zero balence means that there will be no change from day to day. Nor can I help it if you don’t understand that temperatures can, and will, change over the course of a day, yet still end up with no overall change.

You seem to be arguing that unless the fluxes are identical from second to second there is no equalibrium, and don’t seem to understand that the equalibrium exists over longer time frames.

You are a great example of not being able to see the woods for the trees.

“So, now tell us one more time how a cold body can increase the joules in a warmer body so the temperature of the warmer body increases.”

Why? Do you think there’s some chance you’ll understand it this time?

-1

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 2:06 am

“You seem to be arguing that unless the fluxes are identical from second to second there is no equalibrium,”

No, that is what climate science is arguing.

FLUX WILL NEVER BALANCE.

“I’ve literally just pointed out an example of an equal input and output over a day. “

You pointed out that the ENERGY will balance, not the flux!

You are as bad as bdgwx. Flux is a RATE, not an amount. Energy is an amount!

It is the amount of heat that has to balance, not the rate of flow!

“Why? Do you think there’s some chance you’ll understand it this time?”

You simply can’t admit that 100 joules_out – 50 joules_reflected = 50 joules_lost, can you?

50 joules lost is COOLING, not warming.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 10:14 am

“Alternatively it means the average rate of energy in in has to equal the average rate if energy out.”

Over what period if time? Do you have even the faintest clue about conduction, gradients, and time?

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 10:33 am

“Over what period if time?”

Whatever you want. Stop trying to deflect.

-1

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 11:02 am

Whatever you want. Stop trying to deflect.

No deflection. The time is a very important value. Take land during the spring and summer. Do you think the land emits as many joules as it revives during this time? If not, then how do those joules stored 10 – 20 inches in the soil warm the atmosphere? Can you balance fluxes or energy over this time period?

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 11:31 am

Yes, deflection. The point is if you look over any period of time, if you had more energy in than out, the temperature will have increased. You were the ones who kept going on about 12 and 24 hour periods, so I assume you are interested in a single day. A year would be more appropriate to even out seasonal effects, and a longer period will even out other short term affects.

But that’s all beside the point, when you are claiming that slowing down the rate of cooling will not increase temperatures. As always when you lose that argument you start trying to deflect into the finer details in the hope that nobody notices your original misunderstanding.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 1:42 am

“But that’s all beside the point, when you are claiming that slowing down the rate of cooling will not increase temperatures.”

SHOW THE MATH!

100 joules-emitted – 50 joules-reflected = 50 joules of cooling

Increasing temperature requires ADDING HEAT ENERGY, not losing energy. Partial reflection of already emitted heat is just that, it is returning energy already emitted. That slows cooling and results in MORE energy being emitted per unit time.

E_emitted ∝ τ

τ is the decay rate. Slower cooling means a longer decay time, i.e. τ gets larger. τ getting larger means energy-emitted gets larger.

(E_emitted ∝ τ) is a pretty simple equation. SHOW THE MATH REFUTING IT!

(E_emitted ∝ τ) is not a finer detail. It’s about as simple as you can get.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 20, 2026 4:23 am

“100 joules-emitted – 50 joules-reflected = 50 joules of cooling”

This is just getting deranged. You just keep denying the sun exists. If the surface is emitting 100 joules it’s because it received 100 joules from the sun. With the atmosphere it gets an extra 50 joules back (not from reflection). Hence the surface gaines a net 50 joules.

100 – 100 + 50 = 50

That increases it’s temperature until balance is restored, which happens when it is emitting a value equal to what it receives from the sun plus what it receives from the atmosphere. In this simple example that happens when it emmits 200 joules, and gets back 100 from the atmosphere.

100 – 200 + 100 = 0.

In order to be emitting twice as many joules the internal energy has to have doubled. Which means temperature has risen by the fourth root of 2. About 20%. So if the temperature without an atmosphere was 250K, the temperature with this opaque atmosphere would be closer to 300K.

Everything you write just keeps ignoring the sun. Until you can accept that the earth does not just lose energy, but also gaines energy from the sun, you will never understand this.

But I really don’t get how you think this constant cooling hypothesis works. You keep asking me to do the math, yet you never do it yourself. Just how quickly do you think the earth is cooling? How long before the earth becomes uninhabital according to your hypothesis?

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 10:51 am

Alternatively it means the average rate of energy in in has to equal the average rate if energy out.

Funny how you and your cohort criticize Dr. Frank for using a time label and yet you do the same! Why have you changed your mind about making an average have a common time label?

The simple point you keep missing is that if you reduce the rate of energy out, then that means more energy is received over 24 hours and hence you get slightly warmer.

How does reducing energy out cause more energy to be received? Are you back to claiming that the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?

Bellman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 11:22 am

“Funny how you and your cohort criticize Dr. Frank for using a time label and yet you do the same! ‘

No idea what your point is. The only thing I’ve criticized Frank for was not explaining why he doesn’t reduce uncertainty for an average, and claiming that standard deviations can be negative.

And I’m not sure why you think any criticism about Frank means you can’t point out that total energy transfer will depend on time.

“How does reducing energy out cause more energy to be received? ”

I should have said “net” energy received. It should be obvious from context.

” Are you back to claiming that the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?”

When have I ever claimed that? If the atmosphere was warmer than the ocean surface, there wouldn’t be any cooling at night.

-1

Tim Gorman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 1:14 pm

“How does reducing energy out cause more energy to be received? Are you back to claiming that the atmosphere is warmer than the surface?”

All you have to do is look up at the sky to see the flames from CO2 burning!

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 11:12 am

“And why do you think CO2 will rise indefinitely?”

It doesn’t have to rise. If CO2 “TRAPS” heat that is emitted by the earth then the amount of heat that is trapped will just keep on increasing. If every time the earth emits 100 joules, CO2 traps “x” joules of that 100 joules then for every increment of 100 joules emitted the trapped heat will go up by “x” joules. Sooner or later the amount trapped will be sufficient to scour the earth of all life.

The alternative is that CO2 does not “trap” heat. If CO2 does not trap heat then the models are all garbage. And your claim that trapped heat causes the temperature to go up is garbage as well.

You can’t seem to keep it in mind that as T goes up T^4 goes up more. That’s a negative feedback that prevents accumulation of heat. You lose more heat than you gain as temperature goes up. This is Planck’s “compensation” for reflected heat.

Now, come back and tell us that CO2 is not a reflector of heat but a source of heat.

SHOW THE MATH!

If the sun inputs 100 joules and the earth emits 100 joules and CO2 reflects back 50 joules the earth LOSES A NET 50 joules. The loss of energy is COOLING. In the next instant the earth will re-emit that reflected 50 joules PLUS the 100 joules the sun sent in. This repeats over and over and over. Reflected heat is *NOT* additional heat in the system.

Why is this so hard for you and climate science to understand? THE LOSS OF ENERGY IS COOLING, NOT WARMING.

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 12:01 pm

Try reading the thread. I was commenting on Jim’s statement

then the assumption is that as long as CO2 grows so will temperature.

“If CO2 “TRAPS” heat that is emitted by the earth then the amount of heat that is trapped will just keep on increasing.”

You are either incredibly dumb, with a “b”, or deliberately trolling. I’ve explained why you are wrong multiple times.

“If every time the earth emits 100 joules, CO2 traps “x” joules of that 100 joules then for every increment of 100 joules emitted the trapped heat will go up by “x” joules”.

And so will emit more energy. Surely even you can understand that.

If 50% of the emissions are returned, then by the time temperatures have ridden enough to emit twice as much energy, the 50% that escapes will equal energy in. That’s the point when you have reached equilibrium and the temperature stops rising.

Using the T⁴ rule, a doubling of energy out occured when temperature has increased by about 20%.

The observed greenhouse effect is less than that given that the greenhouse gases are not completely opaque.

“If the sun inputs 100 joules and the earth emits 100 joules and CO2 reflects back 50 joules the earth LOSES A NET 50 joules. ”

What sort of alternative maths do they teach you? No. If you get 100 of something, lose 100, but then get back 50, you have not lost a net 50. 100 -100 + 50 does not equal -50.

“In the next instant the earth will re-emit that reflected 50 joules PLUS the 100 joules the sun sent in.”

You are really confused. First you say you’ve lost 50, now you say you’ve got an extra 50 to give away.

“This repeats over and over and over.”

Did they teach you about geometric series?

“Why is this so hard for you and climate science to understand? ”

Because it’s nonsense. And yes I have a hard time understanding why so much of the world prefers to believe in it’s own alternative math, then actually learn something

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 1:01 am

“And so will emit more energy. Surely even you can understand that.”

So the earth emits everything it gets? If it gets more energy then it will emit it? No trapped heat left? It all gets emitted?

What in Pete’s name do you think we’ve been telling you? The only important issue is *when* does it all get emitted?

“If 50% of the emissions are returned, then by the time temperatures have ridden enough to emit twice as much energy,”

Are you reading anything in the thread? The temperature of the earth doesn’t have to rise in order to emit more energy, if the emission interval is longer than the receive interval. The energy emitted is F * t_x where “t_x” is the interval.

Think about it. The earth emits 100 joules and the temperature falls. It gets back 50 joules and what happens? THE EARTH STILL IS DOWN 50 JOULES! The temperature is LESS than when you start the sequence! If the temperature is LESS, then the earth has *cooled*, it hasn’t warmed!

As a reflector, CO2 cannot warm the source. It can only slow its cooling.

Nor does it have to see a temperature rise in order to emit more ENERGY. I’ve given you the formula before.

Energy ∝ τ

If you need me to, I can derive this for you by integrating the flux over time

If you make “τ”, the decay rate, longer (i.e. slower cooling) then the energy emitted over time goes UP!

I know its counter-intuitive but a slower cooling rate actually emits MORE energy per time interval!

I gave the graph showing this to you? Did you just ignore it?

“Using the T⁴ rule, a doubling of energy out occured when temperature has increased by about 20%.”

Show me the math on how much energy gets emitted! You are *still* stuck in trying to make everything happen all at the same time like with a black body. Energy loss is a TIME FUNCTION in a non-black body. Where is your math showing the time intervals and the decay rates for the earth?

The earth is not isothermal. It is not a black body.
The earth is not homogenous. It is not a black body.
The earth is a heat sink. It is not a black body

You are as bad at this as climate science. Climate science says the earth’s emissivity is not 1 – meaning it is *not* a black body. Then they turn around and assume that it is a black body so that flux-in and flux-out balances! If flux-in and flux-out balance then you have equilibrium, the temperatures of the two bodies ARE THE SAME! Is the earth the same temperature as the sun?

Have you figured out how to get (Energy ∝ τ) yet?

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 20, 2026 4:40 am

“So the earth emits everything it gets? ”

This shouldn’t be so difficult to understand, even for you. You know all the individual parts, you just seem incapable of putting them together.

How much the earth emits depends on how hot it is. It’s proportional to the internal energy as you keep saying.

If you increase the the amount if energy the earth receives there will be an imbalance which results in the earth’s internal energy increasing. It gets hotter.

If it gets hotter the amount of energy it emmits will increase. See the first point

At some point the temperature has increased enough that the amount of energy emitted equals the amount if energy received. At that point you have a new equalibrium and the earth stops warming.

Bellman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 5:06 am

“What in Pete’s name do you think we’ve been telling you?”

I’ve lost interest in trying to fathom what you think you are telling me, because it:s always nonsense, and inconsistent.

“The temperature of the earth doesn’t have to rise in order to emit more energy, if the emission interval is longer than the receive interval. The energy emitted is F * t_x where “t_x” is the interval. ”

See, complete gibberish.

“The earth emits 100 joules and the temperature falls. It gets back 50 joules and what happens?”

The sun starts shining.

“As a reflector, CO2 cannot warm the source. It can only slow its cooling.”

Unless the sun is also shining.

“Nor does it have to see a temperature rise in order to emit more ENERGY. I’ve given you the formula before.

Energy ∝ τ”

Don’t just keep repeating this in allcaps. Explain why the earth is emitting more energy despite the internal energy not increasing.

“I know its counter-intuitive but a slower cooling rate actually emits MORE energy per time interval!”

Counter-intuitive and meaningless. The only reason you are emitting more energy is because you are receiving more energy. All you are saying is that if the sun didn’t exist the earth would quickly cool down to temperature of space, and having an atmosphere only means it takes slightly longer.

“Show me the math on how much energy gets emitted! ”

I’ve done this numerous times including in this comment section. You will just ignore it and demand I show it again.

“You are *still* stuck in trying to make everything happen all at the same time like with a black body.”

Nope. This has nothing to do with how long it takes, just that you can see what the final equilibrium will be.

” Energy loss is a TIME FUNCTION in a non-black body.”

I’m not sure you understand what a black body is. It’s a time function for any object. But as always you keep throwing up the time element as a distraction. It makes no difference to the final result. And you keep failing to provide your own calculations based on the time function, and keep ignoring the sun.

“Is the earth the same temperature as the sun?”

No, because of the greenhouse effect.

To be clear, you don’t actually think the earth will be literally the same temperature as the sun. Without the greenhouse effect it would be the same temperature as the equivalent radiation it receives from the sun. The sun is very hot but far away.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 5:50 am

How much the earth emits depends on how hot it is. It’s proportional to the internal energy as you keep saying.

Your system analysis is faulty. One big factor you miss is water vapor. Liquid water evaporates into water vapor using latent heat. Latent heat does not increase temperature, it increases enthalpy. Enthalpy is the total energy in a parcel. It includes “sensible heat+ latent heat”. That latent heat is released via radiation at altitude (except for dew) having never raised the temperature at the surface.

You keep wanting to define total energy by using temperature as a proxy for total heat. False assumption. Temperature is NOT a proxy for total heat except maybe over deserts and the poles. It is why climate science is going to be hung on its own petard. Models that predict only temperature instead of enthalpy miss one of the largest system components of the atmosphere, just like you.

Your simple explanations also miss the fact that the surface is a heat sink. Yes, a heat sink’s temperature will rise as it stores heat. But most of the heat on land disappears into the subsoil and only affects surface temperature at night. The oceans disperse absorbed heat through various mechanisms, but the end result is that water at depth does not radiate heat into the atmosphere.

Your lack of any math to support your assertions has gotten old. If you can’t even show basic equations and the conditions required to use them, then you are simply making stuff up.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 20, 2026 1:22 am

“You are really confused. First you say you’ve lost 50, now you say you’ve got an extra 50 to give away.”

Huh? 100 – 50 ≠ 50?

“Did they teach you about geometric series?”

It’s pretty damn obvious they haven’t taught you how to integrate a simple exponential decay. Go find an integral calculator on the internet and figure it out!

“Because it’s nonsense.”

SHOW ME THE MATH BEHIND YOUR ASSERTION OF NONSENSE! Otherwise this is just one more instance of you using the Argument by Dismissal argumentative fallacy.

(Energy ∝ τ) is *NOT* nonsense. Slow the cooling rate and you emit MORE energy over time!

“And yes I have a hard time understanding why so much of the world prefers to believe in it’s own alternative math,”

WHAT alternative math? SHOW ME THE MATH.

Refute (Energy ∝ τ)! I dare you!
Refute that thermodynamic equilibrium is heat-in = heat-out and not flux-in = flux-out. I dare you!

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 20, 2026 4:30 am

Stop asking me to explain the maths whilst refusing to do it yourself. Show how quickly you think the earth will cool, and then explain why you are ignoring the sun.

And stop with these childish strawman arguments such as, “Refute (Energy ∝ τ)! I dare you!”. No one is denying that.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 4:47 am

“You keep making this dumb “slower cooling” chestnut, without understanding that slower cooling results in warming.”

I’m with Andy! Did you read what you wrote?

Warming requires gaining more joules, a state function. How does losing fewer joules over time result in gaining joules?

Energy is measured in JOULES, not in joules/sec-m^2.

“ If the sun is warming the oceans by the same amount each day, but each night the oceans are cooling slower, what happens to the temperature?”

The ocean LOSES HEAT 24 HOURS PER DAY. It loses heat 7 days per week. It loses heat 30/31 days/month. It loses heat 12 months/year. Right on up to 1000yrs/millennia.

The ocean only gains heat 12 hours per day. 7days/wk. 30/31days/month. Right up to 1000yrs/millennia.

Do you see the difference? 24hrs vs 12 hrs?

Radiative heat loss is derived from an exponential decay. Heat loss in the integral of T^4 over the appropriate time interval.

What happens to the heat loss of the slope of the exponential decay is made less?

The heat loss equation is of the form F(t) = F0 * e^-(t/τ).

If τ, the time constant, gets larger due to slower cooling then the integral of the function INCREASES. The integral of that equation is the amount of heat lost over time “t”.

Energy loss, E, is proportional to τ: E ∝ τ

Double τ and you double the heat loss.

HAS ANYONE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE ACTUALLY STUDIED GENERAL SCIENCE let alone algebra and calculus?

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 5:21 am

“Did you read what you wrote?”

Yes. Did you understand what I wrote? (Rhetorical question. Of course you didn’t.)

“How does losing fewer joules over time result in gaining joules?”

Because you are gaining more jules then you are losing.

“Energy is measured in JOULES, not in joules/sec-m^2. ”

You don’t say.

“The ocean LOSES HEAT 24 HOURS PER DAY.”

Yet, still it warms.

“The ocean only gains heat 12 hours per day.”

Simplistic but yes. That’s the point. You accept that they are not continuously cooling.

“Do you see the difference? 24hrs vs 12 hrs?”

12 hours is a different period of time than 24 hours. Another brilliant truism from you. Just what is your point?

“What happens to the heat loss of the slope of the exponential decay is made less? ”

You have less heat loss. Hence your final temperature is higher than it would have been without the slow down.

Everything you argue is just playing with words to distract from that obvious point.

“If τ, the time constant, gets larger due to slower cooling then the integral of the function INCREASES. ”

Why is t increasing? Slowing down the rate of decrease doesn’t mean you automatically get more time to reach the same destination. Unless slowing down the rate of decrease also slows the Earth’s rotation, you will still find the sun rises before you reach the same temperature.

“Double τ and you double the heat loss. ”

More words of wisdom. If only you could figure out what that implies.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Bellman

June 19, 2026 5:45 am

“Because you are gaining more jules then you are losing.”

No, because losing joules is related to T^4, not T.

“Yet, still it warms.”

Because the T^4 boundary condition hasn’t been reached yet. And actually, the ocean warming is not just a T^4 function, it also has limits set by evaporation.

Why do you think the ocean doesn’t boil every day? That would be the conclusion you are postulating.

“Simplistic but yes. That’s the point. You accept that they are not continuously cooling.”

Unfreaking believable! As long as the temperature is larger than 0K, COOLING HAPPENS. Again, F(t) = F0 * e^-(t/τ).

Do you have the slightest understanding of the factors involved in what makes up”τ” ?

“12 hours is a different period of time than 24 hours. Another brilliant truism from you. Just what is your point?”

What’s my point? That in the function F(t) = F0 * e^-(t/τ) that “t” is 24 hours!

Joules-in = Flux-in * 12hrs where flux-in is a constant

Joules-out = Q(t) = Q0 * e^-(t/τ) where τ is related to (1/T^3) and t is 24 hours

Joules-out is not a trivial function since it is dependent on Joules-in for part of the period.

“You have less heat loss.”

No, you have MORE heat loss. The heat loss is the integral of the temperature curve. If the slope of the decay is less then you get MORE heat loss. See the attached primitive image.

“ Hence your final temperature is higher than it would have been without the slow down.”

And since heat loss is related to temperature what does that imply for heat loss? You are trying to equate temperature to energy. They are *NOT* the same.

“Why is t increasing?”

Read it again. “t” is not increasing, “τ” is increasing. What is “τ” dependent on?

“More words of wisdom. If only you could figure out what that implies.”

ROFL! You can’t even distinguish “t” from “τ” let alone what “τ” depends on.

Once again, we are back to you not having the knowledge to even discuss thermodynamics. But here you are, trying to lecture everyone that slower cooling means temperature goes up.

Robert Cutler

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 8:11 am

“HAS ANYONE IN CLIMATE SCIENCE ACTUALLY STUDIED GENERAL SCIENCE let alone algebra and calculus?”

I don’t think so.

Tim, to build on many of the excellent points you’ve made, the oceans integrate solar activity, but the sea surface and atmosphere have a different response.

In this plot, the red line is the frequency response computed between temperature and sunspots. It has two distinct regions separated by a “Schwabe” notch near the middle. I also call it the Jupiter notch because both have similar 11-year periods, On the whole, the 11-year variations in TSI don’t affect climate.

The black-dashed line is the 1/freq response of an ideal integrator.

The blue-dashed line is also a frequency response computed between predicted temperature from my model (last plot, this post), and sunspots, which are the input to the model. The core model is a 99-year moving average of sunspot data. It performs four different functions, one of which is to model Earth’s integral response.

The top and middle panels have minimal averaging, but different resolutions due to the use of different windowing function.

The bottom panels have more coherent averaging which attenuates uncorrelated signals, which in this case is likely weather. I haven’t tried to model weather, so the blue-dashed line follows the ideal integrator response.

An ideal integrator also has a constant 90° phase response. For a 60-year cycle, this would imply a 15-year delay. I haven’t studied ENSO, but some of the major events appear to be separated by 20-year intervals. That’s easy to see in this plot where I plot Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions delayed by 15 years.

The 2023 spike seems out of place, which is why I favor the Hunga-Tonga explanation. However, based on the 3560-year repetition in climate, we may eventually learn that these spikes are the derivative of climate change (not the cause). Ice core data hints at the possibility of significant cool period ahead.

Sunspot data predicts slight cooling, or perhaps the optimum of our current warm period. Here, the filtered sunspot data is shifted forward 13 years.

Robert Cutler

Reply to Robert Cutler

June 19, 2026 10:34 am

Andy, ice-core data shows a cold period around 850AD. This would be consistent with the low number of Los Niños in Figure 1.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Robert Cutler

June 19, 2026 1:02 pm

I would have to study your graphs in detail for sure. At first glance, the matches aren’t perfect but they are very similar (the blue and black lines in the first graph).

The big question here is WHY HASN’T CLIMATE SCIENCE STUDIED THIS AND GENERATED HYPOTHESES ON IT?

The oceans will never be perfect integrators of anything, there are too many other factors at play. Clouds, winds, etc will always generate natural variability. But the integrator function doesn’t have to be perfect to be a useful metric.

Robert Cutler

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 2:15 pm

This important match is the predicted vs actual (red vs blue). The blue is a moving average (boxcar or rect).

The MA filter has a known sin(freq)/(freq) response, so 1/freq plus nulls (from the numerator). The match to the black line will never be perfect because the sunspot signal doesn’t have uniform power-spectral density.

Phil.

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 8:40 am

No the heat flux at the surface will tend to balance instantaneously, when heat input is greater than heat loss the surface will warm when the reverse is true the surface will cool, if the temperature is steady then they are balanced.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 5:29 am

I’ve explained the proper scientific way of analysing it,

I don’t think so.

The basic process is that trade winds push warm surface water to the west where it accumulates. The thermocline is very deep in the western Pacific and shallow in the east. Then when trade winds decrease or reverse, the warm water essentially sloshes eastward. The western Pacific cools and the eastern Pacific warms.

Quite honestly, the atmosphere has little to do with any of this. Greenhouse theory just doesn’t apply. Any effects are weather related, and not climate change related.

The example of La Niña. That is when the equatorial Pacific ocean becomes colder. Then the air becomes colder. How can that be if the air’s warmth does not pass into the ocean?

You need to rethink this process. Somehow I think reduced radiation from the surface has something to do with this.

bnice2000

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 4:34 pm

If you graph the last 50 years of ENSO3.4 cycles, you see very clearly that the “warming” El Nino phase greatly outweighs the La Nino phase.

Nick Stokes

Reply to bnice2000

June 18, 2026 12:23 am

“If you graph the last 50 years of ENSO3.4 cycles”

That graph is explicitly of El Niño. It is not designed to show La Niña.

-2

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 5:38 am

Oh good grief Nick, you know better than that. The Niño 3.4 index measures sea‑surface temperature (SST) anomalies in a specific part of the equatorial Pacific, and it is used to identify both El Niño (warm) and La Niña (cool) events. It also measures the “Neutral” state, which is between +0.5 and -0.5. See here: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/nino-sst-indices-nino-12-3-34-4-oni-and-tni

Phil.

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 7:42 am

Nick is right, you are mistaken Andy. That graph is only of the “2-year history of sea surface temperatures in the Niño-3.4 region of the tropical Pacific for all events evolving into El Niño since 1950″ (my bolding).

Andy May

Author

Reply to Phil.

June 18, 2026 8:23 am

Right, I see the note on the graph now. Missed it before and thought it was a graph of the Nino 3.4 index. In any case my figure 2 is a graph of the Nino 3.4 index, and it shows the same thing.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 1:34 pm

Yes. But the graph just shows the index for periods fter the start of an El Niño. It does not show La Niña times, except where they are closely adjacent.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 6:10 pm

Correct, I missed that annotation. Sorry about that. However, my graph (see figure 2 from the post or above) is the entire record from ERSST v5 and unrelated to El Nino/La Nina and it shows the same thing, an increase in Los Ninos.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 4:59 pm

Andy
“The data and many others disagree with you on this point.”
You don’t say who they are. But you quote just one source, Wong and Minnett. Now they are not clear thinkers on heat transfer,, but they are not saying IR can’t warm the ocean. In fact they claim, in they abstract, to have shown how it does:
“. The hypothesis is that given the heat lost through the air-sea interface
is controlled by the TSL, the TSL adjusts in response to variations in incident IR radiation to maintain the surface heat loss. This modulates the flow of heat from below and hence controls upper ocean heat content.
This hypothesis is tested using the increase in incoming longwave radiation from clouds and analyzing vertical temperature profiles in the TSL retrieved from sea-surface emission spectra. The additional energy from the absorption of increasing IR radiation adjusts the curvature of the TSL such that the upward conduction of heat from the bulk of the ocean into the TSL is reduced. The additional energy absorbed within the TSL supports more of the surface heat loss. Thus, more heat beneath the TSL is retained leading to the observed increase in upper ocean heat content.“

Long-winded, but I’ve bolded the essential conclusion.

-6

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 6:24 pm

The references are all in my posts on this issue, start here:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2026/04/24/earth-energy-imbalance-the-sun-versus-co2/

You are correct that by affecting the skin layer gradient and temperature profile, IR can retard ocean heat loss, no one disputes that. But the ocean is always warmer than the air overall and the cool skin layer is always present over almost the entire planet, so heat flow is almost always away from the ocean and into the atmosphere.

Only the Sun can warm the ocean, because its radiation can penetrate the surface, unlike IR which cannot. It can only work by modifying the skin layer thickness and varying the rate of heat loss from the deeper ocean. IR radiation does not warm the ocean.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 12:35 am

“so heat flow is almost always away from the ocean and into the atmosphere.”

Yes, balancing the heat flow in via SW. But the issues is change in heat flow. An increase in down IR changes the net heat outflow. Heat from SW accumulates until the ocean is warm enough to emit the previous flux plus the added IR. Minett and Wong explain all this.

I looked at your site for references. No list in that link. an’t you just give a name of a proper scientist who agrees that warm air can’t warm the ocean?

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 4:31 am

The short answer is Fairall et al. 2026. More here: These points are discussed in more detail in three earlier blog posts (here, here and here).

Also https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Bibliography-for-the-sun-versus-co2_v3.pdf

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 1:50 pm

Fairall (2026) discusses in detail the temperature profile in the skin layer. But it does not say anywhere that the atmosphere (or down IR) cannot warm the ocean.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 6:24 pm

Fairall is about the “cool skin” and how important it is to include this feature in models. The cool skin is always there, except in rare cases in the very high latitudes in times of the year where winds bring in warm air over cold water.

This means heat flow is from the ocean to the air. Reducing the flow by warming the air does not warm the ocean, the ocean is still cooling almost everywhere and almost all the time, thus the cool skin. Only the sun can warm the ocean. I don’t know how often I will have to point out the obvious to you.

bdgwx

Reply to Andy May

June 19, 2026 2:25 pm

Only the sun can warm the ocean. I don’t know how often I will have to point out the obvious to you.

If by ‘warm” you mean to cause ΔT > 0 then neither [Fairall et al. 2026] nor [Wong & Minnett 2018] say that.

-1

Jim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 5:42 am

An increase in down IR changes the net heat outflow.

You only have part of the process. Part of the problem s that H2O absorbs the IR into latent heat which doesn’t raise the temperature, i.e., no heat. That causes additional evaporation cooling the surface.

The other part is that hot water rises. Diffusion downward is almost impossible. Water can and does radiate IR. Heated water radiates more that cooler water. So any heating by IR at the surface is radiated quickly away with little change to the overall top several meters of water. The sun is the key here, not CO2 downward IR.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 18, 2026 5:48 am

Well said. Particularly this:

“Diffusion downward is almost impossible.”

A point made in Wong and Minett, as well as in Fairall.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 1:54 pm

It isn’t impossible, and they don’t say that. But it is unnecessary, because there is a strong diffusive upward flux, necessary to deliver the absorbed SW heat flux back to the surface and onwards. And other surface fluxes modulate that. Reducing it means more retained heat in the ocean – ie warming.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 5:01 pm

And other surface fluxes modulate that.

If water is a certain temperature from SW, it doesn’t “get hotter”. The depth of hot water may increase, but that is not warming. A deeper layer doesn’t heat itself to a higher temperature. You may claim that OHC increases, but not temperature. Thermodynamics is hard.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 6:33 pm

“Reducing it means more retained heat in the ocean – ie warming.”

Absurd, reduced cooling is still cooling, not warming. Strictly speaking “heat” is a transfer of energy from a warm body to a cooler body, which is what is happening here. What Wong, Minnett, and Fairall describe is a process that changes the rate of energy transfer, but either way heat transfer is from ocean to the air, the heat transfer is still one way. The ocean is cooling, not warming.

You are assuming that changing the rate is warming the warmer body, which makes no sense. Or you are comparing the thermal energy content rate of change to a hypothetical and calling the difference “warming,” even more absurd.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 6:40 pm

It is frustrating teaching folks who have never spent time in a lab doing thermodynamic measurements.

Keep up the good work!

bdgwx

Reply to Andy May

June 19, 2026 2:07 pm

The ocean is cooling, not warming.

The ocean is warming and has been for decades.

Or are you saying that the ocean is cooling at night? If so then why not discuss the what happens during the day and the net effect of both day and night?

-1

Tim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 3:24 pm

The operative words here are: “net heat outflow”.

Net heat outflow MEANS COOLING. The cooling rate changes, that’s all. It doesn’t turn the net heat outflow into a “net heat inflow”.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 18, 2026 4:30 pm

No, because there is a very big inflow, which is thermalised sunlight. If heat outflow matches that, ocean temperature is steady. If more, cooling; if less, warming. When IR impinges on the surface, flux from below is diminished.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 5:05 pm

Agai, the ocean can’t warm itself. If sunlight heats water to a certain temperature, that is as warm as it will get. With evaporation and radiation it can cool, but it won’t get warmer by itself. To warm, there must be a hotter source somewhere. Where is that source?

Andy May

Author

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 6:34 pm

Nick,
The first rule of holes: “When you find yourself in one, stop digging.”

stevekj

Reply to Andy May

June 19, 2026 6:26 am

Andy wrote:

“The first rule of holes: “When you find yourself in one, stop digging.””

That’s good advice, Andy. Now, what would you call this:

“Radiation is power.”
“Radiation by itself is not power.”

Would you call that a “hole”? I would. So would Aristotle. Would you like to try to dig yourself out of it?

-2

Andy May

Author

Reply to stevekj

June 19, 2026 7:17 am

Radiation flux is measured as power density (W/m2) past a given point or surface. What radiation is? This is ambiguous but normally assumed to be energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves or charged particles or plasma. What hole and what are you trying to say?

Tim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 19, 2026 3:39 am

“No, because there is a very big inflow, which is thermalised sunlight.”

So what is your point here exactly?

“ If heat outflow matches that, ocean temperature is steady.”

But the heat outflow does *NOT* have to be the same as the heat inflow instantaneously. Different timeframes for the outflow and inflow mean the rates *can not* be the same. The total joules-in and total joules-out are what needs to balance, and this has to be totaled over the appropriate time interval.

“If heat outflow matches that, ocean temperature is steady. If more, cooling; if less, warming.”

You are *STILL* leaving out the TIME factor. I’ll fix it for you:

-If joules-out over time matches joules-in over time the ocean temperature will be steady.
-If joules-out over time is more than joules-in over time then cooling.
-if joules-out over time is less than joules-in over time then warming.

“When IR impinges on the surface, flux from below is diminished.”

So what? IR impinges on the surface 12 hours per day. Flux from below goes on for 24 hours per day. The flux does *NOT* have to match in order for there to be balance over a day. And this is just over a single day. The IR impinging on the surface changes over long time intervals. The flux from the ocean toward space changes over long time intervals. Those time intervals don’t have to be the same at any point in time. But you have to consider the joules-in and joules-out over those long time intervals in order to determine whether a heat balance exists or not.

The whole climate science idea of FLUX BALANCE is garbage. It’s the same kind of garbage that “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels” is.

And here you are, trying to say that the flux-in and flux-out should balance at any point in time.

Mike

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 17, 2026 7:29 pm

Of course a warm atmosphere can warm the ocean.

Dumb stuff endlessly repeated. The atmosphere is warmed by the ocean – which is warmed by the sun – not the other way round.
Or perhaps you believe that the ocean does indeed warm the atmosphere which warms the ocean which warms the atmosphere a bit more which warms the ocean a bit more until the planet eventually explodes?

Sunsettommy

Reply to Mike

June 17, 2026 7:54 pm

He still doesn’t realize the ocean input warming from the sun is massively greater than the negligible IR effect at the ocean surface while the sun penetrates down around 600 HUNDRED feet which is nearly continuous 24/7.

LINK

Mike

Reply to Sunsettommy

June 17, 2026 8:03 pm

Indeed. To my mind, the difference between solar warming and some immeasurable, theoretical back radiation is a beach ball to a grain of sand. But apparently it is still worth arguing about!

Andy May

Author

Reply to Mike

June 18, 2026 5:50 am

Exactly, net heat flow is always from the ocean to the atmosphere globally. There are a few places in the very high latitudes where it goes the other way part of the year due to advective heat transfer, but everywhere else, the net flow is up. IR cannot work against that gradient.

bdgwx

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 11:07 am

That doesn’t mean the atmosphere cannot be the cause of the ocean getting warmer. Remember the 1LOT ΔE = Ein – Eout and heat capacity ΔT = ΔE / (m*c). Therefore ΔT = (Ein – Eout) / (m*c). And when Ein > Eout then ΔT > 0. That happens when either ΔEin > 0 or ΔEout < 0 or ΔEin > ΔEout. For the microphysics of how this happens see [Wong & Minnett 2018].

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 12:39 pm

Something you learn in engineering and most physical science lab classes is that you don’t just throw textbook equations around without satisfying all the conditions necessary to use them in unmodified form.

You define ΔE = Ein – Eout. You do realize that Ein/t can be different than Eout/t, right? Your equation is fine for an ideal world BB where what is absorbed may be instantly emitted. The real world doesn’t work that way. It is why gradients must be defined. In other words, Ein may occur in a short period of time while Eout may take much longer.

A simple example is boiling water. If you measure the energy out with a calorimeter, you can’t just remove the calorimeter at the same time you turn off the Bunsen burner. The water will continue to emit energy for some period of time after removing the heat source. The earth is no different.

Look at this graph closely. The energy input occurs over a short period of time, about 12 hours. Yet the atmosphere warms slower and emits longer than the insolation increases and continues long after insolation has decayed (about 24 hours).

There is no guarantee that what is emitted contains all the energy absorbed. The land does warm in spring and through the summer, that means it stores heat. There is no guarantee that all that heat is lost in fall and winter due to clouds and other conditions.

Why don’t you go through all the conditions necessary to use your textbook equation to model the earth. The paper you referenced should have a section that describes how that simple equation fits the physical realities.

I’ll be honest I could find no evaluation of energy in and energy out. The paper seemed to use flux as the basis for their conclusions. As I have pointed out, flux in versus flux out are not consistent over identical time periods.

Andy May

Author

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 1:03 pm

“That doesn’t mean the atmosphere cannot be the cause of the ocean getting warmer.”

Yes, it does. A warmer atmosphere and the IR it emits cannot cause the ocean to get warmer, it can only cool the ocean slower. The net flux is upward from the ocean to the atmosphere, the heat captured at the surface from atmospheric IR cannot move up gradient due to the cool skin effect (see Fairall). As I’ve said, the only radiation that warms the deeper ocean is solar radiation. The atmospheric tempeerature and radiation can modulate the solar heat leaving the ocean, but that is all.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 1:23 pm

You are correct!

How many times must I show Planck’s statement about hot and cold bodies. If a cool body could push a hot body up the temperature gradient, you would end up with a never-ending increase in temperature for both bodies rather than equilibrium. This applies to conduction, convection, and radiation of heat.

A body A at 100◦ C. emits toward a body B at 0◦ C. exactly the same amount of radiation as toward an equally large and similarly situated body Bi at 1000◦ C. The fact that the body A is cooled by B and heated by Bi is due entirely to the fact that B is a weaker, Bi a stronger emitter than A.
Max Planck. The Theory of Heat Radiation by Max Planck

bdgwx

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 4:53 pm

A warmer atmosphere and the IR it emits cannot cause the ocean to get warmer,

Do you think the energy just disappears?

it can only cool the ocean slower.

First…the ocean isn’t cooling. It’s warming.

Second…it’s warming because ΔEin > ΔEout. And ΔEin > ΔEout happens in part because of a change in state of the atmosphere.

The net flux is upward from the ocean to the atmosphere, the heat captured at the surface from atmospheric IR cannot move up gradient due to the cool skin effect

I don’t know how many times it has to be said. There does NOT have to be a net flux from A to B for A to cause B to warm.

The atmospheric tempeerature and radiation can modulate the solar heat leaving the ocean, but that is all.

If the atmosphere can modulate the heat leaving the ocean then atmosphere can cause the ocean to warm.

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 5:39 pm

Do you think the energy just disappears?

Yes! From the warmer body back to the colder body. No increase in temperature of the hot body, only cooling.

Your assertion means the atmosphere is hotter than the ocean. Show us how that happens. I don’t think the atmosphere is on fire generating its own heat.

Second…it’s warming because ΔEin > ΔEout. And ΔEin > ΔEout happens in part because of a change in state of the atmosphere.

Ein is from the sun not the atmosphere. Ein is transported by the ocean to the atmosphere. Conduction, radiation, and convection.

Eout occurs because of the transport of heat from the ocean to space and the atmosphere.

Heat from a cold body simply cannot raise the temperature of hot bodies without work being done. Look up entropy.

I don’t know how many times it has to be said. There does NOT have to be a net flux from A to B for A to cause B to warm.

This is so wrong it isn’t funny. You just refuted SB, the standard heat equation Q=mc(Th -Tc),

CoPilot says:

Entropy provides a quantitative measure of energy dispersal in systems governed by the heat equation. Heat naturally flows from hot to cold regions, increasing total entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics ensures that this process is irreversible unless idealized as quasistatic. Calculating entropy changes involves integrating
δQ/T over the system, linking thermodynamic principles directly to the mathematical description of heat conduction.

Note that quasistatic refers to equilibrium.

bdgwx

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 18, 2026 6:35 pm

Yes!

It’s ridiculous that I have to say this. Energy does NOT just disappear.

Your assertion means the atmosphere is hotter than the ocean.

No it doesn’t. This is your argument. As I keep telling you don’t expect me to defend your strawman arguments especially when they are absurd.

Ein is from the sun not the atmosphere.

Part of Ein is from the Sun. Part of it is from the atmosphere.

This is so wrong it isn’t funny.

I stand by what I said. And it’s mind numbingly easy to falsify the hypothesis that cold bodies cannot be the cause of warm bodies getting warmer.

Turn your kitchen oven on high (so that it doesn’t cycle) with the door open. Wait until the temperature inside achieves steady-state. Now close the colder door and observe the hotter inside getting warmer.

It is simple, unequivocal, and indisputable proof that cold bodies can cause hot bodies to warm whether you, Andy, or someone else understand it or not. It is such a simple and ubiquitous concept that it almost defies credulity that people here are so willing to dismiss this obvious fact.

BTW…let me nip something in the bud right now. I did NOT say that heat flows from cold to hot in an isolate system. I did NOT insinuate that heat flows from cold to hot in an isolate system. Per the 2LOT heat flows from hot to cold in an isolated system. So for those whose knee jerk reaction is to lecture me about the 2LOT make sure you lecture is regarding something I actually said otherwise I’m going to tell you what I have to tell the Gorman’s… don’t expect me to defend your strawman arguments especially when they are absurd.

You just refuted SB

Says the guy who thinks energy disappears.

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 7:20 pm

It’s ridiculous that I have to say this. Energy does NOT just disappear.

It depends on where you look. If latent heat occurs, how do you find it and measure it? Is it hidden?

As I keep telling you don’t expect me to defend your strawman arguments especially when they are absurd.

It isn’t a strawman! You said “then atmosphere can cause the ocean to warm.” That means you are asserting the atmosphere is the hot body.

Part of Ein is from the Sun. Part of it is from the atmosphere.

The sun is the only energy source in the system. The atmosphere is not on fire, therefore it is not supplying new energy to the system.

Planck covered this. You are describing reflected heat. Reflected heat can not drive the source to a temperature that is an increase.

Your oven analogy is flawed. It is not about radiative heat it is about conduction and convection. It is actually complicated because you are changing from an open system to a closed system.

I did NOT say that heat flows from cold to hot in an isolate system.

Yes, you did. I’ll repeat from above.

You said “then atmosphere can cause the ocean to warm.”

if the atmosphere causes warming, then it must be warmer than the ocean. The 2LOT is very explicit. Heat flows from hot to cold. In a radiative system it can be no other way.

bdgwx

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 18, 2026 8:13 pm

if the atmosphere causes warming, then it must be warmer than the ocean.

Patently False.

I’ll say it again and again. Body C does NOT have to be warmer than body H to be the cause of H getting warmer.

This happens in countless everyday scenarios. The fact that you are so indoctrinated to the contrary that you cannot even think of a single example that falsifies your claim is astonishing.

Frank from NoVA

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 9:04 pm

‘Body C does NOT have to be warmer than body H to be the cause of H getting warmer.’

What, exactly, is H getting warmer than?

bdgwx

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 19, 2026 8:04 am

What, exactly, is H getting warmer than?

Itself at a prior point in time. ΔT > 0.

Frank from NoVA

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 8:12 am

Sounds like a serious violation of the second law.

bdgwx

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 19, 2026 12:39 pm

Sounds like a serious violation of the second law.

And yet with a simple in-home experiment it can be shown that cold objects can be the cause of hot objects getting warmer. Have you considered that maybe it is your understanding of the 2LOT that is wrong?

Notice what the 2LOT does NOT say…

It does NOT say that heat (net transfer of energy) can never flow from cold to hot. Only that it cannot do so in an isolated system. There is no prohibition if the system is not isolated.

It does NOT say that cold objects cannot be the cause of hot objects getting warmer. Only that a hot object cannot warm solely as a result of heat flow (net transfer of energy) from cold to hot in an isolated system. There is no prohibition for other ways that a cold object can cause a hot object to warm futher.

The 2LOT is the most misquoted, misunderstood, misrepresented, and misapplied law by contrarians.

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 12:53 pm

“It does NOT say that heat (net transfer of energy) can never flow from cold to hot.”

You just said that entropy can be reversed without work being done.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 19, 2026 12:52 pm

It is a violation.

bdgwx wants us to believe 100out – 50 back = 150 in.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 1:56 pm

deleted

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 10:14 am

Itself at a prior point in time. ΔT > 0.

So you ARE claiming that a cold body can reverse a cooling gradient of a hot body. In other words, Tt > Tt-1.

Let’s examine the three possibiities.

Tt < Tt-1 -> cooling
Tt = Tt-1 -> equilibrium
Tt > Tt-1 -> heating

There are all kinds of equations available, the heat equation, diffusion equations, Stefan-Boltzmann, entropy, and others. Show us how these work with a cold body making the temperature of a hot body meet Tt > Tt-1.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 1:58 pm

Still waiting for your math!

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 12:51 pm

Warmer means more joules than you started with.

Where are the extra joules coming from?

The earth emits 100 joules. CO2 reflects back 50 joules. The earth still lost 50 joules. How does that mean more joules?

CO2 is *NOT* a heat source. It is a reflector!

-1

Bellman

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 2:50 pm

“The earth emits 100 joules. CO2 reflects back 50 joules. The earth still lost 50 joules. How does that mean more joules? ”

Stil denying the sun exists?

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 3:53 am

“This happens in countless everyday scenarios.”
“Body C does NOT have to be warmer than body H to be the cause of H getting warmer.”

Then YOU give us ONE example.

You simply can’t get over the fact that slower cooling is *NOT* the same thing as warming, can you?

If (Ta – Tb) is positive, i.e. Ta > Tb, give us ONE example where (Ta – Tb) can be made negative without Tb becoming greater than Ta, i.e. Tb > Ta.

As long as the temperature of ObjectA, Ta, is greater than the temperature of ObjectB, Tb, the net flow will be positive. The net flow can get larger and smaller but it will remain positive as long as Ta > Tb.

A positive net flow represents COOLING of ObjectA, not warming. It is just that simple.

bdgwx

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 5:24 pm

Then YOU give us ONE example.

I already have numerous times. When I first gave you the example of the kitchen oven you claimed that closing the door would cause the inside to cool. I honestly thought it was a typo at first, but you then doubled-down and said my understanding of thermodynamics was at an elementary school level. If you cannot accept that the inside of an oven will do the exact opposite of cool when the door is closed then you certainly aren’t going to understand any other example demonstrating the same concept.

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 20, 2026 1:53 am

Here is the quote you linked to:

“You still haven’t figured this out, have you? If the oven door is “cooler” than the oven it should *COOL* the oven when you close the door, not warm it!”

YOU are claiming that a colder body can increase the temperature of a warmer body – a total violation of Planck and the 2nd law. It would be reversing the entropy of the warmer object.

Substitute a block of dry ice for the oven door. If you stick that block of dry ice in the door frame of the oven will it cause the temperature in the oven to go up?

“you then doubled-down and said my understanding of thermodynamics was at an elementary school level”

It is *still* at that level if you think that block of dry ice will raise the temperature of the oven!

Frank from NoVA

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 6:56 am

‘Turn your kitchen oven on high (so that it doesn’t cycle) with the door open. Wait until the temperature inside achieves steady-state. Now close the colder door and observe the hotter inside getting warmer.’

The oven door, again? Not a clean experiment since you’re not controlling for convection.

bdgwx

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 19, 2026 7:47 am

The oven door, again?

Yep. it’s an experiment that anyone can do.

Not a clean experiment since you’re not controlling for convection.

Irrelevant. We don’t have to control for convection, conduction, and/or radiation to test the hypothesis that a cold body cannot be the cause of a hot body getting warmer. All we have to do is show that it can happen for any mode of energy transfer to falsify the hypothesis. Fun fact though…the hypothesis is false for all modes of energy transfer.

Frank from NoVA

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 8:29 am

Oh, ok. I’d be interested in knowing if Nick buys into this…

bdgwx

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 19, 2026 12:29 pm

Of course Nick buys into it. Why would anyone not buy the fact that closing the cold door causes the hot inside of an oven to warm further?

Nick Stokes

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 1:06 pm

Of course I do. How do your cold clothes keep you warm?

Frank from NoVA

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 19, 2026 2:07 pm

By lessening the rate of heat loss, but that’s not what bdgwx is on about. See: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/06/17/do-los-ninos-cause-climatic-cooling/#comment-4208224

bdgwx

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 19, 2026 4:11 pm

By lessening the rate of heat loss, but that’s not what bdgwx is on about.

That’s the ΔEout < 0 case I was on about in my first post 🙂

Frank from NoVA

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 7:39 pm

Let’s review –

I asked:

‘What, exactly, is H getting warmer than?’

You replied:

‘Itself at a prior point in time.’

So we have an object, H, that is cooling over time, hence Temp_H_t+dt < Temp_H_t. By what logic would introducing a cooler object, C, whose temperature, Temp_C_t+dt < Temp_H_t+dt raise the temperature of object H above Temp_H_t+dt?

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 20, 2026 1:58 am

Why do you keep leaving out the heat source that is the bodies metabolism?

Will putting frozen clothes on a frozen dead body cause the body to thaw?

Tim Gorman

Reply to Frank from NoVA

June 20, 2026 1:57 am

Put those cold clothes on a dead body. Will the temperature of the dead body go up?

Tim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 20, 2026 1:56 am

The clothes don’t keep you warm. They decrease the cooling rate. It’s your metabolism that keeps you warm. Put those cold clothes on a corpse. Will the temperature of the corpse go up?

Nick Stokes

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 20, 2026 4:19 am

Do you wear clothes?

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 10:05 am

We don’t have to control for convection, conduction, and/or radiation to test the hypothesis that a cold body cannot be the cause of a hot body getting warmer.

You do have to control for the various types of heat flow if you are trying to prove that radiation from a cold body warms a hot body.

With an open door, both convection and conduction are cooling the inside of the oven. In essence, your so-called experiment is determining how much cooling takes place with an open door.

Perform your experiment in reverse. Start with the door closed and equilibrium. Then open the door and see if the cool outside warms the inside. Here is a second option. Raise the temperature in the room to 100 degrees and time how long it takes for the oven to reach equilibrium at a given temperature. Then lower the room to 50 degrees and time how much time it takes to reach the same temperature.

Lastly, let’s see your math that this experiment is destined to prove. Have you done the experiment and collected data? It should be easy to use the data to determine what occurs. You do know what Richard Feynman said, right?

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

Tim Gorman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 11:21 am

“Perform your experiment in reverse. Start with the door closed and equilibrium. Then open the door and see if the cool outside warms the inside.”

100%!

Tim Gorman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 20, 2026 1:58 am

Put frozen clothes on a frozen dead body. Will the dead body thaw?

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 11:20 am

“Irrelevant.”

Conductive heat loss is irrelevant? Tell it to the heat sink on the processor in your computer!!!!

“We don’t have to control for convection, conduction, and/or radiation to test the hypothesis that a cold body cannot be the cause of a hot body getting warmer.”

Of course you have to control for EVERY SINGLE FACTOR. Leave it to climate science supporters to say “we can ignore reality”.

“All we have to do is show that it can happen for any mode of energy transfer to falsify the hypothesis”

Except you haven’t shown it can happen for ANY mode of energy transfer.

SHOW YOUR MATH, including *ALL* heat transfer equations.

Do you even have a clue as to what the heat loss equation is for conduction? For convection? For radiation?

Andy May

Author

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 6:38 pm

Sorry, the heat flow (global net) is always ocean to atmosphere, the ocean is always cooling, nothing can warm it but the sun. The best the atmosphere can do is slow the rate of cooling.

bdgwx

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 7:54 pm

Sorry, the heat flow (global net) is always ocean to atmosphere

Irrelevant even if true (it’s not at least on localized scales). I’ll repeat again. A cold body can be the cause of a hot body getting warmer without heat flowing from cold to hot (which isn’t possible at least in an isolated system). This is such an obvious and intuitive concept that you should be able to rattle off real scenarios of it happening in rapid succession with little effort.

the ocean is always cooling

Patenly False. The ocean has experienced many warming periods like the one occurring today.

The best the atmosphere can do is slow the rate of cooling.

Why? Is it the law of conservation of mass ΔE = Ein – Eout, heat capacity ΔT = ΔE / (m*c), or the fact that the atmosphere can be the cause of changes in Ein and/or Eout of the ocean that you are challenging?

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 4:13 am

“A cold body can be the cause of a hot body getting warmer without heat flowing from cold to hot (which isn’t possible at least in an isolated system).”

(Th – Tc) will remain positive, indicating a cooling of Th – ALWAYS. (Th – Tc) will never go negative until Tc > Th.

“This is such an obvious and intuitive concept that you should be able to rattle off real scenarios of it happening in rapid succession with little effort.”

Then why can’t YOU provide even ONE example?

You *still* haven’t figured out that slower cooling is *NOT* the same thing as warming. The adjectives “cooling” and “warming” describe the gradient between two objects. That gradient is related to (Th-Tc). The slope of that gradient can increase and decrease but it can’t change sign unless Tc > Th. Of course when that happens the object that was Th all of a sudden becomes Tc!

“Patenly False. The ocean has experienced many warming periods like the one occurring today.”

That does *NOT* mean that the ocean all of a sudden gets cooler than the atmosphere! Tatmos does not get greater than Tocean!

“or the fact that the atmosphere can be the cause of changes in Ein”

You keep being told that Ein IS THE SUN, not the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is a reflector, not a source.

At any point in time if the sun is inputting 100 joules, the earth is outputting 50 joules, and the atmosphere is reflecting 25 joules back to the earth, the earth WILL STILL BE OUTPUTTING 25 JOULES!

That is COOLING, not warming. 25 joules-out is less than it would be if the atmosphere was not reflecting heat back. But 25 joules-out IS STILL COOLING, not warming.

If you will note, the values I use are representative of values that result in joules-out and joules-in balance over time since the earth outputs 24hr/day while joules-in only occurs over 12hrs/day. The rate out (50 joules) at any time only has to be half of the joules-in (100 joules) for balance to happen.

It’s not even obvious that you recognize that the earth outputs joules DURING THE DAY as well as at night. The earth actually loses MORE heat during the day than it does at night because its temperature is larger.

Bottom line? The atmosphere can change Eout. It can *NOT* change Ein. The atmosphere is *NOT* a heat source.

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 7:06 am

I’ll repeat again. A cold body can be the cause of a hot body getting warmer without heat flowing from cold to hot (which isn’t possible at least in an isolated system).

This cannot be. For temperature to rise, heat must be transferred. Your favorite 2LOT states this. Only added work can cause this to happen.

You have a total misunderstanding about what thermodynamic heating and temperature are.

You keep making assertions with no math to back them up. Let’s see your math that serves to support your position.

Most of us would have no problem if your statement said this.

A cold body can be the cause of a hot body remaining at a higher temperature than what would normally occur without the cold body being present.

This encompasses the fact that warming does not occur. Only cooling at a slower rate.

Tim has shown you the math that requires a reversal of the cooling gradient in order for a body to become hotter. Let us see yours.

Nick Stokes

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 5:24 pm

Andy,
“it can only cool the ocean slower.”

Again, the basic arithmetic. About 160 W/m2, on average, arrives as SW and is thermalised at depth. If that 160 W/m2 then leaves via the surface, ocean temperature is stable. If 161 W/m2 leaves, ocean cools; if 159 W/m2 leaves, ocean warms.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 6:08 pm

if 159 W/m2 leaves, ocean warms.

You are out of your wheelhouse here. I hate to tell you this, but if 159 W/m² is lost, the ocean has cooled.

1 W/m² can easily be dismissed by evaporation and latent heat which is not measurable by flux. Beware equating fluxes, especially at the surface, when H2O is involved, latent heat is a real thing.

bdgwx

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 18, 2026 6:39 pm

You’d think basic arithmetic (literally) and the law of conservation of energy would be so universally understood that few people would not understand that if Ein > Eout then a body’s internal energy will increase and ultimately warm.

Jim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 18, 2026 6:48 pm

You would think that basic understanding of time based variables would be understood when doing equalities.

Did you not understand what this graph shows in regards to instantaneous flux values?

Or this one.

comment image

Tim Gorman

Reply to Jim Gorman

June 19, 2026 4:27 am

Neither of these two seem to understand that Ein and Eout are measured in JOULES, not in Joules/sec-m^2!

Tim Gorman

Reply to bdgwx

June 19, 2026 4:26 am

“that few people would not understand that if Ein > Eout then a body’s internal energy will increase and ultimately warm.”

E is in JOULES, not in joules/sec-m^2

You would think that those in climate science would understand that a joules/sec-m^2 is a RATE and not an amount.

A rate is a TIME FUNCTION, not a state function. An amount is a state function, not a time function.

IF Ein happens over 12 hours and Eout happens over 24 hours then the rates associated with Ein and Eout DO NOT HAVE TO BALANCE!

Tim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 19, 2026 4:22 am

“Again, the basic arithmetic. About 160 W/m2, on average, arrives as SW and is thermalised at depth. If that 160 W/m2 then leaves via the surface, ocean temperature is stable. If 161 W/m2 leaves, ocean cools; if 159 W/m2 leaves, ocean warms.”

You are still stuck on trying to enforce FLUX BALANCE. Flux will *NEVER* balance.

You want to talk about basic arithmetic?

How many joules does 160 joules/sec-m^2 input over 12 hours?
Ans: 160 joules/sec-m^2 * 12hrs * 60min/hr * 60sec/min = 7 x 10^6 joules.

How many joules does 160 joules/sec-m^2 output over 24 hours?
Ans: 160joules/sec-m^2 * 24hrs * 60min/hr * 60sec/min = 14 x 10^6 joules.

You just turned the earth into a frozen ball!

Joules/sec-m^2 IS A RATE, not an amount. You can’t equate rates to determine balance, you have to equate amounts! A rate is a TIME FUNCTION, not a state function!

Nick Stokes

Reply to Tim Gorman

June 19, 2026 1:04 pm

160 W/m2 is a 24hr average.

Flux has to balance in the medium term. Otherwise the sea just gets hotter and hotter or colder and colder.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 19, 2026 2:04 pm

Flux has to balance in the medium term. Otherwise the sea just gets hotter and hotter or colder and colder.

So you don’t believe that the ocean can store heat for long periods of time, like decades or centuries? What do you claim that a medium time is?

Do you believe that evaporative cooling by H2O doesn’t contribute to radiant flux?

Tim Gorman

Reply to Nick Stokes

June 20, 2026 1:46 am

FLUX WILL NEVER BALANCE!

Energy is what will balance!

What do you consider “medium term”? A day? A week? A month? A year? A century? A millennia?

Rud Istvan

June 17, 2026 2:37 pm

Andy, my own opinion is that we should just admit we don’t know what we don’t know. That past proxies can be interpreted differently given their inherent geospatial uncertainty and lack of fine resolution fundamentally means not only do we not know, but we never can.

As a simple ‘Los Ninos’ example, we know they recur ‘regularly’—but with varying frequency and ‘strength’. Correlating that to related weather is, as the Japanese would say, ‘very difficult’ when they mean impossible. Lots of experience with that Japanese phrase in a previous ‘life’.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Rud Istvan

June 17, 2026 2:42 pm

Los Ninos are not regular, like La Ninas and Neutral, they come and go to some unseen drummer. Other than that, I agree with you.

Izaak Walton

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 4:39 pm

That would appear to be impossible. Given that the ocean is either in one of three states (El Nino, La Nina or Neutral) the periodicity of any one of the states must correlate with those of the other two. If La Nina and Neutral are regular and periodic then there can’t be any gaps for El Nino. Alternatively if El Nino is irregular then the other two must be as well since they fit into the irregularly shaped gapes between two successive El Ninos.

-7

Mike

Reply to Izaak Walton

June 17, 2026 7:49 pm

WTF?

Andy May

Author

Reply to Mike

June 18, 2026 5:52 am

I have no idea what he talking about either.

bnice2000

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 1:29 pm

Neither does he.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Izaak Walton

June 18, 2026 5:47 am

You are mixing apples and oranges. The big creator of all are the trade winds in the atmosphere. They push warm water westward, then die down and let warm water slosh eastward. In order to actually determine the oscillation that causes all three conditions, one needs to know what causes trade wind variance.

Jeff Alberts

Reply to Rud Istvan

June 17, 2026 5:10 pm

Personally, I don’t take much stock in proxies. Maybe they’re “measuring” the thing we think they are, maybe they aren’t.

Rud Istvan

June 17, 2026 2:59 pm

Andy, a separate comment. My understanding of ENSO has been formed mainly by Bob Tisdale and Willis Eschenbach, both here at WUWT. In my simple layman’s terms, ENSO is just the equatorial sloshing back and forth of the Pacific equatorial ‘surface’ warm pool, governed by the relative strength of the prevailing westerly equatorial tradewinds. Inherently not stable even tho predictably ‘regular’. Bob and Willis differ about the degree of resulting ocean heat loss, which depends on their differing views of NH near surface circulation currents. The known clockwise circulation of the very large North Pacific gyre suggests WE is more likely ‘correct’ that La Niña probably produces a net planetary heat loss while El Niño doesn’t (altho whether the associated deep thermohaline circulation surfacing ‘cools’ even locally is very unlikely). But that hypothesis observationally requires a resolution far beyond our present abilities—so again dunno.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Rud Istvan

June 17, 2026 3:38 pm

There is no oscillation between El Nino and La Nina, the oscillation is between Neutral and La Nina, see figure 2.4 here:

https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2022/08/08/the-sun-climate-effect-the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-ii-solar-activity-unexplained-ignored-effects-on-climate/

El Nino is the odd ball, its pacing is not understood, but it is nature’s way to expel heat from the oceans to the atmosphere and then onto space. Thus, it is a cooling mechanism, and it is somewhat extreme compared to Neutral.

La Nina collects solar heat and stores it in the ocean, the Neutral state is also a way to release ocean heat, but it is not as severe as El Nino. These two are paced by the 12-year solar cycle.

El Nino is not part of the regular cycle, but it can “reset” the cycle clock.

bnice2000

Reply to Andy May

June 17, 2026 4:42 pm

Their is confusion between “El Nino phase” of the ENSO cycle, and an actual El Nino event.

Mr.

Reply to Rud Istvan

June 17, 2026 7:08 pm

Rud, if you’re a “simple layman” on this stuff, I’m the classic monkey’s uncle.

We ~~laymen~~ laypersons just observe that swimming in the oceans in winter is cold and not very pleasant, while swimming in the oceans in summer is refreshing and very enjoyable.

The “heat” is all on the surface in summer, and the “cold” is top to bottom in the winter.

(Sharks don’t seem to care if the oceans are “hot” or “cold” though.
It’s their larder 🙂 🙁 )

Herman Pope

June 17, 2026 2:59 pm

Gosh, we have all these correlations, one causes the other or the other way around. What about both of these are caused by something more influential and you do not have a clue as to what that is. Water is abundant, water in the ocean is abundant, water on land is abundant, ice on land is abundant, ice can be piled deep with much volume in cold places, ice can be spread thinner over large areas. It snows more in warmer times and ice accumulates and spreads and causes colder. It snows less in colder times, and accumulated ice spreads and causes colder while thawing and depleting and thinning. When the ice is almost depleted, it retreats rapidly. All the other correlations happened, but could not have caused all this.

Bob Weber

June 17, 2026 4:05 pm

“We are currently at the end of Modern Solar Maximum or the Modern Warm Period”

The Solar Modern Maximum ended 22 years ago, in 2004. The Modern Warm Period does not necessarily have to be synonymous with just the Solar Modern Maximum.

Andy May

Author

Reply to Bob Weber

June 17, 2026 6:07 pm

True, the solar maximum is over and we really don’t know if the modern warm period is over, could easily go on a while longer.

Jim Gorman

Reply to Andy May

June 18, 2026 5:54 am

It is my opinion that the surface stores more heat over a long period of time and releases that stored heat over a long period of time. The oceans store more that land, but they both participate in the storage. Just watching the delay in atmosphere warming after land surface temperature increases in informative. It is one reason Tim has been vocal about not balancing fluxes but instead balancing joules over time.

JohnMcL

June 18, 2026 12:27 am

Three points

1. Data coverage in the Nino 3.4. region was poor in the early years. The HadSST data indicates that SST data is available from only a small number of grid cells (like 5 out of 20) in much of the late 1800s. Worse, those returning data are typically clustered at the eastern end of the Nino 3.4 region. On top of that there’s the number of observations (e.g. just one for the month, made during heavy rain might be quite different to the average of 8 measurements across a month). The uncertainty is high and no-one can do anything more than guess whether the reported temperatures (and hence anomalies) applied to the entire Nino 3.4 region.

2. Back radiation heating the ocean is rather a naive belief. Not only is the penetration into the water limited to a few tens of microns but there’s also the matter of the radiation getting down through the increasingly dense atmosphere without being absorbed by a GHG molecule that absorbs at that wavelength. Water vapor absorbs across a large part of the infra-red spectrum and I doubt that there’s any shortage of water vapor in the tropics.

3. It is very difficult to determine cause and consequence with El Nino events. Air pressure above Australia and South east Asia increases and air pressure in the eastern Pacific decreases. This means less westerly wind across the Pacific and less cold water upwelling. The higher pressure bubble also deflects what warm wind there is into the northern mid-latitudes. But are these air pressure changes the cause or a consequence?

Andy May

Author

Reply to JohnMcL

June 18, 2026 4:19 am

All very valid points, thanks.

Tim Gorman

Reply to JohnMcL

June 18, 2026 3:42 pm

Your item 2. is very important. Climate science assumes CO2 absorbs IR that is outgoing but does not absorb IR radiated by itself! It’s just one more of the garbage assumptions climate science makes in order to make everything “balance”. Climate science also assumes that all of the IR emitted by CO2 arrives at the surface at 90° so it all gets absorbed. IR from a CO2 molecule is *NOT* a plane wave, it is a spherical wavefront meaning much of the CO2 re-emitted IR hits the surface at an angle. At best only a little more than half of the radiation emitted by a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere gets absorbed by the surface, assuming the EM wave makes it all the way to the surface!

LT3

June 18, 2026 3:40 am

Does an El-Nino really warm the globe VIA conduction? That does not compute (based on the surface area of the warm pool and the delta T of the Nino State), it would seem elevating global atmospheric water vapor levels via enhanced subtropical jet stream would be the mechanism.

Andy May

Author

Reply to LT3

June 18, 2026 4:22 am

I suspect both are at work. Regardless of the precise mechanism, the heat leaving the tropical Pacific does make its way around the Earth (or at least the Northern Hemisphere) and a considerable part of it will be in water vapor as latent heat.

jonesingforozone

June 18, 2026 6:21 am

Climate is distinguished from weather; Corellation is not causation, etc.

Hans Erren

June 18, 2026 11:52 am

What I see in the Drroyspencer graph is that every super El Niño is followed by a new higher temperature equilibrium in the atmosphere.

Tim Gorman

Reply to Hans Erren

June 18, 2026 3:46 pm

Beware the math behind the graph. If you are plotting averages, then El Nino effects to the average extend long after the spike it physically causes. A spike that is not accounted for is a prime cause for step changes in a plot, especially in a time series plot. It’s even worse if you are using anomalies where the spike effects remain in the baseline used to calculate the anomaly.