Today’s climate models are so inaccurate they must be improved a hundredfold just to detect a CO2 signal in climate change.
Though clouds “are the largest moderator of Earth’s radiation budget and their absorption of solar radiation directly influence our understanding of climate change,” NASA’s models of the cloud capacity to alter solar radiation diverge from satellite observations (MERRA2) by 18.8 W/m² (Fu et al., 2026).
“…the NASA MERRA2 modeled value [of the cloud capacity to absorb solar energy] is less than one-quarter of the observed.”
Image Source: Fu et al., 2026
To put this in perspective, the reported models-versus-observations discrepancy (18.8 W/m²) is 94 times larger than 10 years of accumulated clear-sky-only CO2 impacts (0.2 W/m² per Feldman et al., 2015).
NASA has previously admitted cloud impacts are so large and uncertain models “must be improved about a hundredfold in accuracy” to detect a human or CO2 impact on climate.
IPCC TAR Chapter 14 page 771 pdf2
The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system,
and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states
is not possible.
Basically correct, except that this statement should have used the plural forms for climates and systems, eg –
Climate systems are coupled non-linear chaotic systems,
and therefore long-term predictions of future climates’ states
are not possible.
See, there are hundreds if not thousands of different climates in localities all around the globe, all doing their own things according to their mixes of influences, cycles, etc.
There is not just one homogenous climate that operates around the globe, delivering the same weather effects everywhere we go.
If you believe the IPCC assessment, then nothing causes climate change!
Somehow, you just know that’s the problem all along…
Sadly, this is NOT new news. But it has not and never will matter to climate alarmists.
Models in general fail where clouds are concerned. Pick an average, or a number. Choose the sensitivity, even.
Cloud properties and their projected changes in CMIP models with low to high climate sensitivity
Climate models are an essential tool for projecting future climate.
…
In order to investigate the sensitivity of cloud parameters to future warming simulated by the three ECS groups, we compared results from historical simulations with the ones from RCP8.5 and SSP5–8.5 runs from each group. We found that in polar regions, the increase in cloud cover per degree of warming is strongest in the low-ECS models, which is about a factor of 2–3 higher than in the high-ECS models.
Climate models are an essential tool for… bringing in the funding. Besides, they used implausible pathways and they haven’t updated…
Climate models are essential tools to keep the faux IPCC CO2 hoax alive. All else, such as scare-mongering by inane liberal arts folks using the captive media, follows.
Sounds like the science is not settled.
Not that models are science.
Imagine if they get the omnipresent gas H2O so wrong – especially the visible part.
How wrong may they be with a transparent gas that’s only 0.04% of our atmosphere?
The science isn’t settled but the Agenda for sure is and so are the models and AI’s to support the big narrative.
They make sure heretics will suffer.
Science is never settled.
What is meant by the use of the term “adsorption”? Clouds are water as a gas, liquid, or ice and will adsorb IR radiation and then reradiate it in any direction but most solar radiation is not IR. Clouds reflect visible solar radiation by what is called Mie scattering. That is why they look white from above them. Is not Mie scattering, i.e, essentially reflection, more significant to climate modeling than reradiation of IR, mostly from the earth?
About 50% of sunlight is IR light. There are three bands: near, mid and far. Most of the IR light is in the near band. The warmth of sunlight is due mostly the near band.
And around 40%, (by energy of the sunlight), is visible, so reflection by the clouds must be significant to any model attempting to mimic the physical reality.
Do the clouds, (ice, water and vapour), also reflect some of the IR? I wonder if the various models have differing ratios for these ‘pesky’ details.
Yes, as anyone who has noticed cooling when a cloud passes between them and the sun will agree. The cloud is reflecting the IR as well as absorbing some. Water reflects IR, more, or less, depending on angle of incidence. Also UV, particularly from ice and snow, resulting in “snow blindness”.
The models are completely nonsensical, being based on some bizarre magical belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter!
And the energy in the visible wavelengths is scattered in all directions by air (dry or humid) and by any surface that absorbs some wavelengths and scatters the “colors” that we “see”. The energy absorbed by living matter is often captured by endothermic chemical reactions (growth) and is not immediately available to the thermometer-readers and their models.
I think many have been indoctrinated into the thought process that incoming insolation is automatically somehow absorbed and emitted as IR with no process in between.
I look out my window and see green everywhere. Green is not IR, it is in the visible spectrum. It is reflected by growing things with most of it disappearing back into space with no effect on GHGs. Likewise, much of the red and yellow is absorbed by the living things that reflect green. The energy subtracted from the insolation never warms the land. Blue light is scattered and much of the power it has disappears back into space.
My weather station that is in the clear, does not measure how much insolation is reflected back toward the sky. It makes the assumption of using the SB equation somewhat in error.
I have figured out that all direct sunlight is invisible to the eye. It is only the reflected sunlight that is visible to the eye.
This leads me to the conclusion that direct sunlight is not the same as reflected sunlight.
At higher latitudes during winter no greenery is possible. All flora is dormant for about 7 or more months.
This proves green wavelength sunlight is the engine of photosynthesis, along with water and nutrients from the soil, and CO2 from the atmosphere.
More CO2, up to about 1200 ppm, increases greenery, which proves almost all flora is on a starvation diet at 425 ppm.
The climate models are in support of the IPCC hoax of Net zero to REDUCE CO2 by 2050, which is a hugely expensive suicide pact
Where did you see “adsorption” that would indeed be curious to me as a chemist?
Be careful: EM reflection (even with Mie scattering) IS NOT the same as reradiation.
As summarized by Google’s AI bot:
“Reflection and reradiation are fundamentally different processes.
Reflection is an immediate, surface-level “bouncing” of light or energy where the incoming wave changes direction but maintains its original frequency and phase.
Reradiation occurs when a material fully absorbs incoming energy, warming the object up, and then emits that energy later as a new electromagnetic wave (often as longer-wavelength heat or infrared).”
BTW, incoming solar radiation includes a substantial amount of near-IR radiation, which is why your face feels a warming when you face the sun in winter. In fact, about 49% of the total energy emitted by the Sun arrives at Earth as near-IR (0.7 to 1 micron wavelength) infrared radiation (source: https://sos.noaa.gov/catalog/datasets/climatebits-solar-radiation/ ).
You have to be very careful with this. If CO2 absorbs LWIR and changes vibration mode due to the energy change, it will re-emit at the same energy level when returning to base vibration. This is true reflection, in and out are the same, just with a time delay. The true issue is the kinetic energy change that happens with collisions. It changes CO2 from being a complete reflector to something less. If not all of the vibrational energy is transferred as kinetic energy multiple things can happen, e.g. translational kinetic energy can happen, i.e. small contribution to increased temperature of the gas, or the molecule can change spin, etc.
Even a “light” mirror “bounces” light by changes in the material meaning there is also a time delay. It may be very small but it’s not instantaneous. The material changes have to do with the electrons in the outer shells of the atoms being being forced to move and then returning to base position. That means some kind of phase change happens between the incoming and outgoing EM wave, again very small but not zero. What remains in-phase is the phase relationship between the different frequencies in both the incoming and outgoing wave.
From Planck’s point of view, CO2 is a “reflector” of LWIR heat energy. Just not a perfect one unless you have one molecule in a total vacuum. In other words, “back radiation” from CO2 is just a return of energy that has already been lost. And it is handled by “compensation” from slower cooling (and slower cooling does not mean the gradient changes sign)
The average time it takes an excited CO2 molecule to emit a photon is orders of magnitude longer than time between molecular collisions. One exception is when a photon of the same energy interacts with the excited molecule which results in a stimulated emission of radiation (the “ser” in laser).
If CO2 absorbs LWIR and changes vibration mode due to the energy change, it will re-emit at the same energy level when returning to base vibration.
Violates photo-electric balance by ignoring work function.
Emitted must be less than absorbed.
Except for the inconvenient fact that energy exchange of mechanical (vibrational) energy during molecule-molecule collisions does not involve the “emission” of energy.
Any re emission of radiation will always be at a lower frequency, than the original exciter radiation.
A photon is an electromagnetic wave.
How many molecules in the atmosphere does a photon pass before reaching the Earth’s surface?
Does the photon transfer a fraction of its energy to each molecules it passes through in the atmosphere, or does the photon transfer all of its energy to just one molecule in the atmosphere?
A photon, as an energy blob with a frequency, will cease to exist if it interacts with a molecule.
It may get absorbed, if the right frequency and if H2O and CO2 are around, or it may collide and excite a molecule, which is about a million times more likely, especially in the dense troposphere.
If you shine a flashlight on water vapor, will the water vapor absorb the light from the flashlight and retain it, or does the water vapor emit the light in all directions, or does the water vapor radiate the light as heat?
Not true.
Under purely elastic scattering (e.g., Rayleigh scattering), a photon will “bounce off” a molecule without any change in its energy (no wavelength shift or frequency change). It simply alters its trajectory while maintaining its initial energy.
Blue light has half the wavelength of red light, will scatter 16 times more readily than red light, the reason the sky is blue in daytime, but reddish in the evening.
Since you did not define the distance between the photon and the “molecules it is passing” nor the starting altitude nor the photon frequency, it is impossible to say how many may be involved.
But to give you an idea, there is this from Google’s AI bot:
“The mean free path of a Long-Wavelength Infrared (LWIR) photon in the lower atmosphere depends heavily on its specific wavelength, humidity, and the density of absorbing molecules. It ranges from just 3 to 30 meters at strong resonant absorption bands to several kilometers in atmospheric transmission windows.”
Combine those mean free path distances with the fact that at sea-level and 25 deg-C there are about 2.6*10^19 molecules per cubic centimeter, and you arrive at the general answer of “too many to care”.
If the atmosphere absorbs all the sunlight within 30 meters or several kilometers of the atmosphere, the sunlight can’t reach the Earth’s surface.
Who said anything about “sunlight” except for you just now? Your “If” qualifier is nuts.
You previously (on July 12, 2026 10:28 pm) referred to “a photon”. in response, I referred to “a LWIR photon”.
Sunlight has a huge number of photons ranging across a wide range of wavelengths, not just LWIR. At sea level on a clear day, sunlight is comprised of about 4*10^21 photons per second per square meter.
It is well known among scientists above grade-school level that atmospheric gases absorb radiation only in very discrete “bands” (or frequencies) and allow radiation to pass unabsorbed at all other frequencies . . . there is even the very wide range of frequencies call the “atmospheric window” where light can pass from space-to-surface and surface-to-space unimpeded.
Does a molecule only absorb energy from the photon’s electromagnetic wave if the photon’s electromagnetic wave and the molecule’s vibrational speed are in resonance with each other?
Well, that’s a load of irrelevant word salad, isn’t it?
The answer to your first sentence is “no”.
Energy is absorbed in quanta. CO2 has several vibrational modes, each at its own discrete level of energy. The CO2 molecule will only absorb quanta’s of energy that can step the vibration between the discrete levels.
Now I have figured it out. To transmit light from a radio transmitter antenna, a molecular antenna must be used:
Now I have figured out how to construct a quantum computer.
CO2 molecules are used to capture and transmit photon packets in the quantum computer.
Can different photon wavelength packets control when CO2 molecules should hold and transmit photon packets?
If the control of photon packets works, it will become an extremely fast quantum computer.
Better keep “figuring”. Photons or EM waves (your pick), across the electromagnetic spectrum, can be and in fact are transmitted across great distances of essentially “pure” vacuum from fundamental physical phenomena that do not involve “molecular transmitter antennas”.
It’s one of the reasons the James Webb space telescope collects light that was emitted close to the formation of our universe, or about 13.4 billion years ago which is just just 290 million years after the Big Bang, according to our current best cosmology.
Is it possible to transmit light waves from the rf transmitter’s antenna if the transmitter transmits at the light wave frequency?
Is an rf transmitter at the light wave frequency more effective than lasers and LEDs? Is there any metal or material that can function as an antenna at this frequency?
At high altitude molecules are far apart and move slowly.
Any photons emitted will move to space at the speed of light before colliding with an N2 and O2 molecule.
I’ve read those bogus emission time papers.
I’ve also read scientific papers by physicists that understand the quantum probability of emission falls in the range of picoseconds to nanoseconds.
Sorry, but you are missing the fact that molecule-to-molecule collisions of LWIR-energized greenhouse molecules with non-LWIR-energized N2 and O2 molecules involve the exchange of mechanical energy in the vibrations of the chemical bonds between individual atoms in the different molecules during their brief collisions . . . there is essentially no emission of radiated energy during these collisions.
Furthermore, there is no physical law that says the amount of energy exchanged in such molecule-on-molecule collisions must equal the exact amount of LWIR photon energy that excited the greenhouse gas molecule in the first place. It can take many collision, especially many glancing collisions, before an LWIR-excited molecule mechanically distributes enough energy to N2 and O2 molecules to return anywhere close to its ground state (the “base vibration” in your words).
Does the monekyle return to the temperature of the ambient temperature via conduction?
Please read the first sentence of my last paragraph in my comment immediately above.
I’m not missing anything.
tpg: “The true issue is the kinetic energy change that happens with collisions. It changes CO2 from being a complete reflector to something less.”
tpg: ” If not all of the vibrational energy is transferred as kinetic energy multiple things can happen, e.g. translational kinetic energy can happen, i.e. small contribution to increased temperature of the gas, or the molecule can change spin, etc.”
I addressed each point in your comment in my post.
I’ve read those bogus vibration mode papers.
Starts out by claiming electro-static fields act as springs.
It’s all part of the attempt to convince IR is heat and CO2 “thermalizes” IR.
photons
vibration modes
All made up to support the ideology the CO2 “traps” heat and thus is the “control knob” for the climate.
Photons: A definition of convenience that is the quantum of energy needed to raise an electron to a higher valence state or emitted by the electron when decaying to a lower valence state.
Photons have no size and no rest mass. It is a mathematical definition, a quantum of energy. It is the result of multiplying the frequence times Plank’s constant.
In other words, given the electromagnetic spectrum is continues, assuming photons are particles (which have no physical substance) there would be an infinite number of flavors of protons.
Electrostatic fields cannot store and release energy. No modulus of elasticity. No mechanical linkage. Electron charge and proton charge are physical constants.
One cannot target a specific atom to create a vibration. In addition, there is no mechanical anchor, so if one could target a specific atom, the molecule would move based on kinetic energy (or momentum if you wish), not vibrate.
“Electrostatic fields cannot store and release energy. No modulus of elasticity. No mechanical linkage. Electron charge and proton charge are physical constants.”
Your explanation makes no sense. If what you say is true then how does an EM wave excite an antenna tuned to the frequency of the EM wave to create a change in the antenna that can be detected?
The electric field of the EM wave interacts with the charged particles in the molecule (the electrons and nucleus), and change the electron “clouds” and nucleus so that the “dipole” arrangement changes. This movement of the dipole changes as the E field changes – e.g. a vibrational type movement. The vibrational movement is quantized because the electron “clouds” and nucleus have “quantizied’ positions, i.e. energy levels.
Are you *really* trying to imply that the E field of an EM wave doesn’t interact with the charges, and the resulting electrostatic field, in an atom or molecule?
In my view, a hundred-fold improvement in a time-step-iterated model’s representation of the physical response to incoming solar energy does not do the job either. There is no such model that has the resolving power to detect a CO2 signal, considering the uncertainty of TSI itself, which of course is external to the model.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
There. Let’s leave this whole sorry chapter of “climate” modeling and emissions scenarios behind us. Don’t get me wrong – better computed representations of the general circulation are good and valuable, but not in respect to diagnosis or prognosis of the influence of incremental CO2.
Thank you for listening.
But—hey!—many so-called scientists have made Trenberth-type
calculationsmodels of Earth’s energy imbalance—which are actually power flux in-versus-out summaries—that “yield” a net global average excess incoming of 0.9 to 1.2 W/m^2, which is then often used to explain current global warming.The models can’t handle the uncertain “average” value and range of variability of Earth’s albedo (which in turn is mostly determined by global cloud coverage) over any given time period, so the models typically just use in a constant value of 0.30 to make the numbers achieve the desired final imbalance, which of course is too small to be subject to empirical verification.
I haven’t seen Trenberth in a long time. Did he move back to New Zealand?
Well, NZ is “The Land Of The Long White Cloud”, so an appropriate place for research of clouds?
‘To put this in perspective, the reported models-versus-observations discrepancy (18.8 W/m²) is 94 times larger than 10 years of accumulated clear-sky-only CO2 impacts (0.2 W/m² per Feldman et al, 2015).’
Pat Frank has been making this point with respect to the inherent uncertainty of GCMs since 2019. (Probably longer if one factors in how long his work has been suppressed).
Hopefully, one of these days climate scientists will get around to investigating an even bigger problem with the models, which is their incorporation of the phenomenological physics of radiative transfer as the primary mechanism for how energy is transported from the Earth’s surface through the troposphere.
Links:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140012672/downloads/20140012672.pdf
Exactly . . . direct hit of hammer on nail head!
To be more explicit: as Professor Will Happer and a few others have repeatedly attempted to point out scientifically, the primary route of greenhouse gases distributing their intercepted LWIR radiation off Earth’s surface is by high frequency molecular collisions with other non-IR active atmospheric gases, 99% of which are N2 and O2. Re-radiation of intercepted LWIR energy by greenhouse gases is almost insignificant in comparison, due to much slower photon relaxation times associated with such.
Hence, CO2, as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, can—and actually has—become “saturated” in its logarithmic capability to absorb LWIR at atmospheric concentration levels above about 300 ppmv (reference the Beer-Lambert law).
Worries about atmospheric CO2 concentration levels of 420 ppmv or higher causing “global warming” are, ummm, unfounded.
Most of those “collisions” result in an increase in the kinetic energy of the molecules in the atmosphere, i.e. a temperature increase in the atmosphere. But that does *not* generally translate into a temperature change of the surface.
There is conduction at the atmosphere / surface interface to the tune of about 100 lbs per square meter of air molecules striking the Earth’s surface each second. Of course, the direction of heat flow is always from warmer to cooler, so depends on location, time, etc.
Hmmm . . . by analogy, if I “warm-up” a blanket surrounding me with my body heat, don’t I feel warmer after a few minutes compared to when I first got underneath the blanket?
More scientifically, an atmosphere warmed by surface LWIR does indeed directly feedback into warming of the surface emitting the LWIR by virtue of the increased radiation the atmosphere emits isotropically because it has an increased temperature above absolute zero and because the lower atmosphere radiates about half its thermal radiation toward space and the remaining ~50% back to the ground surface.
Temperature is a measure of the sensible heat a body contains. Your “feedback” requires the radiation emitted by a colder body to be added to the hot body, i.e., adding heat to the hot body, thereby warming it to a higher temperature.
You want to explain how that works with some references that show second law of thermodynamics has been repealed?
Simple:
Thermal radiation is defined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law :
radiated power = P = ε σ A T⁴, where ε is the object’s overall emissivity, σ is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, A is the radiating surface area, and T is the absolute temperature of the object.
Note that this physical law does not involve any other object at any temperature.
Therefore any reference that the Second Law of Thermodynamics— which governs heat flowing from a warmer object to a cooler object and the entropy associated with heat engines exploiting such a temperature difference—being applicable, let alone “repealed”, is ABSURD in considering the physics of thermal radiation from an object.
Most simply, an object radiating thermal energy has no way of “knowing” there are other objects external to it and thus radiates the same energy for its given temperature independent of any external objects being hotter or colder than it is.
QED.
Really? Then how does this work?
You seem to have things mixed up.
Hopeless.
“More scientifically, an atmosphere warmed by surface LWIR does indeed directly feedback into warming of the surface emitting the LWIR by virtue of the increased radiation the atmosphere emits isotropically because it has an increased temperature above absolute zero and because the lower atmosphere radiates about half its thermal radiation toward space and the remaining ~50% back to the ground surface.”
Nope. The atmosphere is just returning PART of the LWIR already emitted by the surface. That means that there is *still* cooling of the surface based on the PART of the emitted LWIR that is not returned.
The reflected LWIR just reduces the rate of cooling.
A slower rate of cooling actually emits *more* heat (the area under the temperature profile curve) than a faster cooling. This is the “compensation” that Planck speaks of for reflected heat. The reflected heat just gets re-emitted by “new rays”.
Yes, as I said.
And it appears you didn’t care to read—perhaps more importantly understand—this in my last sentence of my above post: “. . . because the lower atmosphere radiates about half its thermal radiation toward space and . . .” Of course, that requires understanding that the lower atmosphere is not generating its own heat.
Your body is the thermal energy source.
The blanket limits the flow of thermal energy from your body to the exterior environment.
The delta temperature, interior to exterior, is primarily due to the thermal resistance of the blanket.
Why is NASA involved climate modeling?
Good question, probably mission creep. Here’s a link to an ngo that explains what great work NASA and NOAA do to protect us from climate change and what the evil Trump administration is doing to sabotage them. /s
https://govfacts.org/climate-energy-environment/climate-change/climate-science-projections/how-noaa-and-nasa-coordinate-climate-monitoring-and-what-they-tell-policymakers/#political-interference-and-scientific-integrity
Because they can?
I have noticed recently that when Landsat gets mentioned in press articles, credit is given to NASA first and the USGS second, despite the fact that the director of the USGS in 1972 was the one who championed the concept of the Earth Resources Satellite-1, and through his efforts, obtained congressional funding to modify a NOAA Nimbus meteorological satellite to obtain multispectral imagery of the globe. The USGS EROS Data Center in Sioux Falls (SD) is the archive of all Landsat imagery and developed the algorithms for making essential spatial and radiometric corrections of the data, and similarly developed algorithms for extracting information from the multispectral imagery. Personally, I think that the USGS should be listed before NASA when giving credit.
Oh, come on, the standard answer applies: Follow the money.
Because NASA’s stated ‘mission‘ is to “explore the unknown in air and space“.
Earth and its atmosphere qualifies on both counts. Earth is a planet in space and it has an atmosphere composed of air.
Simple question:
I have never seen ANY publication of daily cloud cover as a statistic. (I do sometimes look at the visible or infrared satellite images of cloud cover over the U.S.)
Has anyone made some kind of “cloudiness tracker” that covers the satellite era?
I believe it would also have to be weighted in some fashion. Some cloud patterns are cooling, some are warming, the effect of some is dependent upon the time of day.
I don’t even need it to be 100% accurate, I would just like some comprehensive measurement that we could watch change over the years and decades.
Does anyone know of such a creature as I am describing?
[Or could our host, or one of our guest hosts, do a introductory tutorial on this topic. It seems to me to be a very important topic, but it gets very little coverage.]
Thanks.
The closest I know of is ‘cloud fraction’ from the MODIS satellite instrument. It is available at science.nasa.gov. Isn’t weighted by cloud type.
Probably not by altitude either.
Git yer CERES_EBAF_TOA cloud parameters here, including cloud fraction.
OK, but is there any website that translates that variable cloud coverage data (plus other variables such a snow/ice ground coverage and vegetative “greening” of Earth’s surface, into accurate determinations of Earth’s temporal variations in “global average” albedo?
No GHE means no GHGs.
No GHGs means no water vapor, NO CLOUDS, no snow, no ice, no oceans for that matter no water and no 30% albedo.
And Earth bakes in a 394 K, 250 F solar heat lamp.
Cooler w atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
WRONG, Nicholas…your calcs are wrong somewhere…
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 C below freezing as its emissions temperature…which would also be the average surface temperature.
Since the Planet is actually about 15 C…your claim is FALSE. The atmosphere clearly keeps the planet warmer.
For Earth on the other hand…
1360/4x(1-0.3) = 238
And 238 watts/sq.M is about the a radiative temp of -35 C…Which is the temperature of the atmosphere about 8 km up…and then lapse rate of about 6.5 degrees C per Km gets you to approximately 290 K or 17 C down at surface. So despite your statements otherwise, our planet is quite a bit warmer down here at surface due to our atmosphere, but certainly not your stated 394 K temp….obviously I have oversimplified because our planet is a mosaic of IR emitters…65% cold cloud tops covering 70% ocean, continents, 10% ice and snow, with cold and warm emitting atmospheric gases such as water vapor and CO2 depending on their altitude, which the lapse rate temperature averages out mostly by convection…
And of course, the planet must rotate quickly enough that daytime/nightime temperatures aren’t too different. The moon takes a whole month to rotate so gets much hotter on the sunny side and much colder on the shady side. I would assume you are getting the 394K from the moon’s sun-facing side temp.
270 K is not what GHE says.
No. Look at Diviner data. Temperatures are higher and lower due to lack of atmosphere. Earth’s polar regions receive 6 months of continuous sunlight – not much warming to be seen.
Earth’s surface temperatures vary between around +90 C and -90 C. About what you’d expect using known physical laws. No mystery there.
Not the whole story. Lunar surface temperatures are also much hotter and colder than on Earth (at their max/min) because most locations on the Moon experience approximately 14 Earth days of continuous sunlight followed by 14 Earth days of continuous darkness (with associated radiative heat loss). This full cycle is known as a “lunar day”.
One Earth, the solar energy arriving during daylight is “averaged” with the lack of solar energy + radiative heat loss during night once every 24 hours . . . that’s quite a bit more frequent than averaging lunar day and night every 29.5 Earth days (or every 708 hours).
That is highly dependent on the Beer-Lambert law of radiation absorption being dependent on GHG absorption of surface LWIR as a function of concentration and transmission path length.
For example, the GHG CO2 is active in creating a GHE effect at lower atmospheric concentrations below about 300 ppmv, but becomes effectively saturated in that ability above about 300 ppmv so as not to create any additional GHE.
A fools errand to go down the GCM path again, without knowing what the forcing that is causing the warming trend. At some point you have to let go of James Hanses.
I’ll dare to repost my poetry after a decade:
Mother Goose on Climate Prediction
As record winds blow
Unprecedented snow,
Oh, where is our globe a’ warming?
That depends on the sun
And the ways oceans run,
Plus clouds (with complexity) forming!
Now, for quite long,
Climate models are wrong.
So, what caused the pause in the warming?
Yes, look to the sun,
The ways oceans run,
And the clouds, in complexity forming.
CO2 is “too small”
To stop temperature’s fall
When the sun, clouds and oceans together,
Begin to cause cold
In cycles so old…
No one alive can remember!
So, if I do some harm
By just keeping warm,
You’ll have to kindly forgive me!
I find my solution
Makes carbon pollution;
Lest Gaia too quickly outlives me!
Story tip.. will have the CO2 haters really having manic conniptions !! 😉
Experimental Lab Research: The Climate Sensitivity To A 400-Fold Increase In CO2 Is 0.1°C
Clouds have always been the elephant in the Climate room. Clouds have been vague enough to ignore and big enough to change the whole game.
And intractable for direct calculation, therefore they must be parameterized, which leads to the potential for subjective bias.
NASA isn’t doing its job, time to replace all top management.
Top management was replaced, but middle management is the crust of barnacles biding their time for another Biden, who never knew his a.. from a whole in the ground, already in high school.
Aphelion occurs on July 6th and is at its farthest distance in its orbit around the Sun.
When aphelion occurs, the TSIS-1 instrument on the ISS is recalibrated to hide the low values for Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance.
Is it a coincidence that the TSIS-1 instrument is recalibrated at aphelion when solar radiation at Earth distance is at its lowest level?
The lowest value of the year for solar value at Earth distance will now be on June 30th:
20260628.500 1317.1656
20260629.500 1316.6093
20260630.500 1316.3182
20260701.500 1316.3902
20260702.500 1317.2867
20260703.500 1317.6742
20260704.500 1318.0871
20260705.500 0.0000
20260706.500 0.0000
20260707.500 0.0000
20260708.500 0.0000
https://lasp.colorado.edu/data/tsis/tsi_data/tsis_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
In general, the sun is a stable radiator.
The clouds do not alter the sun, they alter what we call the insolation which is the amount of the energy coming into the surface of the earth.
Clouds warm at night and cool during the day.
I give up.
Posters continue to use vocabulary from the Trans-Reality Alarmist lexicon as if the definitions they created are legitimate and scientifically valid.
Use of social/common language context derived definitions does not facilitate scientific discourse.
I thought Willis settled this years ago: 300 Watts/m^2 of cooling once the water temperature reaches 31 degrees C. Don’t these guys read?
Is there any platform in stationary orbit on a direct line between the sun and earth that can observe the changes in the cloud formations due to the changes in the land/water distribution as the planet rotates in the absence of day/night changes?