Two weeks ago I went with my wife, at her suggestion, to see the new movie “Pressure.” The movie is about the extensive weather observation and forecasting effort that was involved in the decision to delay the D-Day invasion of France by the Allies from June 5 to June 6, 1944. It’s a good movie, if you get a chance to watch it.
Let’s be reminded of the meteorological fundamentals that were well understood in the years leading up to the war, that are relevant to the present claims of the “climate” movement.
In 1938, Guy Callendar wrote a Royal Meteorological Society paper attributing a reported warming trend (in the station data) to the radiative influence of rising concentrations of CO2. It was from within the meteorological discipline that Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt explained to him that the physical nature of atmospheric circulation makes it “…impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.” They took no issue with the validity of the static radiative computations Callendar had performed. But the motion, in their view, made it such that “…the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
Modern numerical modeling confirms their sense of the issue. I posted about this a few months ago, with complete quotes, references, and plots from the ERA5 reanalysis model.
First, it is important to see that dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2. This annotated plot I have been sharing gives a concise explanation.
Second, the modeled hourly values of “vertical velocity” confirm that the compression heating and expansion cooling processes throughout the depth of the troposphere are many orders of magnitude greater than the “warming” rate. (See the first link) This makes it impossible to isolate the incremental IR absorbing power of rising pCO2 for reliable attribution of an overall trend, from within the dynamics of compressible flow inherent to the general circulation.
Was there ever a physically justified reason to expect sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans and in the lower atmosphere to be driven by rising pCO2? No, not in the proper context of the motion.
The current situation remains the same as in 1938: NO ONE “KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with ANY trend of climate variables or ANY weather event in the news.
Thank you for your patience in these important matters.
umm, so I’ll be addressing why wut all u guys say is pretty much wrong.
for those who say that the minor 0.04% of carbon dioxide that has a really really small radiative power, that shows a lack of deeper understanding. When a CO2 molecule absorbs outgoing infrared (IR) radiation from the Earth’s surface, it enters an excited vibrational state. In the lower, dense atmosphere, it collides with neighboring oxygen and nitrogen molecules billions of times per second.These collisions instantly transfer the absorbed energy into kinetic energy (heat) shared throughout the surrounding air. Because these collisions happen much faster than the CO2 can re-emit a photon, energy transfer does not destroy the radiation’s effect—it converts and redistributes it throughout the atmosphere as thermal energy. Once the energy is converted into atmospheric heat, the warmed layer of air acts like a blanket. It re-radiates IR energy in all directions, including back down toward the Earth’s surface. This back-radiation decreases net outgoing heat, causing the surface to warm until a new equilibrium is reached. At higher altitudes (the upper troposphere), the atmosphere is colder and much thinner. Here, collisions are less frequent, and the CO2 molecules have enough time to emit photons into space. Adding more CO2 shifts this “radiating layer” higher into the colder atmosphere. Because a colder layer radiates less energy outward, the total heat escaping the Earth is reduced, causing an energy imbalance.
My sources for that were NOAA, Berkeley University, and NIH.
Aight, so next, you guys say that Reid Bryson made that quote. And he did. He believed in global warming. But his stance on it was that we were experiencing global warming because we were coming out of a Little Ice Age, not because we were adding CO2 in the air. But that argument is scientifically incorrect. The original cooling drivers have stopped. Volcanic activity that blocks sunlight, and lower solar activity (quieter sun) were the cooling drivers that caused the Little Ice Age. While solar activity has even further reduced from Little Ice Age levels, temperature has gone up, showing that there are man made causes. Additionally, Climate requires a physical mechanism. Planets do not just bounce back from cold temperatures because they “used to be warmer”. Temperature changes require a change in the planets energy balance (radiative forcing).
My sources for this were IPCC and NASA.
Finally, you guys believe that temperatures never went out in the first place. Berkeley Earth, NASA, NOAA, and Our World in Data show the same trend. Global temperature have increased since we started recording (1951-1980). Please do not make the absolutely stupid argument that every site and institution which lists these photos is a deeply corrupted leftist organization. There are exceptions to the rule, such as Adelaide and other places which are known cooling spots. These are a mix of environmental factors, and weather conditions and cycles like ocean currents changing.
My Sources for this (as stated above) are Berkeley Earth, NASA, NOAA, and Our World in Data.
FInally, a lot of people here make the argument that in Mauna Loa Obs, the amount of CO2 is very low. You guys argue this is because the ocean absorbs a lot of the CO2. This is right, and that is the problem. Ocean water (H20) absorbs CO2 which react to form Carbonic Acid (H2CO3). Carbonic Acid drives ocean acidification, and dissolves animal shells, which are formed from calcium carbonate. This directly affects commercial fishing prospects, such as clams, oysters, and mussels. Some argue that the ocean can never be truly acidic, but that is where they error. An ocean can acidify while never being truly acidic. For example, if the temperature in a room decreased from 90 degrees to 75, you would say that the room has cooled, even if it was still hot. Ocean water doesn’t have to be at 7.0 PH or lower, it just has to be a .01 percent change for so many animals to be affected. Because the PH scale is logarithmic, a 0.1 change in PH is a roughly 26% increase in acidity (or decrease, depending on which way you are going).
because its more informative to say that the ocean is acidifying than to say that the oceans are alkaline, but less alkaline. that doesn’t explain how they are trending.
If a pile of bull manure is increasing, the proper description of the trend is to say that the pile is growing larger, not that it is ‘bullifying,’ or turning into a bull when it never will.
To me it sounds like you guys are trying to ignore the potential of ocean acidification by constantly asserting that the ocean is alkaline.
To me it sound s like you have no idea what you’re talking about. A permanent reduction in ocean pH is not possible due to the massive buffering capacity of both dissolved and undissolved carbonates. Ocean pH will continue to slowly rise forever and ever.
I think that an inorganic chemist would disagree with you. Instructions, or menus for titration will often instruct the chemist to slowly add acid to (an un-buffered) alkaline solution until the indicator shows acidity, and then back titrate with one drop of base to assure neutrality. It is impossible to create an acid solution from a base without first neutralizing the base. So, by your logic, a process tending to reduce the pH should be called neutralization, NOT acidification, especially in a situation where a buffered solution is never expected to become acidic.
Basically every river that has flowed to the ocean over millions of years is much lower than ocean ph.. can be as low as pH 5.5…
Yet the oceans have remain steadfastly around pH 8 ± a bit.
Anyone who thinks a minor change in atmospheric CO2 is going to have any effect whatsoever, needs to go back to primary school and get an education. (and I don’t mean in “social science” or “humanities”)
Interesting! What is the source of the graph? My understanding is that the claim for the pH declining is the result of a researcher (Caldeira) ignoring all the historical data, using a model(s) to estimate the pH a century ago, and than comparing that/those unverified model(s) with modern instrumental measurements. It is unclear whether the model(s) took borate buffering into account. If not, then the model(s) will overestimate the decline in future pH.
I can’t remember that actual source, but I know I picked it up, probably from a post on WUWT, a long time ago..
A lot of their “claim” of lower pH is built on the Aloha data.. but as I showed elsewhere, compared to historic values, the pH is currently on the high side of the Pacific cycle.
Yes. It is slightly going up because of the endless carbonates arriving into it from rivers. It will never go down. It can only rise – slowly – until it reaches the pH of limestone – around 8.5. No amount of C02 can change that.
Due to increased CO2 ppm, at the surface there will be a net migration of CO2 into the ocean (partial pressure law), where it quickly is chemically combined with other carbon/oxygen/hydrogen compounds.
Some of these compounds precipitate and eventually become a skeletons of sea life and limestone, such as the Cliffs of Dover.
The salt water oceans have always been and will always be alkaline.
It is totally factual and pertinent to address the issue verbally by saying the alkaline oceanic water is becoming very very slightly less alkaline.
There is a zero point. Neither acid nor alkaline.
Neutral. Do you not get the pH is a scientific concept, the same as the measure of the strength of an earthquake – a man made number?
pH 7. However, it is not an arbitrary number. Neutrality is defined as being the point on the pH scale where the concentration of H+3 and OH-1 ions are equal. Alternatively, it is the point on the pH scale where the ratio of the concentration of the anions and cations of the slightly dissociated distilled water molecules is equal to one(1). In that sense it is a unique number that tells us something important about potential reactants in a chemical reaction.
Clyde,
“the point on the pH scale where the concentration of H+3 and OH-1 ions are equal” Even that is wrong. It is activity, not concentration, that is balanced at pH 7. Activity is related to concentration by the activity coefficient, which becomes higher as the total ionic strength of the solution increases. Sea water has moderately high total ionic strength. If you want to wander in some weeds, look up the Debye–Hückel equation. It is hard going but used to be required reading in Physical Chemistry when I did my exams. Geoff S
Ruhaan,
In proper, hard science, the alleged pH changes would have calculations of the GUM style to place estimates of uncertainty of measurement around the pH value. I am fairly sure that a complete estimate would show the alleged change to be inside the boundaries of the uncertainty, meaning that they cannot be distinguished from noise.
Geoff S
‘Once the energy is converted into atmospheric heat, the warmed layer of air acts like a blanket. It re-radiates IR energy in all directions, including back down toward the Earth’s surface. This back-radiation decreases net outgoing heat, causing the surface to warm until a new equilibrium is reached.’
Aw, you were doing so well until you got to this point. Having correctly noted that collisions effectively convert thermal radiation from the surface to sensible heat, you then ignore all that and invoke the phenomenological physics of ‘back radiation’. The mechanism by which that sensible heat is conveyed aloft to where GHGs activated by collisions can then freely radiate to space is called convection.
Convection (warm air rising, cold air sinking) effectively moves surface heat upwards through the troposphere. However, this heat must eventually escape to space as thermal radiation. Because the atmosphere is opaque to specific infrared wavelengths due to greenhouse gases (GHGs), that convective heat is continually absorbed by CO2 and other GHGs higher up.
Because GHGs absorb energy and vibrate, they re-emit that energy in all directions—including back down toward the Earth’s surface (downwelling longwave radiation, or “back radiation”). This back radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the surface. By slowing the rate at which thermal energy escapes to space, the entire climate system reaches a warmer equilibrium temperature to achieve balance.
The concept of Radiative-Convective Equilibrium explains why this mechanism causes surface warming. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the altitude at which heat can freely escape to space (the effective radiating layer) shifts upward. Because temperature decreases with height in the troposphere, this higher layer is colder and radiates less energy. This forces the lower layers—including the Earth’s surface—to warm up in order to restore the necessary planetary energy balance.
…, this higher layer is colder and radiates less energy.
However, at the same time as the dominant radiating altitude increases, the solid-angle of the cone of back-radiated IR that intercepts the Earth becomes smaller, thus meaning that a larger percentage escapes to space. Did your LLM leave that out?
Nope, the emission height is not increased directly by more CO2. Within the main bands of CO2 the average emission height stays constant. It is only at the edges of those bands where you see any changes. It is only the absorption at the edges that have an effect.
“ As the concentration of CO2 increases, the altitude at which heat can freely escape to space (the effective radiating layer) shifts upward. Because temperature decreases with height in the troposphere, this higher layer is colder and radiates less energy.”
Did you actually read this before hitting “post comment”?
More CO2 (concentration of CO2 increases) also increases radiation! This at least partially offsets the less intense radiation.
The higher concentration will also result in an increased geometric diminishment reduction in the “back radiation” that reaches the surface of the earth. This may warm the atmosphere but only result in a small increase at the surface.
Looks like he’s being fed the ‘canonical’ version. I don’t have the heart to inform him that in the real world, both ASR and OLR have been increasing together of late.
“Because the atmosphere is opaque to specific infrared wavelengths due to greenhouse gases (GHGs), that convective heat is continually absorbed by CO2 and other GHGs higher up.”
More AI generated nonsense.
Measurements show that the very tiny increase in CO2 radiative absorption is passed immediately to adjacent frequencies and expelled from the atmosphere.
Actually, not “opaque” as in photons not able to penetrate the gas. GHGs have an absorption path length, a function of what is called the extinction coefficient in solids, or the imaginary component of the complex refractive index.
Nope, close but you are missing important details. One of those is gravity. At any altitude downward radiation encounters far more molecules than upward directed radiation. This means the average path length before reabsorption is shorter. Therefore, the average path of all photon emissions is upward.
As a result, you can use this average to understand the flow of energy. Guess what? It is also upward. Except for just above the surface, almost all of the energy simply flows upward.
As it turns out, this flow of energy is constant independent of the concentration of CO2 (or any GHG except water vapor). What you miss when you think about more CO2 absorbing energy is that more CO2 also emits more energy. Due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation, this equalizes the energy flow.
You’ve completely ignored David Dibbell’s point, which originated this thread.
Your comment in reply is therefore substantively irrelevant.
Meanwhile, some thoughts for you: “Once the energy is converted into atmospheric heat,…” the rate of convective transport and loss of energy increases.
“Temperature changes require a change in the planets energy balance” The climate system is a set of coupled quasi-oscillators. Energy can transfer spontaneously among them. Air temperature can rise or fall from internal energy transfer. There need be no change in TOA energy balance.
“For example, if the temperature in a room decreased from 90 degrees to 75, you would say that the room has cooled,…”
But your like would not.
The alarmist formalization would have it that, on declining from 90 F to 75 F, the air in the room is undergoing freezification. That’ll scare the kiddies, won’t it.
That’s how utterly dumb and dishonest is the “ocean acidification” usage. All hail to Ken Caldeira for that innovation of high, ‘The Science’™.
The primary problem calcifiers are experiencing is with juveniles that have not yet developed their shells and defense mechanisms for them such as chitin and mucous. Additionally, they tend to spawn in nutrient-rich coastal areas that experience up-welling from deep waters that have not been in communication with the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Calcifiers have a range of tolerance that probably reflects ocean pH when they first evolved. However, they all have the ability to expend energy to modify the local pH at the growing front of their shells. That is they aren’t completely at the mercy of the ambient pH and can modify their environment. Therefore, the typical local pH is of less importance than whether it is high enough for the organism to counter it.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/ for a more detailed response to your sophistry arguing in favor of semantics that addresses something that will almost certainly never happen, according to the Stanford professor of geochemistry, sometimes called the father of geochemistry, Konrad Krauskopf.
“ a 0.1 change in PH is a roughly 26% increase in acidity “
And requires a further 2000% change to reach pH 7..
Betting your non-facts are based on the Aloha site measurements..
Proxy measurements at Flinders Reef put those short term measurements into context, as the Flinders Reef data shows far greater swings as part of a cycle.
Current pH is very much on the high side of that cycle.
tell you pet AI numbskull that there is water vapour present wherever there is carbon dioxide and to include its presence in all calculations involving exchanges of photons amongst molecules in all samples of atmosphere being considered by whatever model is being played with.
Berkely Earth uses data assigned ridiculously low measurement uncertainty intervals. When I looked at their data base they had some measurements made in the 1700’s with a measurement uncertainty in the hundredths digit. Is it any wonder that they don’t both propagating realistic measurement uncertainty – which would subsume the differences in temp they are trying to identify?
Ruhaan,
You have ot considered enough processes of energy exchange. You start your process with “When a CO2 molecule absorbs outgoing infrared (IR) radiation from the Earth’s surface ….” Because this absorption takes energy from some source, that source will be cooler than before. Some further processes might take part if it is to e restored to its former state. That is, there is a series of energy transfers that taken together sum to no change. The energy you claim to heat the atmosphere is not added energy coming from some unnamed source – it is merely part a series of energy redistributions that sums to zero. Geoff S
Because this absorption takes energy from some source, that source will be cooler than before . . .
Correct. The gullible and ignorant (Schmidt, Mann, the IPCC et. al.) believe otherwise, leading to the insane belief that adding CO2 to air magically makes it hotter!
it is merely part a series of energy redistributions that sums to zero.
Exactly. The Earth loses all the energy it receives from the Sun to outer space – plus a little internal heat. Dimwits refuse to accept that the surface is no longer molten – having cooled!
“The current situation remains the same as in 1938: NO ONE “KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with ANY trend of climate variables or ANY weather event in the news.”
That is the bottom line.
The Climate Alarmist are “jumping the gun” when it comes to CO2. First, they need to get some evidence that CO2 has any effect on Earth’s weather or climate. To date, they have failed to do so.
Yet society is wasting TRILLIONS of dollars trying to reduce CO2 amounts. None of this spending is doing any good reducing CO2 since it continues to increase despite all these efforts. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
I guess Trump is the only one who sees clearly with regard to CO2. Other world leaders are living in a delusion and making their people live in it, too.
“And Trump doesn’t even claim to be able to see CO2′ No but he does claim to be able to see vandals ripping a 350 ft hole in a pool with box cutters that he said weeks earlier could not be ripped with box cutters.
What an irony though Tom. He releases vandals from Jan 6 who beat up cops and destroyed property, but arrests those who try to pick out souvenir pieces of the failed paint job. Says it all really.
Here is a fact based break down of the situation as of a few days ago. Pretty much zero evidence provided to back up the claims Trump is making. Who is honestly surprised? https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jun/26/looking-into-the-reflecting-pool-we-examined-trump/
How to rewrite history. Unbelievable. 1 died the day after and 4 took their own lives because of the stress caused by the rioters and riots. I suppose you think a soldier who takes their own life after trauma suffered in battle didn’t die as a result of that trauma?
How do we know that the DC police officers who died of post Jan 6 heart attack and suicide weren’t just horrified and traumatized by the cold-blooded way their fellow officer shot an unarmed woman from cover, and they couldn’t live with the disgrace?
Jan 6 was an afternoon tea party compared to the MANIC SEDITION being carried out by Democrat led rioters who can’t accept that Trump won the last election.
Democrats have been in basically constant rebellion ever since.
“Jan 6 was an afternoon tea party compared to the MANIC SEDITION being carried out by Democrat led rioters who can’t accept that Trump won the last election.” Are you trying to remove any doubt that you are losing things? What on earth are you talking about? What MANIC SEDITION?
Those Antifa thugs who attacked an ICE facility in Texas, about a dozen of them, all got long federal jail sentences for their efforts. The one who was firing a gun got 100 years in prison. No parole.
I guess the Trump administration wanted to send a strong warning to the other anti-American elements in the country.
Let’s see if Antifa thugs are delusional enough to attack another government facility.
And how many Democrat governors have said outright that they will not comply with Federal Officers doing their duty as defined by the President following the elected will of the people of the USA.
Sedition, Insurrection.. call it what you like..
… but don’t be so incredibly stupid as to DENY it. !
I’m not going to try to argue you out of your TDS, Simon. I think I would be wasting my time. You automatically believe anything negative about Trump. In this case you are not being objective you are going on emotions.
It has been my experience that when something has been applied to a surface, and the bond fails, which is not uncommon, a bubble appears at the site of the failed bond. It does not spontaneously curl up along linear boundaries. I doubt that Trump took the time to personally inspect the site, although he probably had a conversation with the contractor. I have no way of knowing exactly what happened there. However, it is interesting that you have so much invested in your hatred of Trump that you are quick to criticize him even when you have no privileged insight as to what did happen. Has it occurred to you that if someone did vandalize the fresh coating that they may have used something more heavy duty than a box cutter. So, without waiting to see what evidence the Park Service presents at trial, you jump in with both feet and criticize Trump based on your speculation. It will be interesting to see what evidence is presented at trial, and whether you have the integrity to apologize for being wrong, if that turns out to be the case. I won’t be surprised if you slink away and pretend that you never said the things you have. That is a personal opinion based on experience with things you have said here in the past. Obviously, I don’t have any respect for you or your opinions.
“However, it is interesting that you have so much invested in your hatred of Trump that you are quick to criticize him even when you have no privileged insight as to what did happen.” Oh Please….This follows the tired and true Trumpian pattern. He gets caught out doing dodgy stuff. He lies. He blames others. If you think this really is vandalism that caused this total mess, then i can’t help you.
And I will apologise 100% if any serious evidence is presented to show this was caused by vandalism. Will you if it is not?
“Unbelievable? So you believe Trump was the one that vandalized the pool liner?” I don’t believe anyone vandalised the pool liner. I think Trump got caught giving no bid contracts to his mates (something that should horrify all those here who cherish good use of tax payer money) and they did a shite job. Trump then did what Trump does, he made up a whole lot of lies to deflect from what is a mess of his making.
On what evidence do you base your belief that no one vandalized the pool liner? You are confirming my suggestion that your beliefs are supported by your hatred of Trump, not by facts in evidence.
If it turns out that you are incorrect, and you apologize for your unfounded accusations, I will acknowledge having misjudged you. Feel free to remind me if I miss the announcement.
However, I’d like to point out that while I didn’t like Biden and the things he was doing, I NEVER accused him of things that I didn’t have personal knowledge of, nor did I EVER imply that he was doing things that were immoral or unethical, based on my acknowledged dislike of him. I don’t like to eat crow pie.
“I doubt that Trump took the time to personally inspect the site, although he probably had a conversation with the contractor. I have no way of knowing exactly what happened there.”
Actually, the MSM reported that the job was originally offered to the contractor with experience working on the pond. He/they/it turned it down. So it wasn’t quite the quid pro quo that you make it out to be.
Mr. Abbott: Yet Simon seems soooo sure on every point, especially the ones he can’t know. He’s also certain it bolsters his credibility, so very certain.
Yes, Biden and the Democrats spread the lie that Trump described rightwing extremists as “very fine people”, when the truth is Trump specifically condemned those rightwing groups in his speech in South Carolina.
Snopes did a fact check on it and Snopes says the Democrats were lying about Trump.
Biden repeated this lie constantly throughout his candidacy. He said this is what impelled him to run for president. And it was a lie, just like he is.
Clyde, I get that you don’t respect what I say, yet here we are. I have offered to fall at your feet and apologise if there are any convictions for the damage Trump says has been done here. To be clear I am not talking about the taking of bits of peeling paint. I say that Trump is lying when he says there has been a deliberately cut/gash hundreds of feet long. So…I’ll ask again…. will you have the integrity to do the same for me if nothing comes of this in the courts, i.e no evidence is presented leading to a conviction?
It is interesting that you are willing to stick by your judgement of what happened when you don’t really have any evidence in your possession that can prove you are right. What does that say about you? Legal convictions are not the final say in something. It is part of our principle of jurisprudence that it is better than 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. How about waiting to see what evidence the prosecution comes up with, and independently judge the probability of the charges being correct, regardless of whether it meets the test of “beyond a reasonable doubt?”
I don’t need a lecture in law. I need to know if you genuinely believe that this pool was vandalised? I don’t. I say it is a Trump lie.
Now are you (as I am) prepared to admit you are wrong with an apology or not (if it turns out there was no 300+ foot deliberate gash/cut?
I thought the Hateway Repugnant had closed. Such an honest site…. Anyway, so you think Jeanine (have another drink) Pirro is reliable? I think she has shown herself to be little more than a Trump stooge. About as reliable as a Trump wedding ring. About as moral as Trump’s birthday card to Epstein. Her word is worth pretty much nothing in my book.
Now, do you have any evidence that vandalism caused the huge failure that is the Trump Deflection Pool? Anything?
Considering what has happened with cases that have already gone to trial, I don’t think that convictions are going to be a good metric for proving that the Reflecting Pool was vandalized or not. Perhaps when the contractor finishes draining the pool, we will have a better idea of the extent and nature of the problem(s).
If you are tempted to dismiss the actions of those charged as being simply collecting souvenirs of something they had no part in creating, I’d like to remind you that collecting souvenirs of anything from National Parks without a permit is prohibited. I remember once seeing a display at the Petrified Forest National Park (AZ) showing mineral specimens that were alleged to have been confiscated from tourists, some of which (crystalline sulfur) almost certainly were not collected there. Even if the ‘Tourons’ did not cause the initial damage, detaching pieces contributed to the problem.
“Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt explained to him that the physical nature of atmospheric circulation makes it ‘…impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.’ They took no issue with the validity of the static radiative computations Callendar had performed. . . . First, it is important to see that dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2.”
It IS possible to “solve the problem” of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by “working out the radiation” if one recognizes two physical facts:
(a) that water vapor and CO2 distribute intercepted LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface overwhelming by molecular collisions that exchange excess kinetic energy primarily with the non-IR active gases nitrogen and oxygen, and NOT by re-radiation of that intercepted energy, and
(b) that the ability of every atmospheric “geenhouse gas” to absorb LWIR emitted from Earth’s surfaces, is governed by the scientifically-confirmed Beer-Lambert law that states transmittance of radiation decreases exponentially as concentration increases, coupled with detailed calculations performed by expert atmospheric physicists William Happer, William van Wijngaarden and others that show CO2 became “effectively saturated” in its ability to absorb any additional LWIR at troposphere concentration levels in the range of 280–300 ppmv.
In other words, there is not—and never was—such a thing as a static radiative effect of incremental CO2.
Your discussion is interesting as usual, but as this is a place for debate I might point out that what you say here needs more context.
First, it is important to see that dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 …
Unchallenged, this statement makes WUWT sound to the outside world as though we are climate absolutists opposite in point of view but no different philosophically than the alarmists with their hair on fire.
I’ll just point people to this web page by Molly Michelson which has as its lede a wonderful image produced by the so-called “carbon imaging satellite”. Ignore the foamy blather that Ms. Michelson spews about measuring the health of our planet and just observe the image for the moment. Here is a map of near instantaneous CO2 concentration plus or minus near 5ppm resolution done with spectrometry. All of the dynamics that you point to, and keep in mind that I am a big proponent of the fact that dynamics are important, have neither mixed CO2 completely nor have overwhelmed the radiant signature of CO2.
If there is an observational signature of the radiant effect that CO2 has, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it also has an effect on heat transport. The only question remaining is what is its actual effect in comparison to water vapor, or in comparison to atmospheric dynamics, and how effectively does it contribute to radiant energy balance.
Thanks for your reply, Kevin.
“…what you say here needs more context.
First, it is important to see that dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2 …”
“Unchallenged, this statement makes WUWT sound to the outside world as though we are climate absolutists opposite in point of view but no different philosophically than the alarmists with their hair on fire.” Is the statement unsound in some way? It is a simple characterization of the dynamically active values of the ERA5 hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” compared to the computed value of the incremental IR absorbing power for the 2XCO2 case. It’s not “philosophical” at all, nor is there anything “absolutist” about it. People will say whatever they want. I don’t worry about that.
“If there is an observational signature of the radiant effect that CO2 has, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it also has an effect on heat transport.” The OCO-2 sensor uses three wavelengths as given here. https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/science/measurement-approach/
All of these wavelengths are shorter than what MODTRAN uses to compute transmittance and fluxes for longwave radiation. MODTRAN starts at about 4.5 microns.
The better space-based sensing to assess the potential influence of incremental CO2 on overall longwave emission to space is GOES Band 16 centered at 13.3 microns. It is within that band that about a quarter of the computed static radiative effect of 2XCO2 is found.
“The only question remaining is what is its actual effect in comparison to water vapor, or in comparison to atmospheric dynamics, and how effectively does it contribute to radiant energy balance.” The comparison to atmospheric dynamics is made plain in the plots I’ve generated. The influence of incremental CO2 is shown to be vanishingly weak in those comparisons.
I hope this helps. It’s important not to think of the surface of land and oceans as the emitter that matters most. The atmosphere itself, including clouds, is the origin of about 5 times as much of the overall longwave emission to space, compared to what ends up in space originating at the surface without being absorbed first within the atmosphere.
See my reply to Frank from NOVA below, but the CO2 channels 10.3 and 13.3 between them show absorption from CO2. The brightness function being mapped is very red for low temperatures in either channel, but to my point the radiative effects of CO2 are not overwhelmed by dynamics, but rather the radiative characteristics of CO2 enable one to visualize dynamics.
The 5 times argument notwithstanding, 1/5 is not zero which is what overwhelmed by dynamics implies, but I don’t see what this means in the context of our discussion. It is outside the discussion about CO2. Heat transferred back to the surface by multiple means, is truly thermalized and even if it came from the 15um band of CO2, loses identity with respect to frequency. SB then allows, as you say, a fifth on average to travel straight to space.
Thanks for your further reply, Kevin. I don’t understand why you are referring to Band 13 (10.3 microns) at all. For Band 16 (13.3), one cannot tell at any point in time or location, by how much the signal was or would be attenuated by incremental CO2. The dynamic range of values is huge, as the surface itself warms and cools, and as clouds form and dissipate – which is driven by the dynamics of the circulation. So over the entire image, cloud intermittency and time dependency (i.e. rise and decay of the strength of the signal from the surface) are the big factors.
The Tropics: The area between the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degree N, and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degree S, is about 40% of the earth surface. The Tropics area is about 78% ocean and 22% land. The tropics area generates 300 to 400 billion metric ton of water vapor each day. The rest of the world area, about 60%, 100 to 150 billion metric ton; thus, a 50% greater area generates water vapor only about 1/3 of the tropics!
The Ocean Surface in the Tropics: The IR photon emission from an ocean surface at 26 C is about 438 W/m^2, the upward radiant energy flux. Near the ocean surface, because the water vapor ppm is about 26,000, much larger than the CO2 ppm at 425, the influence of water vapor on the transfer and absorption of IR radiation of surface photons is about 20 – 25% (109.5 W/m^2), whereas CO2 is about 1% (4.4 W/m^2); this shows CO2 minimally adds to the world’s “baseline” temperature.
The remaining upward radiant energy flux, about 75%, is quickly transferred 5 – 10% by collisions that warm air molecules (mainly N2 and O2), 65 – 70% by evaporating huge quantities of ocean water.
NOTE: As ocean temperatures drop from 26 C to 5 C, the H2O ppm drops from 26,000 ppm to 6,746 ppm H2O transfer and absorption drops from 109.5 W/m^2 to 23.5 W/m^2 (a big drop). CO2 transfer and absorption drops from 4.4 W/m^2 to 3.3 W/m^2 (a small drop); even at these cold ocean temperatures, the H2O effect is at least 7 times the CO2 effect.
In the lower atmosphere up to the bottom of clouds, as water vapor partially condenses, it releases latent heat, which converts into sensible heat, which by collisions, warms the surrounding air (mainly N2 and O2), causing air to rise. This is a second warming source subsequent to the above upward surface radiant energy flux.
They measure CO2 absorption in clear atmospheric windows in the near IR. I would have linked to GOES CO2 channels at 10.3 and 13.3 um to show the effect of CO2 absorption, but for GOES images my requests simply spin forever this morning.
I just checked again and this NOAA product expresses what I am speaking of.
I think that the point FfN is making is that looking down one is going to integrate absorption and end up with the Total Column effect, assuming that the instrument is sensitive enough to still detect a strongly absorbed flux. That is, it is at risk of being unable to resolve the near-surface concentration if the signal falls below the sensitivity threshold. To resolve the concentration for different altitudes would require looking into the sun at different angles of elevation. Does OCO-2 do that?
Even worse, the water vapor density the radiation encounters will affect the EM energy being detected. As far a CO2 is concerned that is considered to be “path loss”. Since water vapor density varies significantly over even small grid area it can have a varying impact on path loss. If the path loss is not accounted for then you don’t really know if what you are seeing is the “true” originating source. So how is this accounted for. Once again, it appears to me that the measurement uncertainty would overwhelm the differences that are trying to be identified.
Hello again Kevin, I am coming back briefly with a further explanation.
“If there is an observational signature of the radiant effect that CO2 has, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it also has an effect on heat transport.”
As with Simpson and Brunt from 1938, I have no issue with the observed spectral signature of CO2, nor with the implied static “warming” influence of rising concentrations. I am pointing out that the magnitude of its “effect on heat transport” is properly understood in the context of the dynamics of the general circulation to be negligible.
So, sure, the spectral profile can be observed, even as the “warming” influence of incremental CO2 and other IR-active trace gases is demonstrably overwhelmed in all the motion. These are not mutually exclusive.
Keep up the good work, especially your efforts against the destructive proliferation of wind turbines in your “neck of the woods.”
Very well stated. From a radiative standpoint, CO2 plays the same role as water vapor, but to a much lesser extent. In a nutshell they convert thermal radiation at the surface to sensible heat and sensible heat to thermal radiation at altitude within a highly convective troposphere.
So, while Kevin is correct that the ‘spectral profile’, as observed from space, is consistent with radiative transfer theory, that is because it is only at altitude where where GHGs can spontaneously emit energy to space in accordance with that theory.
In reality, most of the heavy lifting of energy through the troposphere is carried out by convection, which is a self-modulating process. And since water vapor is in equilibrium with the vast reservoir of liquid water comprising the oceans, the effect of CO2 variability is negligible.
I always appreciate your commentary and that of Frank from NOVA, among many others here, because you are thoughtful people who put together reasonable responses. Last week I was working on an essay for WUWT regarding climate sensitivity but just gave up because the subject became unmanageably large and complex.
Now this response clarified what you were thinking. Since CO2 proper has no impact on dynamics but does on radiant transfer, I was wondering what you meant by referring to “massively overwhelms”. Yes dynamics does more heat transfer in particular instances, but that doesn’t complete the story. Your response and those of Frank and Clyde have caused me to ponder producing an essay addressing a number of issues, including the Simpson and Brunt response from 1938.
Hmm. Are you saying that the first few hundred ppm of CO2 does not have the significant temperature increasing effect we have all been told over and over? That increases beyond where it is now have little effect has been proven quite convincingly by Happer and Wijngaarden as it has been equally proven that without any CO2 in air there would be virtually nothing alive on earth but perhaps for a few critters around sea bottom vents.
Neil Pryke
June 28, 2026 2:23 am
British Heatwaves…Last fractionally longer than Met Office/BBC/HMG plausibility…
There are thermal images taken last week of parts of London, they show the day time temperature of the pavement/sidewalk as being almost 60 degrees Celsius. That heat has to go somewhere overnight. The met office sort of allow for UHI in their definition of a heatwave: For large conurbations a heat wave is defined as three or more consecutive days with temperatures above 28 degrees Celsius, for other areas a heat wave is three or more consecutive days with temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius. However, the problem is not necessarily the definition but the location of the weather stations, particularly those who would fall into the >25 degrees Celsius definition, as active RAF stations are generally not located in conurbations, civilian airports may be close enough to be included in the conurbation definition (LHR would but LGW wouldn’t, BHX might EMA wouldn’t; if the USA used the same definitions Dulles wouldn’t be but Ronald Reagan would).
Well central England will still be on course for by far the warmest year since records began almost 400 years ago. Every month apart from Jan has been more than 2.5C above average.
It’s pretty pointless still pretending the recent warming doesn’t exist and that these heatwaves haven’t become far more numerous. Or that it is just dodgy thermometers and media hype. You just cost all CAGW skeptics our credibility.
Don’t think many here pretend the recent warming doesn’t exist–of course it is warmer than say during the 50’s. The premise is that there are many causes for the warming that humans have nothing to do with or any control over what so ever. Aye, the atmospheric CO2 level is going up, but it isn’t near what it has been in the not too distant (geologically speaking) past, and probably will be again in the future, until another glacial age sequesters much of it into a colder ocean.
CET data is massively corrupted by UHI and bad sites. There is basically nowhere left where temperature can be measured that isn’t highly affected by bad sites and massive urban densification.
Comparison with more pristine sites shows the problem.
400 years ago Central England along with Europe was in the throes of the little ice age. No one is denying that overall temperatures have risen. The Dickensian inspired white Christmas may have been true when he was growing up, but they are no longer, in fact the Met office now defines a white Christmas as occurring if there’s snow anywhere in the U.K.. I have never seen a white Christmas, not even in 1962/63, snow didn’t fall until Boxing Day. I remember hot summers and miserable summers. 1975 was a hot summer, but in June that year a county cricket match in Buxton was abandoned because of snow! 1976 was a drought summer as well as being long and hot, with reservoirs at 10% of normal capacity. However, within days of the government appointing a minister for drought, the heavens opened.
What’s a real heatwave and where? The definition of a heatwave is anthropogenic, i.e. it’s an artificial construct that depends on the location. A heatwave in Antarctica could be defined as three consecutive days of temperature of -40 degrees Celsius. A heat wave in California could be defined as three consecutive days of temperature of 50 degrees Celsius. (All numbers are fictitious as I don’t know real “normal” temperatures).
I have had to block two people on Substack as they accused me of being arrogant by expressing an ignorant opinion, when I questioned their statements about anthropogenic climate change by talking about solar cycles and the variability in radiation emissions particularly at different wavelengths. One implied that the solar output is nominally constant because the sunspot cycles are surface features only, despite me providing references. I don’t mind having such discussions providing there’s a mutual exchange of views without ad hominem.
JohnC,
Even if incoming solar radiation was constant, locations on Earth see different shares of it by day versus night and by the precession involved from Earth’s rotation about an axis that is tilted plus changes in Sun/Earth distances under planetary influence.
Colleague Richard Willoughby has written about his calculations on WUWT about May 4th 2025, High Resolution Earth Orbital Precession Relative to Climate and Weather. In my opinion, he is leading the world to provide numerically supported mechanisms more credible than CO2 radiation physics with its lengthy limits on quantitative understanding.
Geoff S
“ radiation emissions particularly at different wavelengths”
Not just different wavelengths but at different time intervals. Radiative balance is a farce. Climate science says that you can normalize incoming radiative flux to a 24 hour period or normalize outgoing radiative flux to a 12 hour period and see if they balance by using *averages* of each. That’s really no different than trying to combine different temperatures into a larger system so you can find an average. It’s mathematical masturbation that has no meaning in physical reality. Flux is an intensive property just like temperature. You can’t add the flux at time t1 and the flux at time t2 to get a larger system which can be averaged. “x” joules/sec at t0 combined with “y” joules/sec at time t1 doesn’t equal (x + y) joules/sec just as you can’t add “w” °C to “u” °C and get a temperature of (w + u) °C. You first need to convert joules/sec to an amount by integrating the flux over the appropriate time intervals and then compare joules-in with joules-out.
Since the outward radiative flux over time is not constant, the time interval over which the integration is done *has* to be long enough to capture all of the variance in the flux. You can’t do it over a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, or even a century. The measurement uncertainty caused by artificially limiting the observation interval subsumes any differences in joules-in and joules-out. It makes it impossible to actually tell if the earth and the sun are in a long-term balance.
As usual, climate science assumes that natural variation is noise that is random, Gaussian, and cancels. Therefore the variance of everything, the “true” metric for measurement uncertainty (variance) is always zero and that by increasing the sample size they can somehow substitute the SEM for measurement uncertainty.
Climate science has “assumed” itself into the same cul-de-sac of simplification in both “average temperature” and “average radiative flux”.
It is time for Trump to finish off the religious fanatic leadership of Iran along with the IRGC and their proxies/paid thugs.
Their god tells them they cannot compromise with mere mortals, and they must continue their work of destroying this world so they can take it over and turn it into a Shia Paradise.
You can’t deal with fanatics like this. And we don’t have to. We can keep the Strait of Hormuz open by ourselves through the use of force and we can resume the blockade of Iranian ports, until the regime crumbles.
We can keep the Strait of Hormuz open by ourselves through the use of force and we can resume the blockade of Iranian ports, until the regime crumbles.
Reality in the last few weeks has shown that this isn’t the case. But don’t let that disturb your armchair general power phantasies.
At this point trump can be glad if he gets a deal half as good as Obamas.
Oh yeah – he could just nuke iran. And that solves exactly what? Maybe wake up from your little fantasies and see what trump is really doing for the iranian people.
Trump is U.S. President and leader of the dominant economic and military power. As such, he has a wide range of available options to respond to challenges.
Well, then he seems just incapable of using them. Iran is still blocking the strait and he went begging with 300 billion to open it. Or is this the “wide range of available options”?
For the economic part: Don’t worry, he’ll fix that.
A final resolution to conflict Middle East is an impossibility, but short-term, 20 million barrels of oil flowed through the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours, approaching pre-war levels.
The price of oil is down to prewar levels and below its inflation adjusted price from one year ago. Those who bet against team Trump will likely lose.
$300 billion sounds about right but if it were up to me, I would ask for $299 billion.
“Iran will not have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz going forward. That’s a critical thing, that’s their key leverage, and we’re taking that leverage away from them,” he added, saying that Iran’s military was depleted.
Well, that was lie number one. I can’t find other soures for his 20 million barrel claim, but I give him the benefit of doubt beside the well known tendency of this administration to lie abot the conflict.
Once Trump decides he can’t deal with the Mullahs, then he will open up the Strait of Hormuz by force and there is nothing the Mad Mullahs can do to stop it.
Gasoline around my area is down to around $3.25 per gallon.
Reported by whom, Tom? One of the problems we Monday Morning Quarter backs have is that we get conflicting stories from people with different conflicts of interest, and it is impossible to know who to trust. However, the president, whom was elected, is privy to intelligence briefings when and where he needs to know. Neither the American MSM, ‘news’ outlets abroad, or commenters here can make the same claim. While MUR complains about Trump lying, I would remind him that Sun Tzu said that the essence of war was deception. The insistence on Trump always being truthful handicaps him in dealing with a regime that can’t be trusted because they answer to a ‘higher’ authority.
It was an Iranian woman on Fox News. She was said to know the pulse of what was going on in the streets of Iran.
one always has to take such reports with a grain of salt.
They say 80 percent of Iranians are against the current Islamic regime, so if that’s the case I can see why they don’t want Trump to keep their oppressors in power.
Trump should take this opportunity to wipe out the IRGC, and that includes the current political leadership who have IRGC ties.
These people are religious fanatics. There is no dealing with delusional people.
Trump is just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Trump already has a better deal than Obama. Obama’s deal guaranteed that the Mullahs would get nuclear weapons. Trump hit the Mullahs just in time to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
The Obama deal was an outrage. If Kamala Harris had been elected the Mad Mullahs would have several dozen nuclear bombs by now.
We don’t want fanatics to have nuclear weapons. Trump is seeing to it that they don’t have them.
The Obama deal had a sunset date after which the Mullahs could do whatever they wanted without restrictions. An insane deal guaranteed to allow the Mullahs to get nuclear weapons. They were very close when Trump intervened.
She was doing a fine job pounding on the cultural Marxism of the Left, but then went off the rails to extoll the ‘American [S]ystem of economics created by Hamilton, Lincoln,…Roosevelt (FDR)’. Unfortunately, it was the ‘American System’ itself which basically created the all-powerful Federal government that the Left now increasingly controls.
The battle for America is part of the battle for the globe. We could have been under permanent British control. Fortunately, we gained some independence.
So did Haiti around the same time. My point was that the people she seems to admire were paramount in creating an intrusive government with powers the British Crown could only have dreamed of.
[I’m also trashing your idiotic word logic games, which are less intelligent than “I know you are but what am I” when I see them, which again amount to nothing but taunting and do not contribute in any meaningful to discussion~ctm]
While water vapor mass might constitute a small percentage of the atmosphere it’s a heavy energy hitter.
Notice how WV Btu is 11% at noon and 20% at night. This is the thermal surge tank that moderates the diurnal swing. Earth has it, Moon does not.
And as usual:
Earth is cooler w atmos/WATER VAPOR/30% albedo not warmer.
GHE balances don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules (water vapor!!) render a BB surface impossible.
396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate dropped down your boot top are imaginary.
No GHE or CAGW.
1) “Earth is cooler w atmosphere..”
Without any atmosphere, planet Earth would have a Albedo of about 0.13 similar to the moon and be cloudless and GHG free
Using normal textbook formulae
1360/4*(1-.13) = 295.8
And 296 Watts/sq.M using SB formula at emissivity of .98 gives 270 K or about 3 degrees below freezing as its emissions temperature…which would be the surface temperature.
Since the Planet is actually about 15 C…your claim is FALSE.
2) “GHE balances…don’t”. https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/
If we look at the NASA energy balance graphic…down at the surface….we have
Heat entering the “sea and soil” of 163.3 watts from sunlight.
Leaving the “sea and soil” is 18.4 watts of thermals, plus 86.4 of evaporation. The amount radiated from “sea and soil” is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts
18.4+86.4+57.9=162.7 which balances the absorbed sunlight except for .6 watts (let’s not discuss error bars on this number to save much fruitless discussion).
You can also see on this same graphic, 40.9 watts going to outer space labelled “atmospheric window”.
So 57.9 is radiated from the surface of which 40.9 goes directly to outer space. It BALANCES.
3) “…render a BB surface impossible”. Nobody says it is a BB exactly just that a BB is a 97.5% accurate representation….
4) “396/333/63/back radiation….are imaginary”
Actually the 396 W/M^2 from the surface of a 16 C object with a measured emissivity of 1.0 would be a completely reliable and accurate number resulting from thousands of laboratory experiments…the basis of the resolution of the ultra-violet paradox, the foundation of quantum mechanics, Stephan-Boltzmann, Planck, and Wein laws…. and an IR camera has a math chip that does the calcs…Claiming it is “imaginary” is basically claiming that measured temperatures of surfaces are ”wrong” simply because you say so…and simply proves you don’t understand radiative heat transfer.
UCLA Diviner mission observes that even though Earth & Moon are same distance from the Sun the Moon is not like Earth because it has not Earth’s atmosphere.
The “Doh!” flip side is that without that atmosphere Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark – and GHE’s -18 C ice ball would be toast.
160 originates from real numbers: luminosity/spherical area.
396 originates from an imaginary, out-of-thin air, theoretical calculation: S-B at 16 C. By tweaking the emissivity setting my IR thermometer displays values that clearly are incorrect. That’s how 396 gets “measured.”
Real 160 = real 17 + real 80 + real 63
Imaginary 396 = imaginary 333 + imaginary 63 hidden in your boot.
The only way TFK_bams09 and clones balance is to delete the imaginary 396/333/63 loop.
Let’s throw in Kirchoff’s law for good measure. The point is, these gentlemen based their physics on the radiative properties of ‘objects’, i.e., condensed matter. The inference from people that know a lot more physics that I do, is that these guys would probably be rolling in their graves if they could see how the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer modeling has since mis-applied their principals to atmospheric gases.
‘Actually the 396 W/M^2 from the surface of a 16 C object with a measured emissivity of 1.0 would be a completely reliable and accurate number resulting from thousands of laboratory experiments.’
E[f(T)] <> f(E[T]). See Jensen’s inequality and then note how it has been abused by climate science.
“Phenomenological” implying “conjectural” or “assumptive” is very far from the truth, Frank…it’s deadly accurate, satellites track missiles with it, missiles track engine exhausts with it, and IR cameras can show you where your house leaks heat….things have moved on since Carnot assumed heat was an invisible fluid running down a temperature hill….
At CrossFit this am. Hot, humid (for Colorado) & sweating profusely.
Why does a body do this?
The latent evaporation of water moves a lot of energy (1,000 Btu/lb) cooling the body, reducing the temperature – and radiation.
Walk in front of the floor fan the coach has blowing across the room.
Wow, advection accelerates the latent process and both temperature & radiation fall.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation a function of that temperature. The high level of kinetic activity at the ocean surface mean it’s emissivity is on the order of 0.15 to 0.20 not 0.91.
Science is simply a matter of observations, like watching the foundry bore a cannon barrel demonstrating the equivalence of work and heat.
Because of the significant (60% per TFK_bams09) non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see: https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
Here are equations for calibrating and applying an Apogee instrument.
Notice calibration assumes BB so no 1.0 emissivity.
The S-B factor has no inputs for Watts and m^2 so I refer to it as the S-B hocus pocus factor.
The application equations include emissivity corrections.
IR instruments point at the ground target assuming BB and are calibrated to conform to other nearby instruments, e.g. 16 C.
The equations correct the power flux for actual emissivity: TFK_bams09 396 @ur momisugly 16 C * 0.16 = 63.
No, the emissivity of most planetary surfaces are about .98. You shouldn’t talk radiative heat transfer when you don’t know what the definition of emissivity is..
Emissivity is ratio between radiation leaving the system (63) and radiation leaving were the system a BB at temperature, 16 C (396).
63/396=0.159
The IR math chip handles this.
The definition is right but your interpretation is not. Emitted is 396 in your case for an emissivity of 1.0….while 63 is NET transfer of heat from ground to sky. From 396-333 EMR.
That’s how much EMR is emitted by a surface at 16 C with a small correction for emissivity. Proven thousands of times in many ways by great physicists, and these days by IR camera chips. The part you don’t understand is that if it facing another surface emitting 398.2…the net heat transfer by radiation is 398.2 minus 398.2 back = ZERO
Yes, your 30C face is emitting about 470 watts/ sq M of EMR…..but if the walls around you are sending back to your face 470….your metabolism need not produce ANY HEAT at all to make up that 470 your face is emitting.
From Apogee Instrument instruction manuals.
“A modified form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to calibrate sensors, and subsequently, calculate longwave irradiance from target:”
(1)
LWi Incoming Longwave, in W m-2
k1 Calibration coefficient 1 (see cal. sheet)
1.024 unitless
k1 Calibration coefficient 2 (see cal. sheet)
9.033 W/m^2
SD Signal from detector, mV (Apprx. -23.5 to 23.5 mV)
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
TD Detector temperature, in K
The surface temperature of the calibration cone is measured and the surface power flux calculated ASSUMING the cone radiates as a BB with 1.0 emissivity. That incoming power flux does not appear to be actually measured!!!
I actually measured the source power flux and determined the surface was not BB because of the surrounding conduction and convection.
As I have explained and demonstrated because of the contiguous participating media, i.e. air molecules, cooling the surface by non-radiative processes the cone’s (and earth’s surface) BB assumption is incorrect.
“Although the ε of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”
That is to say that assuming the surface is a BB is erroneous. Emissivity is deleted from the calibration equation because Apogee assumes it is 1.0.
“Detector and target temperature are controlled independently.”
Is the power, W, into the source calibration cone measured to verify that the cone is radiating BB? Not from what I can see.
Wiki – pyrogeometer
“Since the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters, this device typically measures IR flux in the nearest 25 meter layer.”
AKA 82 feet which means it cannot see “back” radiation from clouds at 10,000 feet.
Again you demonstrate complete lack of knowledge about radiated heat or EMR. IR in the range of 8-14 microns gets all the way to outer space but is only about 35% of the Ir emitted by objects with temperatures from about -65 to +85 C. I’m not going to turn on my computer to do the calc…cuz you won’t read it and declare it imaginary anyway…15 micron and larger Wavelength IR…is absorbed in a couple to 20 feet, predominantly by water vapor., but isn’t a large portion of the full spectrum EMR. So the performance of “this device” Apogee is telling you…is dependent on its filter. I can understand why this is confusing with your limited knowledge and unwillingness to study up…
’15 micron and larger Wavelength IR…is absorbed in a couple to 20 feet, predominantly by water vapor.’
Yes, and converted to sensible heat by collisions with non-IR active gas species, hence no 333 W/m^2 of ‘back-radiation’ from the so-called ’emitting layer’.
You missed the “small part of the EMR” for above 15 micron and transparency of -65 to +85 emitters which is basically the whole frickin’ sky c/w clouds, water vapor, and CO2 that can radiate EMR back to the surface….
Like I’ve said many times, I have absolutely no issues with down welling EMR emitted by condensed matter, e.g., water droplets, dust, etc. within the atmospheric window.
I just want to know how much of the 333 W/m^2 of the ‘back radiation’ shown in a typical EEB diagram emanates from GHGs, as well as where in the wild blue yonder it comes from.
In other words, is it actually a directional energy flow à la Poynting or simply multi-directional radiance from the immediate vicinity of the ‘detector’.
Btw, conflating energy flow and radiance is the basis of the ‘phenomenological physics’ I frequently refer to here.
Real EMR….sure not real HEAT in the sense you are assuming…until it is absorbed by a surface that technically has to be at absolute zero to absorb it all. However if that surface is cloud bases at say freezing (315 EMR all by itself) and a bit of intervening warmer GHG….then the cloud bases et al…emit 333 for a net heat transfer of 396-333=63 Watts/sq.M of your REAL HEAT….just to cherry pick some numbers that are particularly damning for your blind flat earth curmudgeon denial points…
A news item on Fox News this morning showed a list of about two dozen U.S. cities where the cost of renting was down anywhere from five percent to 20 percent.
The reason given for the price reductions is there is less competition for rentals because Trump has reduced the number of illegal aliens in these cities and this means less competition for rentals which results in prices going lower.
Russell Cook
June 28, 2026 10:58 am
// sarc: ON /
Emergency room physician [to enviro-activist tallyman]: “Uhh, you’re going to have to remove this one from your heat deaths count. He succumbed to multiple stab wounds from an illegal immigrant.”
E-A Tallyman: “Nonsense! Heatwaves resulting from CAGW cause increasing amounts of climate refugees who themselves are prone to committing more violence. This fatality is directly attributable to heatwaves!”
/ sarc: OFF //
Steve Milloy regularly says “show me the bodies” – one has to speculate how many of these don’t even remotely count towards that ‘heat waves tally’ ….
Isn’t it ALCOHOL that causes the body count ? Locally drunks passing out in the cold and old guys shovelling snow cause cold weather related deaths…but it’s only statisticians come up with climate as a root cause…their death certificates show something else…
+80% of C-19 cases were among those under 65 years of age.
75% of C-19 death were among those over 65 years of age with only 15% of population.
What kind of pandemic is that?
C-19 is just Mother Nature and the Grim Reaper culling the herd of the too old, too sick, too many, too crammed together as Medicare/Medicaid cash cows in contagious badly run (BLUE) eldercare warehouses.
D Reid
June 28, 2026 11:28 am
“Story Tip” and a personal commentary along with it.
I Was Just Forced to Resign from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory by Peter Klamus from https://climatehuman.substack.com/p/i-was-just-forced-to-resign-from
This is my first time ever posting on WUWT, so I hope this is all formatted in an acceptable way.
Two weeks ago Peter Klamus claims he was “forced to resign” from Nasa’s JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Really JPL just said “No more remote work, come back to the office.” Four years earlier, during Covid, Klamus and his family relocated to North Carolina for a career opportunity for his wife, and he decided he did not wish to go back to California so as to retain his employment at JPL. He also said the california heat was a reason not to go back, along with the idea of abandoning his family and blah blah blah.
What a selfish man.
I was born in 1997, am Canadian, have a number of liberal views (lets just take a second before the pitchforks come out people) and have spent my life being told by everyone under the sun that the planet is going to explode in a big ball of heat and that we only have 10, 5, 3, 2, 1 year, half a month, 3 seconds to heat death, and so on and so on, and that it’s all my fault, and I can do nothing about it, so I continue to hold a little anxiety about all this stuff. I’m also a skeptic. And, while I know individual weather events are not indicators of climate change, nor can anyone directly attribute a weather event to climate change (shout out to the grifters at World Weather Attribution), sometimes the graphs get me feeling anxious. And as a way of assuaging that anxiety, I thought why not write a little about that which really annoys me.
The world, according to alarmist scientist Peter Klamus, is ending soon. It’s ending soon according to a lot of climate scientists, even with the retraction of RCP8.5 and its matching SSP, and with a good number of prominent climate scientists coming out and saying “Hey so we see now that saying you’re going to die soon was a bad idea so we have magically decided you actually won’t die soon even though nothing has actually changed with anyone doing anything, we just think this is better messaging.” I mean even Zeke Hausfather came out and said, essentially, “lets maybe cool it on calling Climate Change an Existential Threat.”
But Klamus, he’s still running the “Five-Alarm-Fire” club…or is he? With Klamus’ “forced” resignation, he has posted on his ‘ClimateHuman’ substack that he is now “already well on my way with a new writing project (fiction for a change, and I’m having a blast!).”
Now, pardon me sir, but I thought we were all going to die a terrible heat death or from roving gangs of climate-migrant-refugee-bandit-pirates in a climate apocalypse, and you’re writing fiction. You’re supposedly “terrified of the hotter future we’re heading toward,” but I guess now is the best time to start up on that novel?
If I had it my way, Klamus would be chained to a desk as JPL forced to spend the rest of his life running models, or working with engineers to use some of that special climate science he has to try and design whatever new technology everyone thinks will save us, CO2 scrubbers or some tiny little particle thing to shoot into the atmosphere and block just enough of the sun so we all turn into cartoon popsicles from a man-made ice age.
If this is an emergency, shouldn’t you act like it Peter? Are there not other institutions, laboratories, universities that you could do your science at? Is there nowhere else where you might work to save the world? How incredibly selfish. Klamus has shifted from Scientist into Science communicator, we all know the type. Youtubers. He is now one of a million different people with advanced degrees in some field that have decided “you know what the best way for me to do science is? Youtube videos. I’m going to be a paid scold online.”
As bad as we all find it when the Obama’s or Al Gore or some other climate alarmist buys waterfront property or has a million miles in private jets every month, it really is pretty disgusting that a man who has spent years telling us death is imminent now just decides he’s out. It’s really the thing I have the hardest trouble reconciling with regard to Climate Change. I have a degree in English Literature (you’re all allowed to pull out the pitchforks now), so I generally can’t make heads or tails of the science unless its explained to me slowly like I’m a child, but now I guess the science just doesn’t even matter? What’s happening? Are we on some planetary version of ‘Punk’d’ with everyone who was ringing alarm bells now slowly starting to say “hey, chill a little man, what’s there to be afraid of?”
If this is an emergency, how dare you just quit because you don’t want to go to work.
I like this guy’s attitude, beginning with his honesty…and his style of writing. I have a similar background-of course some literature, but focused more technically-I taught tech writing (and was a tech writer) and I was good at it ‘cuz I had a very good background in soils and climate, and hard science and research -6yrs worth of studies. Unfortunately, my climate background is now mostly moot (as are my mapping skills} and as for “dirt”,well, it doesn’t change all that much. But life goes on, which is why I like this site, and one hears from really interesting people, so no pitchforks please for him. We all got here from somewhere else and we all know interesting and cool shit.
The CO2-caused climate change narrative is running out of steam.
Now people are starting to focus on the economic damage done by Net Zero, and reducing CO2 is becoming secondary.
Looking at bastardized Hockey Stick charts do look a little frightening. That was why they were created: To sell the “hotter and hotter and hotter” narrative to the public, and scare Hell out of them.
If you look at the actual written temperature records you would see that it has been just as warm in the past as it is today. The temperatures rose at the end of the Little Ice Age up through the 1880’s, and there has been no net increase since that time. The 1930’s were just as warm as the 1880’s, and just as warm as the other high points in the record: 1998, 2016, and 2024. No net warming, yet CO2 increased all during that time. CO2 has no discernible effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
Temperatures have currently cooled by about 0.4C since early 2024.
Have you been a lurker here in the past, or are you brand new to WUWT?
Lurker and comment reader here and a bunch of the usual skeptical places for the last three years. Started reading when I was in a real bad time and place, and WUWT helped me look at a lot of things through a different lens.
Mr. Reid: A splendid first post! The blazing hypocrisy of CliSci folks like Mr. Klamus is being noticed (finally) by people who are not persuaded by maths and charts. I noticed it long ago, and was persuaded that CliSci alarmists and their media amplifiers are wrong. Their actions often speak the precise opposite of their words.
There is no comparable hypocrisy for skeptics- none!
Scissor
June 28, 2026 12:30 pm
The apparent solar panel initiated warehouse fire in LA is finally out after more than a week. Expect insurance premiums for such facilities to necessarily skyrocket.
Meteorological researcher Cliff Mass explained that the high temperatures in NW WA/SW BC were the result of stackup of factors that normally partly offset each other.
Similarly for the unusually high rainfall in November of that year, which resulted in flooding and closure of key transportation corridors because the city of Abbotsford failed to maintain dikes despite problems from the same river 11 years earlier.
Meteorological researcher Cliff Mass explained that the high temperatures in NW WA/SW BC were the result of stackup of factors that normally partly offset each other. Uncommon but does occur.
Similarly for the unusually high rainfall in November of that year, which resulted in flooding and closure of key transportation corridors because the city of Abbotsford failed to maintain dikes despite problems from the same river 11 years earlier.
There is need for preparation, for high temperatures people are now informed for self-care and checking on friends, neighbours, and relatives. Should be standard education method of asking ‘What will you do it?’.
In my six decades in the broad region I have experienced high temperatures. I point to records from the warm 1930s – hottest and coldest temperatures occurred in the same year (that was before the largest increase in use of fossil fuels that aid human life).
“it accepted the premise that other methods of transportation do not provide a comparable alternative to the capabilities of private jets in terms of speed and flexibility, particularly between city pairs that lack direct connections. It also considered the fact that executive jets can reduce their carbon footprint using Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).”
It ruled on manufacture not operation of the aircraft.
Followed by a letter accusing BC’s government electricity monopoly of flipping backward on subsidizing installation of solar panels. (Reminds me of Spain years ago, slashed rate it was paying for feeding solar panel output into its electrical system – leaving many people in debt.)
providing easy housing increases bird population, less food per bird reduces number of eggsopening top of birdhouse disturbs themWhat other factors have changed? Local water sources, insecticides, ….?
Two weeks ago I went with my wife, at her suggestion, to see the new movie “Pressure.” The movie is about the extensive weather observation and forecasting effort that was involved in the decision to delay the D-Day invasion of France by the Allies from June 5 to June 6, 1944. It’s a good movie, if you get a chance to watch it.
Let’s be reminded of the meteorological fundamentals that were well understood in the years leading up to the war, that are relevant to the present claims of the “climate” movement.
In 1938, Guy Callendar wrote a Royal Meteorological Society paper attributing a reported warming trend (in the station data) to the radiative influence of rising concentrations of CO2. It was from within the meteorological discipline that Sir George Simpson and Professor David Brunt explained to him that the physical nature of atmospheric circulation makes it “…impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.” They took no issue with the validity of the static radiative computations Callendar had performed. But the motion, in their view, made it such that “…the effect of an increase in the absorbing power of the atmosphere would not be a simple change of temperature, but would modify the general circulation, and so yield a very complicated series of changes in conditions.”
Modern numerical modeling confirms their sense of the issue. I posted about this a few months ago, with complete quotes, references, and plots from the ERA5 reanalysis model.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
Two main points emerge.
First, it is important to see that dynamic energy conversion within the general circulation massively overwhelms the minor static radiative effect of incremental CO2. This annotated plot I have been sharing gives a concise explanation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
Second, the modeled hourly values of “vertical velocity” confirm that the compression heating and expansion cooling processes throughout the depth of the troposphere are many orders of magnitude greater than the “warming” rate. (See the first link) This makes it impossible to isolate the incremental IR absorbing power of rising pCO2 for reliable attribution of an overall trend, from within the dynamics of compressible flow inherent to the general circulation.
Was there ever a physically justified reason to expect sensible heat gain on land and in the oceans and in the lower atmosphere to be driven by rising pCO2? No, not in the proper context of the motion.
The current situation remains the same as in 1938: NO ONE “KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with ANY trend of climate variables or ANY weather event in the news.
Thank you for your patience in these important matters.
“You can go outside and spit and have the
same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”
Reid Bryson
umm, so I’ll be addressing why wut all u guys say is pretty much wrong.
My sources for that were NOAA, Berkeley University, and NIH.
My sources for this were IPCC and NASA.
My Sources for this (as stated above) are Berkeley Earth, NASA, NOAA, and Our World in Data.
But why use acidity as the measure of change in pH as the basis of reportage?
Why not use alkalinity, which is much more relevant, since sea water is always decidedly alkaline?
Seems to me that using “acidity” is expressly for propaganda effect.
Please explain why I’m mistaken about the motives.
because its more informative to say that the ocean is acidifying than to say that the oceans are alkaline, but less alkaline. that doesn’t explain how they are trending.
To me it sounds like you guys are trying to ignore the potential of ocean acidification by constantly asserting that the ocean is alkaline.
If a pile of bull manure is increasing, the proper description of the trend is to say that the pile is growing larger, not that it is ‘bullifying,’ or turning into a bull when it never will.
Sounds like you are basing your non-fact on baseless AI generated nonsense of all the climate misinformation produced by the climate alarmists.
So now you have changed it to “potential acidification”.
There is absolutely ZERO chance of the oceans every becoming acidic.
“To me it sounds like you guys are trying to ignore the potential of ocean acidification”
Do you know what a buffer is ??
The oceans will never become acidic .
and if we constantly assert that the ocean in salty, what horrible error will that be committing?
To me it sound s like you have no idea what you’re talking about. A permanent reduction in ocean pH is not possible due to the massive buffering capacity of both dissolved and undissolved carbonates. Ocean pH will continue to slowly rise forever and ever.
“more informative” for whom?
Anyone who hasn’t been living under a rock knows, or can easily inform themselves, that sea water is and remains decidedly alkaline.
So who are the targets being chosen to be “
informedmisinformed“ that sea water is turning acidic?And to what purpose?
I think that an inorganic chemist would disagree with you. Instructions, or menus for titration will often instruct the chemist to slowly add acid to (an un-buffered) alkaline solution until the indicator shows acidity, and then back titrate with one drop of base to assure neutrality. It is impossible to create an acid solution from a base without first neutralizing the base. So, by your logic, a process tending to reduce the pH should be called neutralization, NOT acidification, especially in a situation where a buffered solution is never expected to become acidic.
That is correct.
The salt water oceans have always been and will always be alkaline.
As shown above, there isn’t any actual drop in ocean pH anyway. !!
Odd.. the graph ended up just below.
still.. no trend in ocean surface pH since 1910.
Basically every river that has flowed to the ocean over millions of years is much lower than ocean ph.. can be as low as pH 5.5…
Yet the oceans have remain steadfastly around pH 8 ± a bit.
Anyone who thinks a minor change in atmospheric CO2 is going to have any effect whatsoever, needs to go back to primary school and get an education. (and I don’t mean in “social science” or “humanities”)
How can you neutralize an essentially limitless base?
One milk bottle at a time, for an infinite amount of time.
Except it is NOT…
Here is a compendium of all ocean surface pH measurements since 1910.. If anything there is a very slight upward trend.
Interesting! What is the source of the graph? My understanding is that the claim for the pH declining is the result of a researcher (Caldeira) ignoring all the historical data, using a model(s) to estimate the pH a century ago, and than comparing that/those unverified model(s) with modern instrumental measurements. It is unclear whether the model(s) took borate buffering into account. If not, then the model(s) will overestimate the decline in future pH.
I can’t remember that actual source, but I know I picked it up, probably from a post on WUWT, a long time ago..
A lot of their “claim” of lower pH is built on the Aloha data.. but as I showed elsewhere, compared to historic values, the pH is currently on the high side of the Pacific cycle.
ps.. here are the actual “Aloha” site readings, graphed using a “zero” axis of pH7..
… pity there are no error bands. 😉
Does that look scary to anyone ??
Error bands? What are error bands? Their averages are exact with an infinite number of significant figures, like Pi! 🙂
Yes. It is slightly going up because of the endless carbonates arriving into it from rivers. It will never go down. It can only rise – slowly – until it reaches the pH of limestone – around 8.5. No amount of C02 can change that.
Due to increased CO2 ppm, at the surface there will be a net migration of CO2 into the ocean (partial pressure law), where it quickly is chemically combined with other carbon/oxygen/hydrogen compounds.
Some of these compounds precipitate and eventually become a skeletons of sea life and limestone, such as the Cliffs of Dover.
The salt water oceans have always been and will always be alkaline.
So tell me, what is the acid gas carrying capacity of an infinitely buffered biologically active solution?
It is totally factual and pertinent to address the issue verbally by saying the alkaline oceanic water is becoming very very slightly less alkaline.
There is a zero point. Neither acid nor alkaline.
Neutral. Do you not get the pH is a scientific concept, the same as the measure of the strength of an earthquake – a man made number?
pH 7. However, it is not an arbitrary number. Neutrality is defined as being the point on the pH scale where the concentration of H+3 and OH-1 ions are equal. Alternatively, it is the point on the pH scale where the ratio of the concentration of the anions and cations of the slightly dissociated distilled water molecules is equal to one(1). In that sense it is a unique number that tells us something important about potential reactants in a chemical reaction.
Clyde,
“the point on the pH scale where the concentration of H+3 and OH-1 ions are equal”
Even that is wrong. It is activity, not concentration, that is balanced at pH 7. Activity is related to concentration by the activity coefficient, which becomes higher as the total ionic strength of the solution increases. Sea water has moderately high total ionic strength. If you want to wander in some weeds, look up the Debye–Hückel equation. It is hard going but used to be required reading in Physical Chemistry when I did my exams. Geoff S
I stand corrected. While I have taught college-level introductory chemistry, I don’t consider myself a chemist.
Ruhaan,
In proper, hard science, the alleged pH changes would have calculations of the GUM style to place estimates of uncertainty of measurement around the pH value. I am fairly sure that a complete estimate would show the alleged change to be inside the boundaries of the uncertainty, meaning that they cannot be distinguished from noise.
Geoff S
Might be charitable to say ‘conveniently ignorant. :-o)
‘Once the energy is converted into atmospheric heat, the warmed layer of air acts like a blanket. It re-radiates IR energy in all directions, including back down toward the Earth’s surface. This back-radiation decreases net outgoing heat, causing the surface to warm until a new equilibrium is reached.’
Aw, you were doing so well until you got to this point. Having correctly noted that collisions effectively convert thermal radiation from the surface to sensible heat, you then ignore all that and invoke the phenomenological physics of ‘back radiation’. The mechanism by which that sensible heat is conveyed aloft to where GHGs activated by collisions can then freely radiate to space is called convection.
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Shula_Ott_Collaboration_Rev_5_Multipart_For_Wuwt_16jul2024.pdf
Convection (warm air rising, cold air sinking) effectively moves surface heat upwards through the troposphere. However, this heat must eventually escape to space as thermal radiation. Because the atmosphere is opaque to specific infrared wavelengths due to greenhouse gases (GHGs), that convective heat is continually absorbed by CO2 and other GHGs higher up.
Because GHGs absorb energy and vibrate, they re-emit that energy in all directions—including back down toward the Earth’s surface (downwelling longwave radiation, or “back radiation”). This back radiation warms the lower atmosphere and the surface. By slowing the rate at which thermal energy escapes to space, the entire climate system reaches a warmer equilibrium temperature to achieve balance.
The concept of Radiative-Convective Equilibrium explains why this mechanism causes surface warming. As the concentration of CO2 increases, the altitude at which heat can freely escape to space (the effective radiating layer) shifts upward. Because temperature decreases with height in the troposphere, this higher layer is colder and radiates less energy. This forces the lower layers—including the Earth’s surface—to warm up in order to restore the necessary planetary energy balance.
If the altitude shifts upward, the area of radiation increases with the square of the change in altitude. So you get more outward radiation..
OLR is increasing..
However, at the same time as the dominant radiating altitude increases, the solid-angle of the cone of back-radiated IR that intercepts the Earth becomes smaller, thus meaning that a larger percentage escapes to space. Did your LLM leave that out?
Nope, the emission height is not increased directly by more CO2. Within the main bands of CO2 the average emission height stays constant. It is only at the edges of those bands where you see any changes. It is only the absorption at the edges that have an effect.
Don’t believe everything you read.
Did you actually read this before hitting “post comment”?
More CO2 (concentration of CO2 increases) also increases radiation! This at least partially offsets the less intense radiation.
The higher concentration will also result in an increased geometric diminishment reduction in the “back radiation” that reaches the surface of the earth. This may warm the atmosphere but only result in a small increase at the surface.
You are getting all this from AI , aren’t you.
Picking up all the nonsense from the climate shysters. 😉
Net radiative flux is determined by temperature difference.
CO2 has no measurable impact on the atmospheric temperature gradiant.
‘You are getting all this from AI , aren’t you.’
Looks like he’s being fed the ‘canonical’ version. I don’t have the heart to inform him that in the real world, both ASR and OLR have been increasing together of late.
“Because the atmosphere is opaque to specific infrared wavelengths due to greenhouse gases (GHGs), that convective heat is continually absorbed by CO2 and other GHGs higher up.”
More AI generated nonsense.
Measurements show that the very tiny increase in CO2 radiative absorption is passed immediately to adjacent frequencies and expelled from the atmosphere.
Actually, not “opaque” as in photons not able to penetrate the gas. GHGs have an absorption path length, a function of what is called the extinction coefficient in solids, or the imaginary component of the complex refractive index.
Nope, close but you are missing important details. One of those is gravity. At any altitude downward radiation encounters far more molecules than upward directed radiation. This means the average path length before reabsorption is shorter. Therefore, the average path of all photon emissions is upward.
As a result, you can use this average to understand the flow of energy. Guess what? It is also upward. Except for just above the surface, almost all of the energy simply flows upward.
As it turns out, this flow of energy is constant independent of the concentration of CO2 (or any GHG except water vapor). What you miss when you think about more CO2 absorbing energy is that more CO2 also emits more energy. Due to Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation, this equalizes the energy flow.
Don’t believe everything you read.
“Because the atmosphere is opaque to specific infrared wavelengths due to greenhouse gases (GHGs)”
The only GHG of import is water vapor. And the atmosphere is *not* opaque to specific wavelengths.
If it was opaque to specific wavelength’s then exactly how does “back radiation” get returned to the surface of the earth?
You are postulating that GHG’s are opaque in one direction and transparent in the opposite direction.
I’m sorry, reality just isn’t a one-way mirror.
You’ve completely ignored David Dibbell’s point, which originated this thread.
Your comment in reply is therefore substantively irrelevant.
Meanwhile, some thoughts for you: “Once the energy is converted into atmospheric heat,…” the rate of convective transport and loss of energy increases.
“Temperature changes require a change in the planets energy balance” The climate system is a set of coupled quasi-oscillators. Energy can transfer spontaneously among them. Air temperature can rise or fall from internal energy transfer. There need be no change in TOA energy balance.
“Global temperature have increased since we started recording (1951-1980).” The whole field neglects systematic measurement error. The historical air temperature record is utterly unreliable.
“For example, if the temperature in a room decreased from 90 degrees to 75, you would say that the room has cooled,…”
But your like would not.
The alarmist formalization would have it that, on declining from 90 F to 75 F, the air in the room is undergoing freezification. That’ll scare the kiddies, won’t it.
That’s how utterly dumb and dishonest is the “ocean acidification” usage. All hail to Ken Caldeira for that innovation of high, ‘The Science’™.
The primary problem calcifiers are experiencing is with juveniles that have not yet developed their shells and defense mechanisms for them such as chitin and mucous. Additionally, they tend to spawn in nutrient-rich coastal areas that experience up-welling from deep waters that have not been in communication with the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Calcifiers have a range of tolerance that probably reflects ocean pH when they first evolved. However, they all have the ability to expend energy to modify the local pH at the growing front of their shells. That is they aren’t completely at the mercy of the ambient pH and can modify their environment. Therefore, the typical local pH is of less importance than whether it is high enough for the organism to counter it.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/15/are-the-oceans-becoming-more-acidic/ for a more detailed response to your sophistry arguing in favor of semantics that addresses something that will almost certainly never happen, according to the Stanford professor of geochemistry, sometimes called the father of geochemistry, Konrad Krauskopf.
Basically everything you just typed is WRONG. !!
Sounds like a regurgitation by AI of every piece of “climate” mantra pseudo-science there is.
Bulk air movement outweighs any mythical theoretical radiative affect by CO2 by several magnitudes.
Absorbed solar radiation is increasing, and can account for all warming in the last 50 or so years
3 New Studies Find Increasing Trends In Solar Radiation Since The 1980s – Easily Explaining Warming
“While solar activity has even further reduced from Little Ice Age levels”
Where did you dredge that little bit of nonsense from??
Last 50 or so years has been called a “Grand Solar Maximum.”
“ a 0.1 change in PH is a roughly 26% increase in acidity “
And requires a further 2000% change to reach pH 7..
Betting your non-facts are based on the Aloha site measurements..
Proxy measurements at Flinders Reef put those short term measurements into context, as the Flinders Reef data shows far greater swings as part of a cycle.
Current pH is very much on the high side of that cycle.
tell you pet AI numbskull that there is water vapour present wherever there is carbon dioxide and to include its presence in all calculations involving exchanges of photons amongst molecules in all samples of atmosphere being considered by whatever model is being played with.
“Berkeley Earth, NASA, NOAA, and Our World in Data”
Apart from the Berks, they all use the same corrupted and adjusted surface data.
Berkley use all the crap/junk surface data they can find, and can manipulate it to produce whatever end result they want.
I once asked one of the Berks where the data for a particulate place came from.. and they couldn’t tell me, because they didn’t know.
Berkely Earth uses data assigned ridiculously low measurement uncertainty intervals. When I looked at their data base they had some measurements made in the 1700’s with a measurement uncertainty in the hundredths digit. Is it any wonder that they don’t both propagating realistic measurement uncertainty – which would subsume the differences in temp they are trying to identify?
“ Global temperature have increased since we started recording (1951-1980)”
Please show us where Pacific ocean temperatures where measured consistently and with even the remotest degree of accuracy during that period…
Ruhaan,
You have ot considered enough processes of energy exchange. You start your process with “When a CO2 molecule absorbs outgoing infrared (IR) radiation from the Earth’s surface ….”
Because this absorption takes energy from some source, that source will be cooler than before. Some further processes might take part if it is to e restored to its former state.
That is, there is a series of energy transfers that taken together sum to no change. The energy you claim to heat the atmosphere is not added energy coming from some unnamed source – it is merely part a series of energy redistributions that sums to zero. Geoff S
Correct. The gullible and ignorant (Schmidt, Mann, the IPCC et. al.) believe otherwise, leading to the insane belief that adding CO2 to air magically makes it hotter!
Exactly. The Earth loses all the energy it receives from the Sun to outer space – plus a little internal heat. Dimwits refuse to accept that the surface is no longer molten – having cooled!
But the effect is small, asymptotic with increasing CO2 to a limit.
Change in water vapour in atmosphere indicates there isn’t a positive feedback.
As do accurate temperature sensors and government tide gages.
“The current situation remains the same as in 1938: NO ONE “KNOWS” that emissions of CO2 have anything perceptible to do with ANY trend of climate variables or ANY weather event in the news.”
That is the bottom line.
The Climate Alarmist are “jumping the gun” when it comes to CO2. First, they need to get some evidence that CO2 has any effect on Earth’s weather or climate. To date, they have failed to do so.
Yet society is wasting TRILLIONS of dollars trying to reduce CO2 amounts. None of this spending is doing any good reducing CO2 since it continues to increase despite all these efforts. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.
I guess Trump is the only one who sees clearly with regard to CO2. Other world leaders are living in a delusion and making their people live in it, too.
And Trump doesn’t even claim to be able to see CO2! 🙂
“And Trump doesn’t even claim to be able to see CO2′
No but he does claim to be able to see vandals ripping a 350 ft hole in a pool with box cutters that he said weeks earlier could not be ripped with box cutters.
Well, six people have been arrested for the vandalism.
If found guilty they face up to ten years in prison. In the federal system there is no parole. You serve the entire prison term.
What an irony though Tom. He releases vandals from Jan 6 who beat up cops and destroyed property, but arrests those who try to pick out souvenir pieces of the failed paint job. Says it all really.
Here is a fact based break down of the situation as of a few days ago. Pretty much zero evidence provided to back up the claims Trump is making. Who is honestly surprised?
https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jun/26/looking-into-the-reflecting-pool-we-examined-trump/
Jan 6 had only fatal encounter.
That was the no-warning murder of unarmed airforce veteran Ashli Babbitt by DC police office Michael Byrd shooting her from cover.
How to rewrite history. Unbelievable. 1 died the day after and 4 took their own lives because of the stress caused by the rioters and riots. I suppose you think a soldier who takes their own life after trauma suffered in battle didn’t die as a result of that trauma?
How do we know that the DC police officers who died of post Jan 6 heart attack and suicide weren’t just horrified and traumatized by the cold-blooded way their fellow officer shot an unarmed woman from cover, and they couldn’t live with the disgrace?
WOW.. talk about clutching at empty air. !!
Jan 6 was an afternoon tea party compared to the MANIC SEDITION being carried out by Democrat led rioters who can’t accept that Trump won the last election.
Democrats have been in basically constant rebellion ever since.
“Jan 6 was an afternoon tea party compared to the MANIC SEDITION being carried out by Democrat led rioters who can’t accept that Trump won the last election.”
Are you trying to remove any doubt that you are losing things? What on earth are you talking about? What MANIC SEDITION?
OMG.. Tesla riots, MS-13 riots, ICE-riots and manic disruption…
All against things that Trump won the election on..
… and all instigated by Democrat operatives like Walz, Frey, and other “sanctuary” governor..
… all against the mandated actions of the duty elected President.
… the list just goes on and on. !
Denial of the Democrat’s anti-democracy actions.. do you have the mind of a goldfish !!!!
Those Antifa thugs who attacked an ICE facility in Texas, about a dozen of them, all got long federal jail sentences for their efforts. The one who was firing a gun got 100 years in prison. No parole.
I guess the Trump administration wanted to send a strong warning to the other anti-American elements in the country.
Let’s see if Antifa thugs are delusional enough to attack another government facility.
Will be a hard day for you when you find out that the anti-american elements are your administration.
Unless you are a russian influencer, of course.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/23/rightwing-influencers-outside-us-x-twitter-tool
And how many Democrat governors have said outright that they will not comply with Federal Officers doing their duty as defined by the President following the elected will of the people of the USA.
Sedition, Insurrection.. call it what you like..
… but don’t be so incredibly stupid as to DENY it. !
Commie Mandami says he will defy Trump and the U.S. Supreme Court, and defend illegal aliens in New York.
It sounds like sedition to me.
I’m not going to try to argue you out of your TDS, Simon. I think I would be wasting my time. You automatically believe anything negative about Trump. In this case you are not being objective you are going on emotions.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/06/new-us-attorney-jeanine-pirro-says-14-citations/
It has been my experience that when something has been applied to a surface, and the bond fails, which is not uncommon, a bubble appears at the site of the failed bond. It does not spontaneously curl up along linear boundaries. I doubt that Trump took the time to personally inspect the site, although he probably had a conversation with the contractor. I have no way of knowing exactly what happened there. However, it is interesting that you have so much invested in your hatred of Trump that you are quick to criticize him even when you have no privileged insight as to what did happen. Has it occurred to you that if someone did vandalize the fresh coating that they may have used something more heavy duty than a box cutter. So, without waiting to see what evidence the Park Service presents at trial, you jump in with both feet and criticize Trump based on your speculation. It will be interesting to see what evidence is presented at trial, and whether you have the integrity to apologize for being wrong, if that turns out to be the case. I won’t be surprised if you slink away and pretend that you never said the things you have. That is a personal opinion based on experience with things you have said here in the past. Obviously, I don’t have any respect for you or your opinions.
“However, it is interesting that you have so much invested in your hatred of Trump that you are quick to criticize him even when you have no privileged insight as to what did happen.”
Oh Please….This follows the tired and true Trumpian pattern. He gets caught out doing dodgy stuff. He lies. He blames others.
If you think this really is vandalism that caused this total mess, then i can’t help you.
And I will apologise 100% if any serious evidence is presented to show this was caused by vandalism. Will you if it is not?
There is also the matter of the very high phosphate levels that CNN measured in the pool.
Only way this could happen is if someone dumped some fertiliser or something in the pool… to feed the algae. !
Wait for the convictions of the several people arrested and charged. !
“ He gets caught out doing dodgy stuff. He lies. He blames others.”
Unbelievable? So you believe Trump was the one that vandalized the pool liner?
What did Trump actually do that was dodgy? Telling the public that vandals cut the liner is dodgy?
“Unbelievable? So you believe Trump was the one that vandalized the pool liner?”
I don’t believe anyone vandalised the pool liner. I think Trump got caught giving no bid contracts to his mates (something that should horrify all those here who cherish good use of tax payer money) and they did a shite job. Trump then did what Trump does, he made up a whole lot of lies to deflect from what is a mess of his making.
On what evidence do you base your belief that no one vandalized the pool liner? You are confirming my suggestion that your beliefs are supported by your hatred of Trump, not by facts in evidence.
If it turns out that you are incorrect, and you apologize for your unfounded accusations, I will acknowledge having misjudged you. Feel free to remind me if I miss the announcement.
However, I’d like to point out that while I didn’t like Biden and the things he was doing, I NEVER accused him of things that I didn’t have personal knowledge of, nor did I EVER imply that he was doing things that were immoral or unethical, based on my acknowledged dislike of him. I don’t like to eat crow pie.
“I doubt that Trump took the time to personally inspect the site, although he probably had a conversation with the contractor. I have no way of knowing exactly what happened there.”
Neither does Simon.
No-bid contract
Awarded to Mar-a-lago neighbour and donor
16+ million for an absolute botched job
Corruption in broad daylight.
Guess we’ll never find out what happend there..
No job can cope with deliberate sabotage and intentional damage.
Obama, Biden and co spent many times more than that.. always a botched job.. without any need for sabotage.
Another one of your “NO U” comments. Have an outdated graph to add, too?
Actually, the MSM reported that the job was originally offered to the contractor with experience working on the pond. He/they/it turned it down. So it wasn’t quite the quid pro quo that you make it out to be.
Mr. Abbott: Yet Simon seems soooo sure on every point, especially the ones he can’t know. He’s also certain it bolsters his credibility, so very certain.
Remember, this is someone who believed the “fine people” bs for at least 7 years.
Yes, Biden and the Democrats spread the lie that Trump described rightwing extremists as “very fine people”, when the truth is Trump specifically condemned those rightwing groups in his speech in South Carolina.
Snopes did a fact check on it and Snopes says the Democrats were lying about Trump.
Biden repeated this lie constantly throughout his candidacy. He said this is what impelled him to run for president. And it was a lie, just like he is.
And someone who acknowledged that I was wrong on that when it was pointed out. That’s what you do when you are wrong.
Also someone who claims to do his research, but failed to do so for seven years despite the evidence being readily available.
Which Simon seems to be having trouble understanding.
Clyde, I get that you don’t respect what I say, yet here we are. I have offered to fall at your feet and apologise if there are any convictions for the damage Trump says has been done here. To be clear I am not talking about the taking of bits of peeling paint. I say that Trump is lying when he says there has been a deliberately cut/gash hundreds of feet long. So…I’ll ask again…. will you have the integrity to do the same for me if nothing comes of this in the courts, i.e no evidence is presented leading to a conviction?
It is interesting that you are willing to stick by your judgement of what happened when you don’t really have any evidence in your possession that can prove you are right. What does that say about you? Legal convictions are not the final say in something. It is part of our principle of jurisprudence that it is better than 10 guilty men go free than to convict one innocent man. How about waiting to see what evidence the prosecution comes up with, and independently judge the probability of the charges being correct, regardless of whether it meets the test of “beyond a reasonable doubt?”
I don’t need a lecture in law. I need to know if you genuinely believe that this pool was vandalised? I don’t. I say it is a Trump lie.
Now are you (as I am) prepared to admit you are wrong with an apology or not (if it turns out there was no 300+ foot deliberate gash/cut?
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/06/new-us-attorney-jeanine-pirro-says-14-citations/
I thought the Hateway Repugnant had closed. Such an honest site…. Anyway, so you think Jeanine (have another drink) Pirro is reliable? I think she has shown herself to be little more than a Trump stooge. About as reliable as a Trump wedding ring. About as moral as Trump’s birthday card to Epstein. Her word is worth pretty much nothing in my book.
Now, do you have any evidence that vandalism caused the huge failure that is the Trump Deflection Pool? Anything?
“Anything” leaves it pretty much wide open. He just gave you a serving of “anything.”
It is not me who has claimed to know what happened. I’ll wait for the facts to be put in evidence to make that decision.
https://s.yimg.com/os/creatr-uploaded-images/2026-07/35877600-764f-11f1-beef-0a2339d5ad18
Considering what has happened with cases that have already gone to trial, I don’t think that convictions are going to be a good metric for proving that the Reflecting Pool was vandalized or not. Perhaps when the contractor finishes draining the pool, we will have a better idea of the extent and nature of the problem(s).
Three more people charged with damaging Reflecting Pool after Trump’s multimillion-dollar restoration
If you are tempted to dismiss the actions of those charged as being simply collecting souvenirs of something they had no part in creating, I’d like to remind you that collecting souvenirs of anything from National Parks without a permit is prohibited. I remember once seeing a display at the Petrified Forest National Park (AZ) showing mineral specimens that were alleged to have been confiscated from tourists, some of which (crystalline sulfur) almost certainly were not collected there. Even if the ‘Tourons’ did not cause the initial damage, detaching pieces contributed to the problem.
It IS possible to “solve the problem” of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by “working out the radiation” if one recognizes two physical facts:
(a) that water vapor and CO2 distribute intercepted LWIR emitted from Earth’s surface overwhelming by molecular collisions that exchange excess kinetic energy primarily with the non-IR active gases nitrogen and oxygen, and NOT by re-radiation of that intercepted energy, and
(b) that the ability of every atmospheric “geenhouse gas” to absorb LWIR emitted from Earth’s surfaces, is governed by the scientifically-confirmed Beer-Lambert law that states transmittance of radiation decreases exponentially as concentration increases, coupled with detailed calculations performed by expert atmospheric physicists William Happer, William van Wijngaarden and others that show CO2 became “effectively saturated” in its ability to absorb any additional LWIR at troposphere concentration levels in the range of 280–300 ppmv.
In other words, there is not—and never was—such a thing as a static radiative effect of incremental CO2.
David,
Your discussion is interesting as usual, but as this is a place for debate I might point out that what you say here needs more context.
Unchallenged, this statement makes WUWT sound to the outside world as though we are climate absolutists opposite in point of view but no different philosophically than the alarmists with their hair on fire.
I’ll just point people to this web page by Molly Michelson which has as its lede a wonderful image produced by the so-called “carbon imaging satellite”. Ignore the foamy blather that Ms. Michelson spews about measuring the health of our planet and just observe the image for the moment. Here is a map of near instantaneous CO2 concentration plus or minus near 5ppm resolution done with spectrometry. All of the dynamics that you point to, and keep in mind that I am a big proponent of the fact that dynamics are important, have neither mixed CO2 completely nor have overwhelmed the radiant signature of CO2.
If there is an observational signature of the radiant effect that CO2 has, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it also has an effect on heat transport. The only question remaining is what is its actual effect in comparison to water vapor, or in comparison to atmospheric dynamics, and how effectively does it contribute to radiant energy balance.
Thanks for your reply, Kevin.
“…what you say here needs more context.
For more context on this point, please see here. You have probably seen this before.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
“Unchallenged, this statement makes WUWT sound to the outside world as though we are climate absolutists opposite in point of view but no different philosophically than the alarmists with their hair on fire.” Is the statement unsound in some way? It is a simple characterization of the dynamically active values of the ERA5 hourly parameter “vertical integral of energy conversion” compared to the computed value of the incremental IR absorbing power for the 2XCO2 case. It’s not “philosophical” at all, nor is there anything “absolutist” about it. People will say whatever they want. I don’t worry about that.
“If there is an observational signature of the radiant effect that CO2 has, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it also has an effect on heat transport.” The OCO-2 sensor uses three wavelengths as given here.
https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/science/measurement-approach/
All of these wavelengths are shorter than what MODTRAN uses to compute transmittance and fluxes for longwave radiation. MODTRAN starts at about 4.5 microns.
The better space-based sensing to assess the potential influence of incremental CO2 on overall longwave emission to space is GOES Band 16 centered at 13.3 microns. It is within that band that about a quarter of the computed static radiative effect of 2XCO2 is found.
“The only question remaining is what is its actual effect in comparison to water vapor, or in comparison to atmospheric dynamics, and how effectively does it contribute to radiant energy balance.” The comparison to atmospheric dynamics is made plain in the plots I’ve generated. The influence of incremental CO2 is shown to be vanishingly weak in those comparisons.
I hope this helps. It’s important not to think of the surface of land and oceans as the emitter that matters most. The atmosphere itself, including clouds, is the origin of about 5 times as much of the overall longwave emission to space, compared to what ends up in space originating at the surface without being absorbed first within the atmosphere.
Thanks again for your reply.
Please see here for more about the “5 times” (59/12) point. It comes from NASA.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/16/wuwt-contest-runner-up-professional-nasa-knew-better-nasa_knew/
See my reply to Frank from NOVA below, but the CO2 channels 10.3 and 13.3 between them show absorption from CO2. The brightness function being mapped is very red for low temperatures in either channel, but to my point the radiative effects of CO2 are not overwhelmed by dynamics, but rather the radiative characteristics of CO2 enable one to visualize dynamics.
The 5 times argument notwithstanding, 1/5 is not zero which is what overwhelmed by dynamics implies, but I don’t see what this means in the context of our discussion. It is outside the discussion about CO2. Heat transferred back to the surface by multiple means, is truly thermalized and even if it came from the 15um band of CO2, loses identity with respect to frequency. SB then allows, as you say, a fifth on average to travel straight to space.
Thanks for your further reply, Kevin. I don’t understand why you are referring to Band 13 (10.3 microns) at all. For Band 16 (13.3), one cannot tell at any point in time or location, by how much the signal was or would be attenuated by incremental CO2. The dynamic range of values is huge, as the surface itself warms and cools, and as clouds form and dissipate – which is driven by the dynamics of the circulation. So over the entire image, cloud intermittency and time dependency (i.e. rise and decay of the strength of the signal from the surface) are the big factors.
Excerpt: https://willempost.substack.com/p/the-climate-cult
The Tropics: The area between the Tropic of Cancer, 23.5 degree N, and the Tropic of Capricorn, 23.5 degree S, is about 40% of the earth surface. The Tropics area is about 78% ocean and 22% land. The tropics area generates 300 to 400 billion metric ton of water vapor each day. The rest of the world area, about 60%, 100 to 150 billion metric ton; thus, a 50% greater area generates water vapor only about 1/3 of the tropics!
The Ocean Surface in the Tropics: The IR photon emission from an ocean surface at 26 C is about 438 W/m^2, the upward radiant energy flux. Near the ocean surface, because the water vapor ppm is about 26,000, much larger than the CO2 ppm at 425, the influence of water vapor on the transfer and absorption of IR radiation of surface photons is about 20 – 25% (109.5 W/m^2), whereas CO2 is about 1% (4.4 W/m^2); this shows CO2 minimally adds to the world’s “baseline” temperature.
The remaining upward radiant energy flux, about 75%, is quickly transferred 5 – 10% by collisions that warm air molecules (mainly N2 and O2), 65 – 70% by evaporating huge quantities of ocean water.
NOTE: As ocean temperatures drop from 26 C to 5 C, the H2O ppm drops from 26,000 ppm to 6,746 ppm H2O transfer and absorption drops from 109.5 W/m^2 to 23.5 W/m^2 (a big drop). CO2 transfer and absorption drops from 4.4 W/m^2 to 3.3 W/m^2 (a small drop); even at these cold ocean temperatures, the H2O effect is at least 7 times the CO2 effect.
In the lower atmosphere up to the bottom of clouds, as water vapor partially condenses, it releases latent heat, which converts into sensible heat, which by collisions, warms the surrounding air (mainly N2 and O2), causing air to rise. This is a second warming source subsequent to the above upward surface radiant energy flux.
‘Ignore the foamy blather that Ms. Michelson spews about measuring the health of our planet and just observe the image for the moment.’
Gladly. With respect to the OCO-2 instrument, however, I’m curious as to how they can measure near-Earth CO2 concentrations from orbit.
They measure CO2 absorption in clear atmospheric windows in the near IR. I would have linked to GOES CO2 channels at 10.3 and 13.3 um to show the effect of CO2 absorption, but for GOES images my requests simply spin forever this morning.
I just checked again and this NOAA product expresses what I am speaking of.
I think that the point FfN is making is that looking down one is going to integrate absorption and end up with the Total Column effect, assuming that the instrument is sensitive enough to still detect a strongly absorbed flux. That is, it is at risk of being unable to resolve the near-surface concentration if the signal falls below the sensitivity threshold. To resolve the concentration for different altitudes would require looking into the sun at different angles of elevation. Does OCO-2 do that?
Even worse, the water vapor density the radiation encounters will affect the EM energy being detected. As far a CO2 is concerned that is considered to be “path loss”. Since water vapor density varies significantly over even small grid area it can have a varying impact on path loss. If the path loss is not accounted for then you don’t really know if what you are seeing is the “true” originating source. So how is this accounted for. Once again, it appears to me that the measurement uncertainty would overwhelm the differences that are trying to be identified.
I agree. I had forgotten that both water vapor and CO2 are attenuating the IR photons.
Hello again Kevin, I am coming back briefly with a further explanation.
“If there is an observational signature of the radiant effect that CO2 has, then it is impossible to escape the conclusion that it also has an effect on heat transport.”
As with Simpson and Brunt from 1938, I have no issue with the observed spectral signature of CO2, nor with the implied static “warming” influence of rising concentrations. I am pointing out that the magnitude of its “effect on heat transport” is properly understood in the context of the dynamics of the general circulation to be negligible.
So, sure, the spectral profile can be observed, even as the “warming” influence of incremental CO2 and other IR-active trace gases is demonstrably overwhelmed in all the motion. These are not mutually exclusive.
Keep up the good work, especially your efforts against the destructive proliferation of wind turbines in your “neck of the woods.”
Very well stated. From a radiative standpoint, CO2 plays the same role as water vapor, but to a much lesser extent. In a nutshell they convert thermal radiation at the surface to sensible heat and sensible heat to thermal radiation at altitude within a highly convective troposphere.
So, while Kevin is correct that the ‘spectral profile’, as observed from space, is consistent with radiative transfer theory, that is because it is only at altitude where where GHGs can spontaneously emit energy to space in accordance with that theory.
In reality, most of the heavy lifting of energy through the troposphere is carried out by convection, which is a self-modulating process. And since water vapor is in equilibrium with the vast reservoir of liquid water comprising the oceans, the effect of CO2 variability is negligible.
I always appreciate your commentary and that of Frank from NOVA, among many others here, because you are thoughtful people who put together reasonable responses. Last week I was working on an essay for WUWT regarding climate sensitivity but just gave up because the subject became unmanageably large and complex.
Now this response clarified what you were thinking. Since CO2 proper has no impact on dynamics but does on radiant transfer, I was wondering what you meant by referring to “massively overwhelms”. Yes dynamics does more heat transfer in particular instances, but that doesn’t complete the story. Your response and those of Frank and Clyde have caused me to ponder producing an essay addressing a number of issues, including the Simpson and Brunt response from 1938.
Maybe I’ll get around to it this week.
Best to you.
Hmm. Are you saying that the first few hundred ppm of CO2 does not have the significant temperature increasing effect we have all been told over and over? That increases beyond where it is now have little effect has been proven quite convincingly by Happer and Wijngaarden as it has been equally proven that without any CO2 in air there would be virtually nothing alive on earth but perhaps for a few critters around sea bottom vents.
British Heatwaves…Last fractionally longer than Met Office/BBC/HMG plausibility…
Neil
Seriously, mate, could you stop using Bold Italics all the time?
We can still read your comments just as well without the “Look at me” text
Thank you for understanding
I second that!
The BOLD is a site choice. I do not remember the last time I saw any non-bold content.
REGULAR
BOLD
I get what you’re saying – compare the first comment in the thread and Neil’s comment.
The choice to make the comment bold and italic is Neil’s not the site choice for the initial post.
Or perhaps it’s just my screen, although Gregory Woods seems to concur
All Gregory Woods and Neil did was italicize. Bold is always on.
I usually see all of them. I certainly don’t see everything in bold.
I’ll try it:
regular
bold
italic
bold italic
Interesting – I’ve always seen bold and regular as different, but not this time. The bold isn’t bolded.
It was a WUWT site change several months ago. Several people commented on it.
Bold and regular are different on my screen. In fact, all four are different from each other.
Me too
British heatwaves are overstated compared to a real heatwave.
A couple of days over 100F is a nothing burger blown out of proportion by Climate Alarmists/Hysterical Met office.
Only 20 percent of Europeans have air conditioning. That alone should tell you Europe has a very mild climate compared to other parts of the world.
Let’s see what the temperature are like in a couple of days when the high pressure system moves on.
“A couple of days over 100F….”
Subtract 5ºC for really bad measurement systems. !
. . . and subtract another 3-5ºC for UHI corruption of the already bad data coming from poor quality station measurements. Hah!
There are thermal images taken last week of parts of London, they show the day time temperature of the pavement/sidewalk as being almost 60 degrees Celsius. That heat has to go somewhere overnight. The met office sort of allow for UHI in their definition of a heatwave: For large conurbations a heat wave is defined as three or more consecutive days with temperatures above 28 degrees Celsius, for other areas a heat wave is three or more consecutive days with temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius. However, the problem is not necessarily the definition but the location of the weather stations, particularly those who would fall into the >25 degrees Celsius definition, as active RAF stations are generally not located in conurbations, civilian airports may be close enough to be included in the conurbation definition (LHR would but LGW wouldn’t, BHX might EMA wouldn’t; if the USA used the same definitions Dulles wouldn’t be but Ronald Reagan would).
Yeah, that, too.
Well central England will still be on course for by far the warmest year since records began almost 400 years ago. Every month apart from Jan has been more than 2.5C above average.
It’s pretty pointless still pretending the recent warming doesn’t exist and that these heatwaves haven’t become far more numerous. Or that it is just dodgy thermometers and media hype. You just cost all CAGW skeptics our credibility.
The Met office has no credibility.
Don’t think many here pretend the recent warming doesn’t exist–of course it is warmer than say during the 50’s. The premise is that there are many causes for the warming that humans have nothing to do with or any control over what so ever. Aye, the atmospheric CO2 level is going up, but it isn’t near what it has been in the not too distant (geologically speaking) past, and probably will be again in the future, until another glacial age sequesters much of it into a colder ocean.
Apart from the issue of UHI and totally tainted surface sites, most of the warming comes from increased sunshine.. which of course the Poms hate. !
So which is it? Is the AMOC collapsing, resulting in much colder weather for the UK, or is it warming?
CET data is massively corrupted by UHI and bad sites. There is basically nowhere left where temperature can be measured that isn’t highly affected by bad sites and massive urban densification.
Comparison with more pristine sites shows the problem.
400 years ago Central England along with Europe was in the throes of the little ice age. No one is denying that overall temperatures have risen. The Dickensian inspired white Christmas may have been true when he was growing up, but they are no longer, in fact the Met office now defines a white Christmas as occurring if there’s snow anywhere in the U.K.. I have never seen a white Christmas, not even in 1962/63, snow didn’t fall until Boxing Day. I remember hot summers and miserable summers. 1975 was a hot summer, but in June that year a county cricket match in Buxton was abandoned because of snow! 1976 was a drought summer as well as being long and hot, with reservoirs at 10% of normal capacity. However, within days of the government appointing a minister for drought, the heavens opened.
What’s a real heatwave and where? The definition of a heatwave is anthropogenic, i.e. it’s an artificial construct that depends on the location. A heatwave in Antarctica could be defined as three consecutive days of temperature of -40 degrees Celsius. A heat wave in California could be defined as three consecutive days of temperature of 50 degrees Celsius. (All numbers are fictitious as I don’t know real “normal” temperatures).
I have had to block two people on Substack as they accused me of being arrogant by expressing an ignorant opinion, when I questioned their statements about anthropogenic climate change by talking about solar cycles and the variability in radiation emissions particularly at different wavelengths. One implied that the solar output is nominally constant because the sunspot cycles are surface features only, despite me providing references. I don’t mind having such discussions providing there’s a mutual exchange of views without ad hominem.
JohnC,
Even if incoming solar radiation was constant, locations on Earth see different shares of it by day versus night and by the precession involved from Earth’s rotation about an axis that is tilted plus changes in Sun/Earth distances under planetary influence.
Colleague Richard Willoughby has written about his calculations on WUWT about May 4th 2025, High Resolution Earth Orbital Precession Relative to Climate and Weather. In my opinion, he is leading the world to provide numerically supported mechanisms more credible than CO2 radiation physics with its lengthy limits on quantitative understanding.
Geoff S
Not just different wavelengths but at different time intervals. Radiative balance is a farce. Climate science says that you can normalize incoming radiative flux to a 24 hour period or normalize outgoing radiative flux to a 12 hour period and see if they balance by using *averages* of each. That’s really no different than trying to combine different temperatures into a larger system so you can find an average. It’s mathematical masturbation that has no meaning in physical reality. Flux is an intensive property just like temperature. You can’t add the flux at time t1 and the flux at time t2 to get a larger system which can be averaged. “x” joules/sec at t0 combined with “y” joules/sec at time t1 doesn’t equal (x + y) joules/sec just as you can’t add “w” °C to “u” °C and get a temperature of (w + u) °C. You first need to convert joules/sec to an amount by integrating the flux over the appropriate time intervals and then compare joules-in with joules-out.
Since the outward radiative flux over time is not constant, the time interval over which the integration is done *has* to be long enough to capture all of the variance in the flux. You can’t do it over a day, a week, a month, a year, a decade, or even a century. The measurement uncertainty caused by artificially limiting the observation interval subsumes any differences in joules-in and joules-out. It makes it impossible to actually tell if the earth and the sun are in a long-term balance.
As usual, climate science assumes that natural variation is noise that is random, Gaussian, and cancels. Therefore the variance of everything, the “true” metric for measurement uncertainty (variance) is always zero and that by increasing the sample size they can somehow substitute the SEM for measurement uncertainty.
Climate science has “assumed” itself into the same cul-de-sac of simplification in both “average temperature” and “average radiative flux”.
It is time for Trump to finish off the religious fanatic leadership of Iran along with the IRGC and their proxies/paid thugs.
Their god tells them they cannot compromise with mere mortals, and they must continue their work of destroying this world so they can take it over and turn it into a Shia Paradise.
You can’t deal with fanatics like this. And we don’t have to. We can keep the Strait of Hormuz open by ourselves through the use of force and we can resume the blockade of Iranian ports, until the regime crumbles.
Reality in the last few weeks has shown that this isn’t the case. But don’t let that disturb your armchair general power phantasies.
At this point trump can be glad if he gets a deal half as good as Obamas.
Except it is the case.. Trump just doesn’t want to utterly destroy Iran.
But he could…
Trouble is, he likes the Iranian people, more than the Iranian leaders do…
…. you know.. he actually sees them as people, not cattle to be slaughter.
Why are you supporting the Iranian terrorist regime.. ???
Oh yeah – he could just nuke iran. And that solves exactly what? Maybe wake up from your little fantasies and see what trump is really doing for the iranian people.
Project much?
Trump is U.S. President and leader of the dominant economic and military power. As such, he has a wide range of available options to respond to challenges.
Well, then he seems just incapable of using them. Iran is still blocking the strait and he went begging with 300 billion to open it. Or is this the “wide range of available options”?
For the economic part: Don’t worry, he’ll fix that.
A final resolution to conflict Middle East is an impossibility, but short-term, 20 million barrels of oil flowed through the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours, approaching pre-war levels.
The price of oil is down to prewar levels and below its inflation adjusted price from one year ago. Those who bet against team Trump will likely lose.
$300 billion sounds about right but if it were up to me, I would ask for $299 billion.
https://hormuzstraitmonitor.com/
The only reason why oil is so low are because nations empty their reserves and the market is currently de-coupled from reality.
Sorry, I picked up the figures from a statement made by Chris Wright on Wednesday. I understand there has been more military activity since then.
https://www.bairdmaritime.com/shipping/tankers/military-escorts-help-restore-strait-of-hormuz-oil-flows-us-says
Well, that was lie number one. I can’t find other soures for his 20 million barrel claim, but I give him the benefit of doubt beside the well known tendency of this administration to lie abot the conflict.
Well, that was lie number one”
Where is their navy?
Dead.
Where is their air force?
Dead.
Etc. Do you ever read or hear actual news ???
To quote the relevant part that you so conveniently left out:
If you followed the news you’ll know they neither need navy or air force for that.
How can they close it ?
They don’t have any power .
Mullahs casting a spell ?
Once Trump decides he can’t deal with the Mullahs, then he will open up the Strait of Hormuz by force and there is nothing the Mad Mullahs can do to stop it.
Gasoline around my area is down to around $3.25 per gallon.
It’s currently $3.19 at my Costco. I’m in Houston next week where it’s well under $3.
It was reported this morning that Iranians are upset with Trump dealing with the Mad Mullahs. The Iranians want Trump to wipe out the Mullahs.
Reported by whom, Tom? One of the problems we Monday Morning Quarter backs have is that we get conflicting stories from people with different conflicts of interest, and it is impossible to know who to trust. However, the president, whom was elected, is privy to intelligence briefings when and where he needs to know. Neither the American MSM, ‘news’ outlets abroad, or commenters here can make the same claim. While MUR complains about Trump lying, I would remind him that Sun Tzu said that the essence of war was deception. The insistence on Trump always being truthful handicaps him in dealing with a regime that can’t be trusted because they answer to a ‘higher’ authority.
It was an Iranian woman on Fox News. She was said to know the pulse of what was going on in the streets of Iran.
one always has to take such reports with a grain of salt.
They say 80 percent of Iranians are against the current Islamic regime, so if that’s the case I can see why they don’t want Trump to keep their oppressors in power.
Trump should take this opportunity to wipe out the IRGC, and that includes the current political leadership who have IRGC ties.
These people are religious fanatics. There is no dealing with delusional people.
Trump is just giving them enough rope to hang themselves.
Trump already has a better deal than Obama. Obama’s deal guaranteed that the Mullahs would get nuclear weapons. Trump hit the Mullahs just in time to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.
The Obama deal was an outrage. If Kamala Harris had been elected the Mad Mullahs would have several dozen nuclear bombs by now.
We don’t want fanatics to have nuclear weapons. Trump is seeing to it that they don’t have them.
Sure. Just believe.
Obama was SO STUPID that he actually PAID the Iranians to produce nuclear weapons..
One of the dumbest US presidents ever ! (Biden wasn’t dumb, just suffering dementia)
The Obama deal had a sunset date after which the Mullahs could do whatever they wanted without restrictions. An insane deal guaranteed to allow the Mullahs to get nuclear weapons. They were very close when Trump intervened.
and talk about fanatics…
The battle goes on.
She was doing a fine job pounding on the cultural Marxism of the Left, but then went off the rails to extoll the ‘American [S]ystem of economics created by Hamilton, Lincoln,…Roosevelt (FDR)’. Unfortunately, it was the ‘American System’ itself which basically created the all-powerful Federal government that the Left now increasingly controls.
The battle for America is part of the battle for the globe. We could have been under permanent British control. Fortunately, we gained some independence.
‘Fortunately, we gained some independence.’
So did Haiti around the same time. My point was that the people she seems to admire were paramount in creating an intrusive government with powers the British Crown could only have dreamed of.
I hear you. Relative to Haiti we’re in a good place.
When are you going to put us all in box cars…that is the democratic socialist final solution
Whatever that means.
[I’m also trashing your idiotic word logic games, which are less intelligent than “I know you are but what am I” when I see them, which again amount to nothing but taunting and do not contribute in any meaningful to discussion~ctm]
You mean like this guy calling everyone fanatics ??
Why do you always protect the trolls. !
I understand reading comprehension hard for you.
Democrats are backing away from alarmist rhetoric in run up to elections:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24062026/analysis-shows-democrats-embrace-climate-hushing/
Let’s keep it that way.
While water vapor mass might constitute a small percentage of the atmosphere it’s a heavy energy hitter.
Notice how WV Btu is 11% at noon and 20% at night. This is the thermal surge tank that moderates the diurnal swing. Earth has it, Moon does not.
And as usual:
Earth is cooler w atmos/WATER VAPOR/30% albedo not warmer.
GHE balances don’t + violate GAAP & LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules (water vapor!!) render a BB surface impossible.
396 BB/333 “back”/63 duplicate dropped down your boot top are imaginary.
No GHE or CAGW.
1) “Earth is cooler w atmosphere..”
Without any atmosphere, planet Earth would have a Albedo of about 0.13 similar to the moon and be cloudless and GHG free
Using normal textbook formulae
1360/4*(1-.13) = 295.8
And 296 Watts/sq.M using SB formula at emissivity of .98 gives 270 K or about 3 degrees below freezing as its emissions temperature…which would be the surface temperature.
Since the Planet is actually about 15 C…your claim is FALSE.
2) “GHE balances…don’t”.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/langley/what-is-earths-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows/
If we look at the NASA energy balance graphic…down at the surface….we have
Heat entering the “sea and soil” of 163.3 watts from sunlight.
Leaving the “sea and soil” is 18.4 watts of thermals, plus 86.4 of evaporation. The amount radiated from “sea and soil” is 398.2-340.3=57.9 watts
18.4+86.4+57.9=162.7 which balances the absorbed sunlight except for .6 watts (let’s not discuss error bars on this number to save much fruitless discussion).
You can also see on this same graphic, 40.9 watts going to outer space labelled “atmospheric window”.
So 57.9 is radiated from the surface of which 40.9 goes directly to outer space. It BALANCES.
3) “…render a BB surface impossible”. Nobody says it is a BB exactly just that a BB is a 97.5% accurate representation….
4) “396/333/63/back radiation….are imaginary”
Actually the 396 W/M^2 from the surface of a 16 C object with a measured emissivity of 1.0 would be a completely reliable and accurate number resulting from thousands of laboratory experiments…the basis of the resolution of the ultra-violet paradox, the foundation of quantum mechanics, Stephan-Boltzmann, Planck, and Wein laws…. and an IR camera has a math chip that does the calcs…Claiming it is “imaginary” is basically claiming that measured temperatures of surfaces are ”wrong” simply because you say so…and simply proves you don’t understand radiative heat transfer.
UCLA Diviner mission observes that even though Earth & Moon are same distance from the Sun the Moon is not like Earth because it has not Earth’s atmosphere.
The “Doh!” flip side is that without that atmosphere Earth would be much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark – and GHE’s -18 C ice ball would be toast.
160 originates from real numbers: luminosity/spherical area.
396 originates from an imaginary, out-of-thin air, theoretical calculation: S-B at 16 C. By tweaking the emissivity setting my IR thermometer displays values that clearly are incorrect. That’s how 396 gets “measured.”
Real 160 = real 17 + real 80 + real 63
Imaginary 396 = imaginary 333 + imaginary 63 hidden in your boot.
The only way TFK_bams09 and clones balance is to delete the imaginary 396/333/63 loop.
‘…Stephan-Boltzmann, Planck, and Wein laws….’
Let’s throw in Kirchoff’s law for good measure. The point is, these gentlemen based their physics on the radiative properties of ‘objects’, i.e., condensed matter. The inference from people that know a lot more physics that I do, is that these guys would probably be rolling in their graves if they could see how the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer modeling has since mis-applied their principals to atmospheric gases.
‘Actually the 396 W/M^2 from the surface of a 16 C object with a measured emissivity of 1.0 would be a completely reliable and accurate number resulting from thousands of laboratory experiments.’
E[f(T)] <> f(E[T]). See Jensen’s inequality and then note how it has been abused by climate science.
“Phenomenological” implying “conjectural” or “assumptive” is very far from the truth, Frank…it’s deadly accurate, satellites track missiles with it, missiles track engine exhausts with it, and IR cameras can show you where your house leaks heat….things have moved on since Carnot assumed heat was an invisible fluid running down a temperature hill….
‘…satellites track missiles with it, missiles track engine exhausts with it, and IR cameras can show you where your house leaks heat…’
Yes, they do, but all of these examples involve thermal radiation emitted by objects, i.e., condensed matter, within the so-called atmospheric window.
At CrossFit this am. Hot, humid (for Colorado) & sweating profusely.
Why does a body do this?
The latent evaporation of water moves a lot of energy (1,000 Btu/lb) cooling the body, reducing the temperature – and radiation.
Walk in front of the floor fan the coach has blowing across the room.
Wow, advection accelerates the latent process and both temperature & radiation fall.
Temperature is a function of the kinetic processes, radiation a function of that temperature. The high level of kinetic activity at the ocean surface mean it’s emissivity is on the order of 0.15 to 0.20 not 0.91.
Science is simply a matter of observations, like watching the foundry bore a cannon barrel demonstrating the equivalence of work and heat.
Because of the significant (60% per TFK_bams09) non-radiative, i.e. kinetic, heat transfer processes of the contiguous participating atmospheric molecules the surface cannot upwell “extra” energy as a near Black Body. As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
For the experimental write up see:
https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/
Search: Bruges group “boiling water pot” Schroeder
‘At CrossFit this am. Hot, humid (for Colorado) & sweating profusely. Why does a body do this?’
Good question.
Here are equations for calibrating and applying an Apogee instrument.
Notice calibration assumes BB so no 1.0 emissivity.
The S-B factor has no inputs for Watts and m^2 so I refer to it as the S-B hocus pocus factor.
The application equations include emissivity corrections.
IR instruments point at the ground target assuming BB and are calibrated to conform to other nearby instruments, e.g. 16 C.
The equations correct the power flux for actual emissivity: TFK_bams09 396 @ur momisugly 16 C * 0.16 = 63.
163.3 arrives.
Per LoT 1 163.3 is all that can leave.
18.4 kinetic + 86.4 kinetic + 58.5 LWIR = 163.3.
Balance is closed!!!
IR camera calc needs correct emissivity,
0.16 * 396 =63
No, the emissivity of most planetary surfaces are about .98. You shouldn’t talk radiative heat transfer when you don’t know what the definition of emissivity is..
Most planets do not have kinetic atmospheres.
Emissivity is ratio between radiation leaving the system (63) and radiation leaving were the system a BB at temperature, 16 C (396).
63/396=0.159
The IR math chip handles this.
The definition is right but your interpretation is not. Emitted is 396 in your case for an emissivity of 1.0….while 63 is NET transfer of heat from ground to sky. From 396-333 EMR.
Definition.
Original of 398.2???
That’s how much EMR is emitted by a surface at 16 C with a small correction for emissivity. Proven thousands of times in many ways by great physicists, and these days by IR camera chips. The part you don’t understand is that if it facing another surface emitting 398.2…the net heat transfer by radiation is 398.2 minus 398.2 back = ZERO
Yes, your 30C face is emitting about 470 watts/ sq M of EMR…..but if the walls around you are sending back to your face 470….your metabolism need not produce ANY HEAT at all to make up that 470 your face is emitting.
From Apogee Instrument instruction manuals.
“A modified form of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is used to calibrate sensors, and subsequently, calculate longwave irradiance from target:”
(1)
LWi Incoming Longwave, in W m-2
k1 Calibration coefficient 1 (see cal. sheet)
1.024 unitless
k1 Calibration coefficient 2 (see cal. sheet)
9.033 W/m^2
SD Signal from detector, mV (Apprx. -23.5 to 23.5 mV)
σ Stefan-Boltzmann constant, 5.6704 x 10-8 W m-2 K-4
TD Detector temperature, in K
The surface temperature of the calibration cone is measured and the surface power flux calculated ASSUMING the cone radiates as a BB with 1.0 emissivity. That incoming power flux does not appear to be actually measured!!!
I actually measured the source power flux and determined the surface was not BB because of the surrounding conduction and convection.
As I have explained and demonstrated because of the contiguous participating media, i.e. air molecules, cooling the surface by non-radiative processes the cone’s (and earth’s surface) BB assumption is incorrect.
“Although the ε of a fully closed plant canopy can be 0.98-0.99, the lower ε of soils and other surfaces can result in substantial errors if ε effects are not accounted for.”
That is to say that assuming the surface is a BB is erroneous. Emissivity is deleted from the calibration equation because Apogee assumes it is 1.0.
“Detector and target temperature are controlled independently.”
Is the power, W, into the source calibration cone measured to verify that the cone is radiating BB? Not from what I can see.
Wiki – pyrogeometer
“Since the mean free path of IR radiation in the atmosphere is ~25 meters, this device typically measures IR flux in the nearest 25 meter layer.”
AKA 82 feet which means it cannot see “back” radiation from clouds at 10,000 feet.
Again you demonstrate complete lack of knowledge about radiated heat or EMR. IR in the range of 8-14 microns gets all the way to outer space but is only about 35% of the Ir emitted by objects with temperatures from about -65 to +85 C. I’m not going to turn on my computer to do the calc…cuz you won’t read it and declare it imaginary anyway…15 micron and larger Wavelength IR…is absorbed in a couple to 20 feet, predominantly by water vapor., but isn’t a large portion of the full spectrum EMR. So the performance of “this device” Apogee is telling you…is dependent on its filter. I can understand why this is confusing with your limited knowledge and unwillingness to study up…
’15 micron and larger Wavelength IR…is absorbed in a couple to 20 feet, predominantly by water vapor.’
Yes, and converted to sensible heat by collisions with non-IR active gas species, hence no 333 W/m^2 of ‘back-radiation’ from the so-called ’emitting layer’.
You missed the “small part of the EMR” for above 15 micron and transparency of -65 to +85 emitters which is basically the whole frickin’ sky c/w clouds, water vapor, and CO2 that can radiate EMR back to the surface….
Like I’ve said many times, I have absolutely no issues with down welling EMR emitted by condensed matter, e.g., water droplets, dust, etc. within the atmospheric window.
I just want to know how much of the 333 W/m^2 of the ‘back radiation’ shown in a typical EEB diagram emanates from GHGs, as well as where in the wild blue yonder it comes from.
In other words, is it actually a directional energy flow à la Poynting or simply multi-directional radiance from the immediate vicinity of the ‘detector’.
Btw, conflating energy flow and radiance is the basis of the ‘phenomenological physics’ I frequently refer to here.
398.2
Not real.
Not real.
Not real.
Got it?
Not real.
Real EMR….sure not real HEAT in the sense you are assuming…until it is absorbed by a surface that technically has to be at absolute zero to absorb it all. However if that surface is cloud bases at say freezing (315 EMR all by itself) and a bit of intervening warmer GHG….then the cloud bases et al…emit 333 for a net heat transfer of 396-333=63 Watts/sq.M of your REAL HEAT….just to cherry pick some numbers that are particularly damning for your blind flat earth curmudgeon denial points…
A news item on Fox News this morning showed a list of about two dozen U.S. cities where the cost of renting was down anywhere from five percent to 20 percent.
The reason given for the price reductions is there is less competition for rentals because Trump has reduced the number of illegal aliens in these cities and this means less competition for rentals which results in prices going lower.
// sarc: ON /
Emergency room physician [to enviro-activist tallyman]: “Uhh, you’re going to have to remove this one from your heat deaths count. He succumbed to multiple stab wounds from an illegal immigrant.”
E-A Tallyman: “Nonsense! Heatwaves resulting from CAGW cause increasing amounts of climate refugees who themselves are prone to committing more violence. This fatality is directly attributable to heatwaves!”
/ sarc: OFF //
Steve Milloy regularly says “show me the bodies” – one has to speculate how many of these don’t even remotely count towards that ‘heat waves tally’ ….
Deadly Heat Wave in Europe Kills Over 200 People in Spain, Causes Paris to Halt Alcohol Sales
Europe air conditioning debate reignites as historic heatwave deaths mountFrance records 1,000 excess deaths during record-breaking heatwave – NBC News
Same as those Covid death counts–how many did covid actually kill in comparison to those deaths from other causes listed as covid deaths??
Isn’t it ALCOHOL that causes the body count ? Locally drunks passing out in the cold and old guys shovelling snow cause cold weather related deaths…but it’s only statisticians come up with climate as a root cause…their death certificates show something else…
+80% of C-19 cases were among those under 65 years of age.
75% of C-19 death were among those over 65 years of age with only 15% of population.
What kind of pandemic is that?
C-19 is just Mother Nature and the Grim Reaper culling the herd of the too old, too sick, too many, too crammed together as Medicare/Medicaid cash cows in contagious badly run (BLUE) eldercare warehouses.
“Story Tip” and a personal commentary along with it.
I Was Just Forced to Resign from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory by Peter Klamus from https://climatehuman.substack.com/p/i-was-just-forced-to-resign-from
This is my first time ever posting on WUWT, so I hope this is all formatted in an acceptable way.
Two weeks ago Peter Klamus claims he was “forced to resign” from Nasa’s JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Really JPL just said “No more remote work, come back to the office.” Four years earlier, during Covid, Klamus and his family relocated to North Carolina for a career opportunity for his wife, and he decided he did not wish to go back to California so as to retain his employment at JPL. He also said the california heat was a reason not to go back, along with the idea of abandoning his family and blah blah blah.
What a selfish man.
I was born in 1997, am Canadian, have a number of liberal views (lets just take a second before the pitchforks come out people) and have spent my life being told by everyone under the sun that the planet is going to explode in a big ball of heat and that we only have 10, 5, 3, 2, 1 year, half a month, 3 seconds to heat death, and so on and so on, and that it’s all my fault, and I can do nothing about it, so I continue to hold a little anxiety about all this stuff. I’m also a skeptic. And, while I know individual weather events are not indicators of climate change, nor can anyone directly attribute a weather event to climate change (shout out to the grifters at World Weather Attribution), sometimes the graphs get me feeling anxious. And as a way of assuaging that anxiety, I thought why not write a little about that which really annoys me.
The world, according to alarmist scientist Peter Klamus, is ending soon. It’s ending soon according to a lot of climate scientists, even with the retraction of RCP8.5 and its matching SSP, and with a good number of prominent climate scientists coming out and saying “Hey so we see now that saying you’re going to die soon was a bad idea so we have magically decided you actually won’t die soon even though nothing has actually changed with anyone doing anything, we just think this is better messaging.” I mean even Zeke Hausfather came out and said, essentially, “lets maybe cool it on calling Climate Change an Existential Threat.”
But Klamus, he’s still running the “Five-Alarm-Fire” club…or is he? With Klamus’ “forced” resignation, he has posted on his ‘ClimateHuman’ substack that he is now “already well on my way with a new writing project (fiction for a change, and I’m having a blast!).”
Now, pardon me sir, but I thought we were all going to die a terrible heat death or from roving gangs of climate-migrant-refugee-bandit-pirates in a climate apocalypse, and you’re writing fiction. You’re supposedly “terrified of the hotter future we’re heading toward,” but I guess now is the best time to start up on that novel?
If I had it my way, Klamus would be chained to a desk as JPL forced to spend the rest of his life running models, or working with engineers to use some of that special climate science he has to try and design whatever new technology everyone thinks will save us, CO2 scrubbers or some tiny little particle thing to shoot into the atmosphere and block just enough of the sun so we all turn into cartoon popsicles from a man-made ice age.
If this is an emergency, shouldn’t you act like it Peter? Are there not other institutions, laboratories, universities that you could do your science at? Is there nowhere else where you might work to save the world? How incredibly selfish. Klamus has shifted from Scientist into Science communicator, we all know the type. Youtubers. He is now one of a million different people with advanced degrees in some field that have decided “you know what the best way for me to do science is? Youtube videos. I’m going to be a paid scold online.”
As bad as we all find it when the Obama’s or Al Gore or some other climate alarmist buys waterfront property or has a million miles in private jets every month, it really is pretty disgusting that a man who has spent years telling us death is imminent now just decides he’s out. It’s really the thing I have the hardest trouble reconciling with regard to Climate Change. I have a degree in English Literature (you’re all allowed to pull out the pitchforks now), so I generally can’t make heads or tails of the science unless its explained to me slowly like I’m a child, but now I guess the science just doesn’t even matter? What’s happening? Are we on some planetary version of ‘Punk’d’ with everyone who was ringing alarm bells now slowly starting to say “hey, chill a little man, what’s there to be afraid of?”
If this is an emergency, how dare you just quit because you don’t want to go to work.
I like this guy’s attitude, beginning with his honesty…and his style of writing. I have a similar background-of course some literature, but focused more technically-I taught tech writing (and was a tech writer) and I was good at it ‘cuz I had a very good background in soils and climate, and hard science and research -6yrs worth of studies. Unfortunately, my climate background is now mostly moot (as are my mapping skills} and as for “dirt”,well, it doesn’t change all that much. But life goes on, which is why I like this site, and one hears from really interesting people, so no pitchforks please for him. We all got here from somewhere else and we all know interesting and cool shit.
The CO2-caused climate change narrative is running out of steam.
Now people are starting to focus on the economic damage done by Net Zero, and reducing CO2 is becoming secondary.
Looking at bastardized Hockey Stick charts do look a little frightening. That was why they were created: To sell the “hotter and hotter and hotter” narrative to the public, and scare Hell out of them.
If you look at the actual written temperature records you would see that it has been just as warm in the past as it is today. The temperatures rose at the end of the Little Ice Age up through the 1880’s, and there has been no net increase since that time. The 1930’s were just as warm as the 1880’s, and just as warm as the other high points in the record: 1998, 2016, and 2024. No net warming, yet CO2 increased all during that time. CO2 has no discernible effect on the Earth’s temperatures.
Temperatures have currently cooled by about 0.4C since early 2024.
Have you been a lurker here in the past, or are you brand new to WUWT?
If you want answers, this is the place to be.
Welcome.
Hi Tom,
Lurker and comment reader here and a bunch of the usual skeptical places for the last three years. Started reading when I was in a real bad time and place, and WUWT helped me look at a lot of things through a different lens.
Glad to hear it.
Mr. Reid: A splendid first post! The blazing hypocrisy of CliSci folks like Mr. Klamus is being noticed (finally) by people who are not persuaded by maths and charts. I noticed it long ago, and was persuaded that CliSci alarmists and their media amplifiers are wrong. Their actions often speak the precise opposite of their words.
There is no comparable hypocrisy for skeptics- none!
The apparent solar panel initiated warehouse fire in LA is finally out after more than a week. Expect insurance premiums for such facilities to necessarily skyrocket.
https://abc7.com/live-updates/massive-fire-burning-boyle-heights-east-los-angeles-shelter-place-ordered-area/19318518/
One disaster after another!
Bleating continues:
Walk at Ogden Point marks fifth anniversary of heat dome – Victoria Times Colonist
Meteorological researcher Cliff Mass explained that the high temperatures in NW WA/SW BC were the result of stackup of factors that normally partly offset each other.
Similarly for the unusually high rainfall in November of that year, which resulted in flooding and closure of key transportation corridors because the city of Abbotsford failed to maintain dikes despite problems from the same river 11 years earlier.
LTE just sent to the newspaper:
Walk at Ogden Point marks fifth anniversary of heat dome – Victoria Times Colonist
Meteorological researcher Cliff Mass explained that the high temperatures in NW WA/SW BC were the result of stackup of factors that normally partly offset each other. Uncommon but does occur.
Similarly for the unusually high rainfall in November of that year, which resulted in flooding and closure of key transportation corridors because the city of Abbotsford failed to maintain dikes despite problems from the same river 11 years earlier.
There is need for preparation, for high temperatures people are now informed for self-care and checking on friends, neighbours, and relatives. Should be standard education method of asking ‘What will you do it?’.
In my six decades in the broad region I have experienced high temperatures. I point to records from the warm 1930s – hottest and coldest temperatures occurred in the same year (that was before the largest increase in use of fossil fuels that aid human life).
What is the psychology of the bleaters?
$87B Quebec plan aims for 77% of energy consumed in province by 2050 from renewables – Victoria Times Colonist
Easy for them to say if they stop exporting power to POTUS Trump, as Quebec generates huge amount of hydroelectric power.
Albeit would need electric cars en masse. And a major airline is headquartered in Montreal.
Yah, their goal is for a quarter of a century from now.
The push against aviation continues:
EU court sides with Dassault over private jet sustainability
“it accepted the premise that other methods of transportation do not provide a comparable alternative to the capabilities of private jets in terms of speed and flexibility, particularly between city pairs that lack direct connections. It also considered the fact that executive jets can reduce their carbon footprint using Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).”
It ruled on manufacture not operation of the aircraft.
Some kind of carbon emissions law for transitioning to low emissions: ReFuelEU Aviation – Last update on 08 April 2026: Updated Competent Authority Checklist | EASA, EU Flight Emissions Label (FEL) | EASA data to help passengers choose flights with lower emissions.
A good letter telling a municipal fiefdom to stay out of climate subject:
Letters, July 1: Climate responsibility; B.C. Hydro – Victoria Times Colonist
(Whole Saanich refuses to fund police adequately.)
Followed by a letter accusing BC’s government electricity monopoly of flipping backward on subsidizing installation of solar panels. (Reminds me of Spain years ago, slashed rate it was paying for feeding solar panel output into its electrical system – leaving many people in debt.)
Even birds living in protected Ontario reserve can’t escape climate change, new study finds
How much are the researchers interfering with the birds?
providing easy housing increases bird population, less food per bird reduces number of eggsopening top of birdhouse disturbs themWhat other factors have changed? Local water sources, insecticides, ….?