From the Cliff Mass Weather Blog
Cliff Mass
Again and again I am asked:
Do I Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change/GlobalWarning?
A very strange question. Scientists rarely, if ever, use the term believe.
We never use the term ” believe ” when we apply Newton’s laws of dynamics, the first law of thermodynamics, or any of the basic principles of atmospheric physics. I have attended hundreds of scientific meetings and not once did a scientist use the term belief in describing human-caused global warming.
Science is not religion…at least it shouldn’t be. Conclusions should be based on accepted scientific principles and data, not beliefs.
Religon
It appears that global warming has become like a religion to some people, replacing more traditional beliefs. Apparently, a way to fill their lives with meaning and purpose.
As in many religions, there is the prediction of a catastrophic “end time”, with total destruction, if people don’t follow the approved “way”.
Self-appointed prophets describe the proper path that will lead to life (some shown below),
I made a decision 15 years ago to stand up against those who distort the science.
Those who mislead the population. Those who spread unnecessary fear. Those who benefit financially from the exaggeration and lies.
And woe to a person who stands against the apocalyptic climate vision. They are cast out and rejected. Worse than wrong. Evil
I should know…..and have felt the wrath of name-calling and being cast out (by the Seattle Times and KNKX) for remaining with the science.
So what are my views on climate/change and global warming? Quite honestly, I am pretty much in the mainstream.
I should note that I have published several dozen papers on climate issues, from modeling to data-driven studies. I studied climate science under leaders of the field at the University of Washington, and worked on climate research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) under one of the leading climate scientists in the world (Stephen Schneider, see below), with whom I published several climate papers. I have had many NSF research grants on climate subjects.
Climatologist Stephen Schneider and I at NCAR
So what is my view, based on decades of research and study of the climate?
The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor
A planetary warming of about 1 C over the past 50 years due to such gases (see plot below)
Most of that warming (about 2F) is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.
A modest, steady warming of the planet.
What about extremes?
The warming is causing fewer cold waves, which is saving lives. But there are worsening heat waves. Since far more people die from cold than heat, fewer people are dying from extreme temperatures as the planet warms. That will be true for a while.
The science and data indicate that hurricanes have not become more frequent as the planet has warmed (see below), but the strongest hurricanes may get more powerful by the end of the century.
Interestingly, even with global warming, deaths from extreme weather have declined substantially (by 90% or more), even with increasingly populated areas (see below).
This is due to greatly improved ability to adapt to climate extremes (e.g., air conditioning) and profoundly improved weather forecasting.
The scientific evidence and demonstrated societal impacts are clear: human-caused global warming is a modest problem. It is not an existential threat to humanity.
As a weather/climate scientist, my views are well within the mainstream.
But unlike some, I am willing to take on the exaggerations of the “believers” and media that are happy to misinform folks to get more clicks or to secure funding from climate activists (like a certain local newspaper in Seattle).
This blog gives me a tool to give my readers the truth.
I have paid a substantial personal price by taking on the “believers” (e.g., KNKX, Seattle Times, name-calling by commenters on this blog, name-callers on some amateur YouTube sites), but the price paid by society, panicked by exaggeration and falsehood, is worse.
The global climate remains an infinitely complex, non-linear chaotic system dominated by natural variability, orbital geometries, ocean-atmosphere fluid dynamics and most importantly plate tectonics.
From a strict epistemological stand in observational science, there is a fundamental distinction between directly measuring an effect in a controlled setting and proving that a specific trace gas is actively driving a change in a massive, chaotic open system.
When evaluating the claim that marginal anthropogenic emissions drive incremental radiative forcing in the real-world atmosphere, the counter-argument rests on three foundational pillars:
In scientific inquiry, a consensus is an agreement of opinion, and a computer simulation is an algorithmic projection of current hypotheses. Neither constitutes direct empirical proof that a marginal increase in a trace gas exerts measurable, isolated control over the planet’s radiative energy balance.
Here’s the quote from the IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Page 774
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the
long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. ”
There’s a word salad after that quote that tries to throw water on that basic truth.
And the whole Net Zero band wagon is predicated on long-term predictions of climate change.
No. It is predicated on long-term predictions of climate catastrophe.
Thanks idbodbi – brilliant post.
You state that “The global climate remains an infinitely complex, non-linear chaotic system dominated by natural variability, orbital geometries, ocean-atmosphere fluid dynamics and most importantly plate tectonics.
From a strict epistemological stand in observational science, there is a fundamental distinction between directly measuring an effect in a controlled setting and proving that a specific trace gas is actively driving a change in a massive, chaotic open system.”
Now I can make the exact same point — from a strict epistemological stance where is the observational evidence that the climate is a “infinitely complex
non-linear chaotic system dominated by …” There is none since again there is a fundamental distinction between measuring any of those things in a controlled setting and proving that they hold in a massive open system.
So if you want to take such a stance then you are hoist by your own petard. First prove that the climate is infinitely complex and non-linear in a controlled experiment and then and only then can you move on from that.
OoooKaaay.
(moves away slowly while avoiding eye contact)
Quite. Never argue with an idiot, onlookers might not be able to tell which is which.
How many parameters can fit on the head of a pin?
I would assert that the null hypothesis: “The various factors and conditions that describe and define the 30+ local “climates” on Earth can be meaningfully combined and condensed into a simple set of descriptors of the “Global Climate” which can be shown to depend primarily on the quantity of a single, non-condensing component of the atmosphere.” can be easily rejected.
Perhaps the better question would be to ask “which of the various factors and conditions that describe and define the 30+ local climates is changing in a significant way”? Ultimately the temperature is set by the solar luminosity but that does not change significantly over time scales shorter than about a 100 million years. The Milankovitch cycles which drive ice ages have a period of 10000 years etc. Neither of which can significantly alter the climate over a period of decades which is what we are currently experiencing.
How about cloud cover, which has been observed to be decreasing over the last several decades? How about the observed reduction in SO2 in the atmosphere over the last several decades? If you wish to consider correlation as causation, then …
temperature is set by the solar luminosity but that does not change significantly over time scales shorter than about a 100 million years. The Milankovitch cycles which drive ice ages have a period of 10000 years etc. Neither of which can significantly alter the climate over a period of decades which is what we are currently experiencing.
That’s because neither of them are involved in the ”altering of the climate we are currently experiencing. That is TSI.
…which warmed the ocean earlier on.
How do you know that solar luminosity does not change significantly over periods shorter than 100 million years? Define significantly.
Over what wavelengths? It is only over the past few decades that we have been able to observe X ray emissions from the sun as they’re stopped or significantly attenuated by the atmosphere, the same holds for ultraviolet.
What interactions take place in the upper atmosphere and what effect could they have?
The sun is more than a simple luminous object, there are other parameters that change at decadal scales such as magnetic fields, solar flares and CME.
The climate may or may not be in truth chaotic, but from our perspective it being a chaotic system appears to be the best hypothesis at the moment as we don’t know all of the influences and we cannot model it adequately.
“Perhaps the better question would be to ask “which of the various factors and conditions that describe and define the 30+ local climates is changing in a significant way”?”
1.No specific factor *has* change in a significant way. The total is the sum of the parts. Small changes in multiple factors can cause significant changes in the total.
2.It’s not even clear if there are changes in the 30+ local climates. Certainly there have not been massive climate-change induced mass migrations, they have all been economic or political. The Global Average Temperature (GAT) is *NOT* a very good metric for climate. Not only is it impossible to average intensive properties, the statistical treatment of the data makes the GAT not-fit-for-purpose.
Solar irradiance varies larger than the contrived energy imbalance calculations.
No, that is radiant energy. Temperature is a response within the matter absorbing that energy.
Did not jump on “infinitely complex” – infinity, or just a very large number?
But
“Ultimately the temperature is set by the solar luminosity … 100 million years.“
followed by
“The Milankovitch cycles which drive ice ages have a period of 10000 years“
constitutes a contradiction that should be obvious.
Do you have access to the millions of precise recordings of decade-by-decade changes in temperature over the history of our planet?
If not, perhaps your religious conclusions are a bit lacking in weight.
Great Lord above, deliver us from this twonk.
Mr. Mike: I say let him post, he may learn that “hoist” is a verb, and he hoist his own petard in every comment. His own assumptions are evident, even as he complains that “infinitely complex” must be shown, somehow. Mr. Walton is a very simple man, not complex but very linear in his “thinking”.
Maybe the onus is on you to prove that the planet’s climate is a closed simple system.
It *is* a closed system since it doesn’t exchange mass across the boundary. Simple? That it is *not*.
Being a closed system only radiative processes apply. For the temperature of a closed system to rise it has to retain heat received from an outside source. Of course that retained heat and higher temperature will generate a higher rate of heat loss causing a move back toward equilibrium – where radiative heat in equals radiative heat out.
If this drive back to equilibrium radiative flux didn’t happen the earth would probably have, over the past millennia, turned into a molten rock as more and more retained heat raised the temperature further and further. If one believes that the rate of retained heat by the earth has changed I’d like to see the theory behind why it changed.
The only way for the earth to move to a permanently higher temperature is for the radiative heat-in to go up.
The greenhouse effect implies either 1. that the earth can retain heat without increasing it’s outbound radiative flux due to a temperature rise or, 2. that the greenhouse gas is on fire and acting as an additional heat source.
If (1.) I’d like to see the theory. If (2.) I wish someone could post a picture of the sky actually burning.
Argument relies on matter not equalling an amount of energy.
Isolated – nothing, mass or energy, in or out.
Closed – only energy in or out.
Open – no boundaries, chaos.
Terrestrial system is clearly open
Open – energy *and* mass in and out. It can still have a boundary.
Earth, for all intents and purposes, is a closed system. Only energy in and out, no mass exchange.
TG’s “for all intents and purposes” is the evidence that NS’s “Terrestrial system is clearly open” is technically correct. Not saying it’s useful just saying it’s correct.
Can’t argue with that. But the mass net addition/loss from space and to space is so far out in decimal places that it is insignificant. If you are calculating in and out heat you simply won’t see it make any discernable difference.
Personally, I prefer the term non-deterministic.
Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies.
We cannot measure all of the individual atoms and molecules in the atmosphere simultaneously and if we do, we alter their energy and or vector and or momentum.
Your language is a bit on the offensive side.
I would suggest that the inverse is also true. First, prove that the climate is not infinitely complex and non-linear in a controlled experiment and then and only then can you move on from that.
If neither can be proven, then you are stuck with being unable to move on in any fashion. That is where climate science is at after 50+ years of messing around.
It is my conjecture that climate science has wasted 50+ years attempting to recreate a temperature trend without understanding the basic relationship between insolation and the actual surfaces of ocean and land. Fundamentally, that is the starting point of a thermodynamical analysis of the earth’s climates. Thermodynamic heat at the surface drives all heat transfer mechanisms of conduction, convection, and radiation.
My proof is that using temperature averages is a linear arithmetic process. Stefan-Boltzmann has both time and an exponential contained within it. Simple linear mathematics will never resolve what actually occurs within the system of sun->surface->atmosphere heat processes. The solution will involve using joules of energy in, stored, and out and not temperature trends.
” First prove that the climate is infinitely complex and non-linear in a controlled experiment and then and only then can you move on from that. ”
We look forward to your paper detailing a generalized full regime solution to the Navier-Stokes equations.
Qsurf = Uatmos A (Tsurf – Ttoa)
It’s that simple, no PhD required.
Good for a laugh. 😉
The IPCC report 2022 summary is loaded with qualifiers, modifiers and submodifiers ‘very likely’ ‘likely’ ‘more likely than not’ ‘about as likely’ and so on, each with some percentage figure of ‘likeliness’ or ‘unlikeliness’ as to be meaningless and certainly no basis to radically curtail the rapid growth in global energy production and consumption.
All that stuff is just guessing.
If anyone says they “don’t believe in global warming”, just ask these two questions:
1) What caused the Earth to recover (in average global temperature) from the previous four major Ice Ages?
2) What has caused the Earth to recover (in average global temperature) from the last ten or so glacial intervals that have occurred over the last ~ 1 million years of the current Quarternary Ice Age? For reference, Earth warmed up and entered the current Holocene epoch about 12,000 years ago, without benefit of SUV emissions.
Warning: chances are you’ll get a “deer in the headlights” response from 99% of those you ask.
BTW, these questions go largely to falsifying (based on paleoclimatology proxies) that global warming of Earth is primarily driven by atmospheric CO2 concentration, whether man-made or natural.
You’ll get a deer in the headlight response from 99% of the climate change supporters.
Earth is cooler w atmos/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t + violate LoT.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmos molecules render “extra” GHE energy from a BB surface impossible.
GHE = bogus & CAGW = scam.
Sun heats ground/water, ground/water heats air.
It’s that easy. (Staples button)
Establishing the drivers and “balance” of Earth’s climate and its complex, non-linear, semi-stochastic processes and associated feedback loops (both positive and negative) is far from “easy”.
Among other things, you failed to mention:
— Milankovitch cycles related to Sun-Earth orbital ephemeris changes and resonances occuring over tens of thousands to millions of years,
— the influence of plate tectonics/continental drift on Earth’s ocean and atmospheric circulation (heat transfer) patterns and its overall hydrological cycle over time,
— the influence of changes in areal cloud coverage and TPW content in Earth’s atmosphere over time,
— the influence of various levels of volcanic activity and surface magma flows over time, specifically as relate to injected aerosols and particulates that affect both albedo and rain/snow precipitation
— the complex coupling/interactions of the biosphere with the atmosphere as relates to changing surface albedo (see recent articles on the “greening” of Earth and how areal vegetative coverage affects albedo) and aerosol dimming of incoming solar radiation. CO2 exchanges/sequestering is a major part of this in ocean waters/marine life and with respect to land erosion/terrestrial plants and animal life.
As regards to what you did mention:
– a planet (or moon) with an atmosphere, especially one with relatively high water vapor content, will always be warmer overall than one of comparable size and albedo that does not have an atmosphere because the atmosphere blocks some amount of direct radiation of surface LWIR to deep space (~4 K) during both daytime and night,
— if the GHE can cause calculations of Earth’s power flux “balance” (incoming W/m^2 of radiation versus outgoing W/m^2 of radiation) to “violate” any of the Laws of Thermodynamics ,it is because either the calculations are being done incorrectly or because whoever reaches that conclusion simply does not understand how those laws are to be correctly applied to a complex natural process. Period.
— the GHE does NOT add “extra” energy to processes occurring in Earth’s atmosphere . . . you need to understand the concept of conservation of energy as used in physics,
— the Earth (its surface and/or its atmosphere) is nowhere close to being a blackbody (BB) radiator and it is sophomoric to refer to such,
— incoming solar radiation heats the atmosphere directly. . . approximately 23% of all incoming solar radiation is absorbed directly by Earth’s atmosphere (gases, clouds and airborne dust) before the remaining fraction reaches Earth’s surface, land or water (source: https://brainly.com/question/32793171 )
approximately 23% of all incoming solar radiation is absorbed directly by Earth’s atmosphere
So why isn’t TOA warmer than surface??
Sun passes through unscathed & heats surface, surface heats air.
GHE says BB not me.
396/333/63 is “extra”.
“So why isn’t TOA warmer than surface??”
Good grief! I guess I need to point out that, by definition, TOA (top of atmosphere) does NOT have any path length through the atmosphere and thus cannot absorb any incoming solar radiation and be heated by such process.
Furthermore, the thermal radiation to deep space from atmospheric gases existing just below TOA overwhelms any conduction of thermal heat from below to these gases, being mindful that the gas density at these altitudes is so very low (i.e., near vacuum, as in a vacuum-insulated Thermos bottle).
Physics 101, and high school level.
BTW, no competent scientist familiar with the theory of greenhouse gases asserts that Earth radiates LWIR as a black body. Conversely, there is much discussion as to what approximate “emissivities” should apply across the LWIR frequency range as they vary by substance considered, hemispherical angle, surface roughness/wave action, snow/ice/vegetative coverage, etc. These approximations, of course, are needed to estimate outgoing LWIR power flux (W/m^2) based on the SB equation for radiation since it’s just not possible to perform spectral line-by-spectral line integration of the millions of individual emission lines of all atoms and molecules of the elements and chemical compounds comprising Earth’s surface.
Physics 102, and higher.
“These approximations, of course, are needed to estimate outgoing LWIR power flux (W/m^2) based on the SB equation for radiation”
And what is the uncertainty interval that goes along with these approximations and estimates? Is it big enough to subsume the differences that are trying to be identified?
I used to wonder . . . but this question now positively confirms that you have mistaken me for being your lap dog.
Good. Then you can’t argue when I tell you that anything to do with satellite measurements usually as a +/- 4K uncertainty interval because of radiance calibration uncertainty, spectral channel uncertainty, averaging kernels, cloud uncertainty, and surface emissivity uncertainty.
What I can find shows instrument uncertainty is about 0.5%. Optics uncertainty is about 2%. And path loss uncertainty is between 10% and 15%.
Those are rather large measurement uncertainty intervals.
I suspect a +/- 4K uncertainty interval is actually underestimated.
And SB requires the blackbody to have an equilibrium temperature.
The Earth is thereby…dismissed as a useful example.
Pure, unadulterated BS.
The Stefan Boltzmann equation deals only with the power flux output (via radiation) from matter with an average instantaneous temperature above absolute zero . . . it says NOTHING about equilibrium.
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”
— old adage, falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln
He means the black body has to be isothermal, no internal gradients. Otherwise the radiation is not isotropic.
The earth is far from isothermal and its radiation is not isotropic. Emissivity is assumed to be a constant but even that is a climate science garbage assumption. The land and oceans have different emissivity’s.
Good grief, you are really confused by the terms isothermal and isotropic.
Yes, an ideal blackbody is isothermal, but its radiation does NOT have to be isotropic. In fact, the best laboratory empirical approximation of a blackbody radiation is said to be that escaping a small hole drilled through the wall of a heated, high emissivity container, such as a carbon sphere or cylinder. The radiation coming out of a single hole having some L/D value is, of course, NOT isotropic.
As for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, it can be applied surface segment-wise (competent physicists and mathematicians would say “integrated over area”) for any body that is not isothermal. For example if half of a sphere has a temperature of 200 deg-F and the other half has a temperature 10 deg-F, the SB equation can be applied at each hemisphere’s temperature to develop the overall radiation power emitted by the full sphere. In the more realistic case of a sphere that has temperatures varying by smooth gradients, say between a maximum of 200 deg- and a minimum of 10 deg-F, the SB equation can still be used correctly to obtain the total power being radiated at those instantaneous conditions by using mathematical integration under the known relationship of temperature variation with surface position.
These facts are more easily understood by people familiar with differential equations and integration under the calculus.
Do not confuse what happens in a cavity with a black body surface. In fact, every point inside a black body cavity radiates isotopically. The part of radiation that is directed into the body is simply absorbed.
The black body must be isothermal for SB or Planck’s Law to provide accurate radiation values. Otherwise, conduction within the body will result in varying intensities at different points. This is why in the real physical world cavities are used. The body surrounding the cavity can be kept at a uniform temperature (isothermal) so that the radiation leaving a small hole only contains the intensity due to one temperature.
Isotropic radiation from a body is what IR thermometers are based on. If I have a cube and heat it in a furnace, I only need to measure the radiation from one surface to know the temperature of the cube. Otherwise, I would need to measure each of the six surfaces to obtain a correct temperature.
You really need to obtain Planck’s Theory of Heat Radiation. It is free or low cost from many sources. He describes in detail the process of a body radiating. One detail is that surfaces do not radiate. Radiation occurs internally in a body and some escapes through a surface. It is why calculations involving radiation formulas require isothermal and isotropic conditions. That is what they are based upon. Anything else requires modifications to the formulas, an example is conduction into the soil on land.
The Stefan Boltzmann equation deals only with the power flux output (via radiation) from matter with an average instantaneous temperature above absolute zero
How about starting from the beginning. Planck’s Law is:
Planck’s Law is the equation for the spectrum of thermal radiation emitted by an ideal blackbody. It tells you how much radiative energy is emitted at each wavelength for a given absolute temperature.
SB is derived by integrating Planck’s Law over the entire spectrum. This integral will give the familiar Planck Curve for a given temperature. The area under the curve is the total radiation for an ideal black body at a given temperature.
Now let’s look at CO2 and for examples sake we’ll assume it radiates and absorbs at one wavelength, 15 um with an emissivity of 1. You can put the relative numbers into any scientific calculator and determine how much power CO2 can radiate a given temperature. I can assure you it won’t come close to what the surface emits using SB with an appropriate emissivity.
That’s a lot of—in the case, useless—background theory and wasted cut-and-paste because gases (such a CO2) simply do not follow Plank’s Law nor radiate energy as a “black bodies” or even as a “grey bodies”.
Planck’s law deals with the continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by an ideal blackbody, but gases radiate at distinct spectral wavelengths, not in a continuous spectrum. And there is no such thing as the “emissivity” of a gas.
Again, Physics 101.
No, you are incorrect. Planck’s Law deals with the radiation at specific values of wavelength. Look at the formula I posted. “λ” is a specific value of a unique wavelength. It is not a curve over many wavelengths.
Stefan-Boltzmann’s equation is the result of INTEGRATING Planck’s Law over the entire spectrum. This in essence adds up all the power radiated at each unit wavelength. It results in a Planck Curve that shows the continuous change in radiated power over the entire spectrum.
Both are based on black body emission, that is true. But both can be modified by using emissivity values less than 1. Just off the top of my head CO2 at 15 um has an absorptivity/emissivity of 1. At 16 um it has 0.42 and at 17 um it has 0.2. Everywhere else it is <0.2, or pretty much negligible. That means it does not absorb or emit outside those values. It certainly doesn’t absorb/emit the whole spectrum that the earth radiates.
Although I can recognize a closed mind when I encounter one, here’s my last ditch attempt to educate you, based on Google’s AI bot response to the question “Do gases follow Plank’s Law or the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation?”:
“Real gases do not follow either Planck’s law or the Stefan-Boltzmann equation directly because real gases are not blackbodies.
“Why Gases Do Not Follow Blackbody Laws
“Blackbody assumption: Both Planck’s law and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation assume an ideal object absorbs and emits radiation across all wavelengths and frequencies.
“Selective emission: Real gases (like carbon dioxide or water vapor) only absorb and emit light at specific, narrow wavelength bands matching their molecular quantum states.
“Integration required: To find the total radiation of a gas, you must integrate a modified version of Planck’s law multiplied by the specific frequency-dependent absorption/emission spectrum of that particular gas.”
That is all.
You are just repeating what I’ve already said. I’m glad the Google AI gave you the same information I did.
Gases only absorb/emit at specific wavelengths. They are not black bodies.
Here is what I said about CO2.
“”That means it does not absorb or emit outside those values. It certainly doesn’t absorb/emit the whole spectrum that the earth radiates.””
It appears you selectively overlooked that you stated this in your above post of August 28, 2026 5:25 am :
“Just off the top of my head CO2 at 15 um has an absorptivity/emissivity of 1. At 16 um it has 0.42 and at 17 um it has 0.2. Everywhere else it is <0.2, or pretty much negligible. That means it does not absorb or emit outside those values.”
First, to repeat, physics teaches that gases do NOT have emissivity values.
Second, gaseous CO2 also has major absorption/emission lines at 10.6 microns, 4.3 microns, and 2.7 microns, so your statement “Everywhere else it is <0.2, or pretty much negligible” is just plain false on multiple accounts.
I’m done here.
CO2 Science
“will always be warmer overall than one of comparable size and albedo that does not have an atmosphere”
just flat wrong.
What an off-topic load of handwavium hot air rant.
Earth is cooler with atmosphere/water vapor/30% albedo not warmer.
Agree or disagree and why?
Ubiquitous GHE balance graphics don’t balance and violarer both GAAP and LoT.
Agree or disagree and why?
Kinetic heat transfer processes of contiguous atmospheric molecules render 396 W/m^2 of “extra” energy upwelling from a black body surface impossible.
Agree or disagree and why?
GHE is bogus and CAGW is a scam.
Agree or disagree and why?
Any good Web search engine can be your friend.
Do a search on “Why is the Moon’s average surface temperature lower than Earth’s average surface temperature?”
Beyond mention of the difference in albedo and the length of the day for each body, you’ll find notable mention of the Moon’s lack of an atmosphere.
Now that’s very funny:
1) You apparently didn’t both to read—more importantly if you read, you did not understand—my previous post of August 25, 2026 2:13 pm where I specifically addressed this assertion.
2) Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), as commonly used in the fields of economics and business/financial accounting, are not appropriate for use in physics. Just a few obvious reasons why:
— there are no “capital investments or capital expenses” in GHE physics
— there is nothing equivalent to a rate of “return on investments” (ROI) in GHE physics
— there isn’t any “budget vs. forecast” accounting in GHE physics
— “assets, liabilities and shareholder equity” are not found anywhere in GHE physics
— there is nothing equivalent to a “cash flow statement” in GHE physics
— there is no reporting for things equivalent to changes in equity, retained earnings, stock issuances, and dividends
— there aren’t any periodic reporting and/or auditing requirements in GHE physics.
However, I do admit that “ubiquitous GHE balance graphics” (aka those in the style of Trenberth) do use the basic arithmetical operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division.
Remove the Earth’s atmosphere or even just the GHGs and the Earth becomes much like the Moon, no water vapor or clouds, no ice or snow, no oceans, no vegetation, no 30% albedo becoming a barren rock ball, hot^3 (400 K) on the lit side, cold^3 (100 K) on the dark. At Earth’s distance from the Sun space is hot (394 K) not cold (5 K).
That’s NOT what the RGHE theory says.
EVIDENCE:
RGHE theory says “288 K (15 C) w – 255 K (-18 C) w/o = a 33 C colder ice ball Earth.” 255 K assumes w/o case keeps 30% albedo, an assumption akin to criminal fraud. Nobody agrees 288 K is GMST plus it was 15 C in 1896. 288 K is a physical surface measurement. 255 K is a S-B equilibrium calculation at ToA. Apples and potatoes.
Nikolov “Airless Celestial Bodies”
Kramm “Moon as test bed for Earth”
UCLA Diviner lunar mission data
JWST solar shield (391.7 K)
Sky Lab golden awning
ISS HVAC design for lit side of 250 F. (ISS web site)
Astronaut backpack life support w/ AC and cool water tubing underwear. (Space Discovery Center)
solar 63 + calculated 63 = OLR 63 violates GAAP.
real
160 = 17 + 80 + 63
imaginary
396 = 333 + 2nd 63
396 = more than the 342 ISR violates LoT1
333 “back” violates LoT 2
396 BB/333 “back”/63 2nd net doe snot exist.
“ because the atmosphere blocks some amount of direct radiation of surface LWIR to deep space (~4 K) during both daytime and night,”
The atmosphere does not *block* radiation to space. It only slows the heat loss down. Blockage of radiation implies RETAINED heat in the Earth’s thermodynamic system. If heat were actually being RETAINED the earth would have become a molten rock long ago. Certainly, the ice ages would have never happened even if the sun’s insolation decreased since that “retained” heat would have prevented it.
See the attached image. T^4 is a boundary limit on Tmax so I show both heat loss graphs starting at the same point, Tmax. The heat lost is proportional to the area under the curve. The curve with the slower heat loss rate actually has a higher heat lost than the faster heat loss rate. This is what Planck called “compensation” for reflected heat.
Heat transfer has time as a factor. Flux values that exist over different intervals can’t be directly compared. They have to be integrated over the appropriate intervals in order to get an extensive value that can be compared.
I think part of the problem with climate science and heat transfer is the concept that radiative heat loss is somehow tied to the temperature *difference* between two objects. It isn’t. It’s tied to the absolute temperatures of the two objects. The issue is that the typical equation that is quoted is;
q_net = σε(Th^4 – Tc^4)
The issue is that this assumes the two bodies are trading radiative fluxes all the time with equivalent emissivity’s.
The real equation should be:
Q_net = σϵ_hA_h(∫Th(t)^4 dt) − σϵ_cA_c∫Tc(t)^4 dt)
where the Th(t)^4 integral is from t0=0 to t1=12hrs and the Tc(t)^4 integral is from t0=0 to t2=24hrs
This would be the total joules transferred amount.
σϵT^4 is just basic flux. So let the in and out fluxes be R_i and R_o.
You get Q_net = ∫R_i dt – ∫R_o dt
Neither R_i or R_o are simple. R_i is related to angle of incidence over a 12 hour period and R_o is an exponential decay whose value has R_i as a factor during the day. In essence R_o goes up as R_i drives the daytime temperature up and then turns into full decay at some point. It is *NOT* a simple linear average of maximum and minimum flux rates or some “average” global temperature.
“If heat were actually being RETAINED the earth would have become a molten rock long ago.”
Such a sophomoric statement with little understanding of the physics of thermodynamics of systems with regards to radiation blocking and establishing new equilibriums in response to changes!
For given body that can only lose heat via radiations (ummm, that would be Earth in this case), if one adds a partial radiation shield (say an external solid disk of three pi steradians spherical area, or in Earth’s case a diffuse layer that blocks some 70% to 85% percentage of surface LWIR radiation—yes, actually prevents 75-80% percentage of surface radiation from passing directly to deep space, as is what Earth’s GHG-laden and cloud-populated atmosphere actually does—then the system response is to just increase the overall average temperature of the LWIR radiating body (here, Earth) to achieve an incoming vs. outgoing power flux near-equilibrium under these conditions. Hence, the Earth with a GHG-laden and cloudy atmosphere is currently at a multi-century stable average temperature of about +15 deg-C, whereas it is calculated that it would have a stable equilibrium temperature of about -18°C (0°F) without any atmosphere [source: https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Earth_Temperature_without_GHGs ]
You mistakenly believe that retention of some amount of surface-radiated heat (not all) by the atmosphere automatically leads to runaway, i.e., “molten rock” conditions at Earth’s surface . . . nothing could be further from the truth.
Apparently you, like others, don’t fully appreciate how strong a T^4 dependence affects radiated power (per SB equation), all other factors being equal. That is, umm, unfortunate.
You are the one that claimed heat loss is being blocked leading to heat retention, not me.
CO2 is *not* a radiation shield. Excited CO2 molecules eventually return to a base state. CO2 can delay radiation and redirect radiation but it can’t block it.
Remember, ANY heat reflected back to earth by CO2 is heat that the earth has already lost. Unless CO2 is a perfect reflector it can only return a *part* of the heat it intercepts. That leads to a decaying geometric series of Earth -> CO2 -> (x)Earth -> CO2 -> (x)Earth …..
Where “x” is the fraction of heat that is returned. You get the series aX0 + a^2X0 + a^3X0 ….. Factor out the X0 and you get X0 (a + a^2 + a^3 ….)
The terms go to zero as the number of reflections increases. Sooner or later all that X0 winds up leaving the Earth/CO2 system. I.e. all the heat the Earth sends out winds up going out.
The only way to short circuit this heat loss is if CO2 holds on to the energy by remaining in an excited state, i.e. RETAINED HEAT, or if the Earth permanently retains the reflected heat by some unknown method. If the earth eventually radiates away the reflected heat then it can’t cause a permanent rise in Earth’s average temperature.
That’s not a sufficient condition. Heat loss is a time function. There is no requirement that heat lost by the earth gets to space immediately, it just has to eventually get there.
Climate science also makes this error. X0 in the series above is heat loss. That means the temperature of the earth goes down proportionally to X0. Returning part of X0 back to earth doesn’t raise its temperature back to where it was BEFORE it lost X0, it only keeps it from cooling as fast. Therefore the average temperature can *not* go up. The only way to raise the average would be if the earth gets back MORE than X0.
Climate science likes to say that if temperature goes from 200K to 190K instead of 200k to 180K that the earth has warmed and the average temperature has gone up. Neither is true. THE EARTH COOLED. It cooled from 200K to 190K. The average temperature went *down*, not up. It did *not* go from 200k to 210K from reflected heat from CO2, i.e. the average temperature did not go up. The average went down, just not as fast.
One thing that also gets missed is that the Earth would radiate heat at a higher rate at 190K than at 180K. That is Planck’s “compensation” for the reflected heat. It’s why the integral of the slower temperature decay is larger than that of the faster temperature decay.
That is *NOT* what I believe. That is what *YOU* are proposing by saying that the Earth biosphere retains heat resulting in a higher average temperature.
The issue is that if *some* of the heat initially radiated by the earth escapes to space then it *all* will eventually escape unless some unknown process results in some of the heat being permanently retained either in CO2 or in the earth.
If earth RETAINS heat permanently then its temperature *will* go up and up and up and up and up and …. ad infinitum.
It’s up to you to show how the earth going from 200K to 190K instead of from 200K to 180K is *raising* the average temperature of the earth. If you want to say that CO2 will cause the earth to go from 200K to 210K then you’ll have to show where the heat that will cause that rise comes from because it sure ain’t from CO2!
Wait! Wait!
Blinding flash!!
I just realized.
A heat pump is the epitome of a “back” radiator!
Still needs a power cord.
“q_net = σε(Th^4 – Tc^4)”
This is not the net between two h &c systems since there is only 1 A. It is the energy the refrigeration loop must remove (aka work) from that singular area to change it from Th to Tc.
Refer to any HVAC cond h/evap c loop.
Energy is not “retained” it is balanced. More Q means hotter Th. This describes the insulated walls of a house, etc.
Two As
Qh = σ ϵh Ah Th^4
Qc = σ ϵc Ac Tc^4
Qh – Qc = σ ((ϵh Ah Th^4) – (ϵc Ac Tc^4))
Ass-u-me ϵh = ϵc = 1 & Ah = Ac = A
Qdiff/A = σ (Th^4 – Tc^4)
Th & Tc each reference absolute zero not each other.
If “net” radiation existed there would be refrigerators w/o power cords.
Seen any?
Me neither.
“net”, “back”, “radiative forcing” are simply crap handwavium concepts & explanations for crap GHE theory crapped out of some heavily papered PhD butt.
See caloric, phlogiston, luminiferous ether, et al.
TFK_bams09 396 BB up/333 “back”/63 net = crap^2
There are Celsius units on the Celsius scale & there are Celsius units on the Kelvin scale. There is no such thang as a unit Kelvin or Kelvins.
(Th^4 – Tc^4) is RADIATIVE heat transfer.
For a refrigerator you are speaking primarily of conduction which is based on (Th – Tc).
For instance, refrigerator works by putting the coolant through an orifice where the coolant expands turning from liquid to vapor, pressure goes down, volume goes up, closely resembling an isothermal process (latent heat absorption). The coolant absorbs heat from the surroundings via conduction through the walls of the tubing in which the orifice exists.
The heat transferred is from Th inside the refrig (the outside of the tubing) to Tc (the inside of the tubing).
(Th – Tc)
You can say there is an energy balance but the balance must include the work done by the compressor. Work is done by the compressor in changing the coolant from a high temp vapor to a higher temp liquid which is then run through a radiator (evaporator) to cool the liquid by transferring the heat to the surroundings.
Basically Q_rate = m_rate(h2 – h1) + W_rate
(h is enthalpy) (m is mass)
It all gets very complicated INSIDE the system we know as earth. For instance, water vapor gains potential energy as work is done against it in order to raise it higher in altitude because of gravity (convection).
It is much simpler to look at the boundary where only radiation takes place – i.e. to space.
It then becomes pretty simple to analyze on a word basis instead of math.
You have radiation in from the sun (plus an insignificant amount from the planets as well as mass from space). You have radiation out. And you have retained heat.
Case 1. Radiation in = Radiation out, equilibrium. Since radiation is a time function, the RATE of radiation in doesn’t have to be the same as the RATE of radiation out. You will still have equilibrium as measured in joules (heat).
Case 2: Radiation in > Radiation-out. Temperature of the object radiating out will rise until its rate out is the same as rate in, equilibrium.
Case 3: Radiation out > Radiation in. The object radiating out cools. It will cool until the rate out equals the rate in, equilibrium.
Climate science claims the earth-sun is in Case 2. Radiation in is more than radiation out. The issue is that they can’t MEASURE the difference with enough resolution to overcome the measurement uncertainty. We don’t *know* if Case 2 exists or not. So they look for something they can claim reduces the amount of radiation out – and settled on CO2. Note carefully that I said “amount”, not “rate”.
In order to reduce the amount of radiation out, some of the heat in has to be blocked from escaping in some manner so as to cause “retained” heat in the receiving object. The issue here is that CO2 only *slows* the rate of heat loss, it doesn’t block it. The slowed heat doesn’t cause the average temperature of the earth to rise because it isn’t blocked and retained.
Since CO2 slows the heat loss by acting as a reflector, it doesn’t even lessen the radiation of heat to space, it INCREASES it. We should see the “average” radiation out from the earth go up.
Yet climate science says the radiation from the earth has gone down! That means retained heat somewhere in the system. Either that retained heat is eventually released to space or the earth becomes a molten ball. If it is eventually released to space then the *long-term* condition is equilibrium, i.e. joules-in = joules-out. It becomes a matter of how long the process takes. The climate models don’t give an answer because they are trained on a short-term piece of the long-term process.
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.
EVIDENCE:
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
CONCLUSION:
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or mankind/CO2 driven climate change.
If you do not understand emissivity, you cannot explain radiative transfer. SURFRAD & USCRN treat Erath as BB and that is flat wrong.
See TFK_bams09
Emissivity 1: radiation from system / all energy = 63/160=0.39′
Use this for mass/energy calculations.
Emissivity 2: radiation from system / radiation were system a BB at temp of 16 C = 63/396=0.16. This needed to correct IR instruments that are calibrated to see all targets as BB.
Heat moves out of any system (heat = energy in motion) thus:
Conduction (simple contact) + Convection (natural due to density) + Advection (mechanically forced) + Latent (evaporation & condensation) + Radiation = 100%
Emissivity = Radiation/100%.
Temperature is a function of those four kinetic molecular processes.
Radiation is a function of temperature therefore the kinetic processes.
If one or several of the kinetic processes increases temperature will decrease as will radiation and vice versa.
Yes, they are additive & subtractative.
As demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
A BB can exist only in a vacuum with zero kinetic processes, i.e. not Earth.
Technically a BB can be surrounded by an isothermal medium and remain a BB since no internal or surface gradients would be introduced into the BB. The temperature curve over time would be changed due to other heat loss mechanisms such as conduction but the radiation from the BB would still be based on the surface temperature of the BB at any point in time. Planck and S-B are state equations, not time functions. They depend only on the instantaneous temperature of the BB at any point in time.
If the surrounding medium is *NOT* isothermal then it will introduce temperature gradients into the surface of the BB (and perhaps internally) which will render it no longer a BB (which must have an isothermal surface with isotropic radiation).
If the surface is not isothermal then you will have a temperature function of T_A(x) for the surface. So the total power radiated would be ∫σε_AT_A(x)^4 dA. The effective temperature would then be
T_eff^4 = (1/A) ∫ T_A(x)^4 dA
Note, there won’t be a T_eff that will reproduce the whole spectrum because of the non-linearity of T_A(x) and T_A(x)^4. Nor is T_eff the arithmetic mean of the temperatures because of the T^4 factor.
When climate science and its supporters say that incoming and outgoing flux must balance and that there is a 4 W/m^2 difference my jaw drops. They simply cannot have actually measured outgoing radiation at the same intensity as the incoming radiation. NOT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE! And if they just arithmetically averaged a bunch of calculated (not measured) temperature values based off radiance and are using the mean to determine an average radiation value then it’s just plain wrong. I’d love to see their T_A(x) function used to find a weighted mean but I’ve never seen any such function in the literature. Maybe I’ve just been looking in the wrong spot.
I have read and appreciate the numerous posts of yours on this website. Your arguments are supported by facts and data. I believe you take the right approach. There are others who have profited immensely from scaremongering and deceit. They shall burn in Hell, if you believe in that sort of thing.
wrong question.
how can you not believe in human caused global warming? every time i flick my bic or start my 8 cylinder i heat the air around it.
the question should be, “is it significant, or is what we are seeing natural variability”
UHI, asphalt, etc., are human contributions.
8 billion people needed energy, industry, etc. are human contributions.
The question is not if. The question is how much.
Update: or how little.
Well, is this a “wrong” or “right” question: When I open the door on my refrigerator and let the cold air inside “escape”, am I cooling or heating the atmosphere?
That is, would such action be considered as contributing to global warming or to global cooling?
And yes, please consider what’s needed to make the air inside the refrigerator cooler than ambient.
“”That is, would such action be considered as contributing to global warming or to global cooling?””
Simple answer. You have added work to do the cooling from ambient. The result of that work is added to ambient. When you open the door, the air in the fridge will return to the new ambient. All you have done is add energy into the system thereby warming the ambient. Think of it as UHI.
So, is the conclusion, relevant to this thread, that things are not always as they first appear?
(Thank you.)
it would actually appear that you don’t want humanity to have refrigeration either?
Hmmm . . . “either”? So, what was the other thing that you assert I didn’t want humanity to have?
ROTFL.
a shrinking desert surface area and increasing grain yields, for starters
Ummm . . . that’s two things, not one. Besides which, I never mentioned either “desert surface area” or “grain yields” in any comment I posted under this article.
Having troubles with English and comprehension, are we? /sarc
Refrigerators generate net heat. Less heat inside (evaporation in coils), more heat outside (condensation in compressor). The energy source is often a far-away electric generator fueled by burning carbon.
well, considering that refrigerators don’t create “cold”. they simply move heat from inside the box to outside the box, the obvious answer is that they ALWAYS heat the environment, regardless of you occasionally opening the door.
Gosh, now that IS simple!
And all along I was led to believe that an input of additional energy was needed to move heat from a cold space to a warmer space . . . something to do with Second Law of Thermodynamics, I believe. But maybe that been revoked and didn’t hear about it.
You can believe in chairs or you just accept that they exist. Do you believe you are sitting on a chair or are you sitting on a chair?
The temp data says we are warming. You can “believe” that, or accept it. But we are warming, whatever your beliefs.
And the only big and real change is in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. You can “believe” that, or accept it. But we are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere and it’s causing the warming.
I can’t see that belief has anything to do with it.
“And the only big and real change is in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere”
That is just a load of malinformation.
CO2 does nothing to warm the atmosphere. There is no evidence that it does.
The real change has been the amount of absorbed solar radiation due to cloud changes.
.
“The real change has been the amount of absorbed solar radiation due to cloud changes”
No, that is not the start of the path of causation.
That starts with whatever has caused cloud amounts to decrease.
And it isn’t sulphate aerosols because then you have to go back even further and ask if that were the case then what is the cause of the imbalance that the aerosols suppressed.
And of course the atmospheric aerosol content comes from human fossil carbon burning in any case.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037527
”Instead the main warming from an energy budget standpoint comes from increases in absorbed solar radiation that stem directly from the decreasing cloud amounts.”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4250165/
”However, climate models forced with CO2 reveal that global energy accumulation is, instead, primarily caused by an increase in absorbed solar radiation (ASR). This study resolves this apparent paradox. The solution is in the climate feedbacks that increase ASR with warming—the moistening of the atmosphere and the reduction of snow and sea ice cover. Observations and model simulations suggest that even though global warming is set into motion by greenhouse gases that reduce OLR, it is ultimately sustained by the climate feedbacks that enhance ASR.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-how-declining-cloudiness-is-accelerating-global-warming
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/26/4153/2026/
Carbon breifs = The lead climate scammers. !
Apart from the Met Office, of course.. !
“climate models forced with CO2 “
“and model simulations suggest ”
OK ! real séance then.
“gases that reduce OLR”
Except OLR has been increasing.
From the “Global warming due to increasing absorbed solar radiation by Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo”
“While there is a large increase in the greenhouse effect from increasing greenhouse gases and water vapor (as a feedback), this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures.“
IE reduced low cloud also increases LWIR to space.
IE: By SB, higher surface temps also increase LWIR to space.
Feedbacks from ASR!
AB, that paper shows clouds increasing in the latter half of the 21st century as a result of significant warming. Sorry, it doesn’t explain anything happening over the past 30 years. Natural cycles do.
“ this is offset to a large degree by a decreasing greenhouse effect from reducing cloud cover and increasing radiative emissions from higher temperatures.“”
“Increasing radiative emissions from SLOWER COOLING” is the compensation effect Planck discusses.
The greenhouse effect is *reflected* heat. The only thing it can cause is higher Tmin values as a result of slower cooling.
It simply doesn’t matter what anyone “believes”. The fact is that CO2 is *NOT* an energy producer, it is a passive reflector at best. CO2 can *NOT* add energy into the system and cause an increasing temperature.
CO2 can SLOW the cooling of the earth to space but it cannot push the earth back up the temperature gradient to a hotter temperature. In fact, that slower cooling induces a HIGHER rate of heat loss over time than would happen if the reflection did not occur. It’s what Planck called “compensation” for reflected heat.
Any heat that CO2 reflects back to the earth has already been LOST by the earth. Somehow that prior heat LOSS always gets lost in the shuffle. And since CO2 is not a “perfect” reflector, it can’t even change the long term equilibrium temperature of the earth, it can only change how long it takes to reach the long-term equilibrium.
The *only* thing that can cause the Earth to go UP the temperature gradient is more heat. More heat implies something has happened to get more heat from the sun into the Earth. Since the heat that gets through to earth is basically I_(absorbed) = I_0 – I_(reflected), in order for I_a to go up I_r has to go down, I_0 has to go up, or a combination of the two.
Forget the CO2 greenhouse effect as an additive heat source, IT ISN’T. The question is whether CO2 has affected I_reflected in an amount sufficient to be measured and differentiated from natural variation. I have yet to see anything from climate science that has 1. identified how CO2 has changed I_r and, 2. how identified how much CO2 has changed I_r. (note-if you don’t know 1. then you can’t know 2. either)
AB, the cloud changes we have seen have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. There have been at least two causes. The biggest change occurred at the transition from the 60-70 year cycle back in the mid 90s. That has led to most of our warming over the past 30 years. The Hunga-Tonga eruption also was followed by another cloud change.
One can also argue the PDO works with the 60-70 year cycle by varying cloudiness.
There you have it. All the warming over the past ~ 30 years explained to you. Now you no longer need to believe in fairy tales.
Then look here:
From what else you write, obviously pointless for you – but there are others reading ….
“Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Feedback Signatures Identified in Hyperspectral Infrared Satellite Observations
Abstract
Global greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks are the primary causes of climate change but have limited direct observations. Here we show that continuous, stable, global, hyperspectral infrared satellite measurements (2003–2021) display decreases in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in the CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands and increases in OLR in the window band and H2O absorption bands. By conducting global line-by-line radiative transfer simulations with 2003–2021 meteorological conditions, we show that increases in CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations caused an instantaneous radiative forcing and stratospheric cooling adjustment that decreased OLR. The climate response, comprising surface and atmospheric feedbacks to radiative forcings and unforced variability, increased OLR. The spectral trends predicted by our climate change experiments using our general circulation model identify three bedrock principles of the physics of climate change in the satellite record: an increasing greenhouse effect, stratospheric cooling, and surface-tropospheric warming.”
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/launching-a-second-scientific-revolution/
CO2 is a gas. As such it only intercepts a small portion of the Planck curve emissions. It also emits only a small amount of radiation in all directions in a small section of the Planck curve that a black body at its temperature would radiate.
You can’t estimate the power or flux using the SB equation because that equation is the result of integrating the black body Planck law over the entire emission spectrum in all directions. One needs to use the Planck law evaluated at 15 um and a given temperature to determine the power radiated. The power in the “lobes” must use the same law with an emission factor relating a reduction as you move away from 15 um.
See my reply to Richard M above – a study using observed LWIR from the AIRS satellite, that was able to separate the radiances from GHGs from that of WV, making your criticism redundant.
And also reveals Stratospheric cooling response – something that can only happen under the GHE.
“Global-mean spectral climatology and trends during 2003–2021. (a) Time-mean spectral outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) fluxes. (b) Time series of CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands in AIRS channels. Dashed lines indicate trends. These trend values are plotted in (c). (c) Trends in spectral OLR fluxes. Uncertainties given by the gray envelope that denotes a 95% CI. (d) Same as (c) but for clear-sky. Positive indicates more emission (cooling the planet) and vice-versa.”
AIRS still uses a MODEL to compensate for path loss since it has to way to actually measure path loss per measurement. Thus its conversion from measured radiance to temperature has uncertainty. The question is whether that uncertainty overwhelms the differences that are being attempted to identify. Clouds, surface emissivity, and atmospheric “contaminants” are major factors contributing to the uncertainty. The grey bands shown on the graph are what exactly? Are they an SEM quantity based on σ/sqrt(n)? Or are they a true measurement uncertainty determined from a measurement uncertainty budget? Do you even know? Or are they a regression uncertainty (i.e. best fit errors) from the trend line? Do you know? Is the trend line considered to be 100% accurate?
However, the amount we are supposedly putting into the air is negligible compared to the seasonal variation in biogenic CO2. The sinks can’t tell the difference between biogenic and anthropogenic sources and draws each of them down in proportion to their relative abundance. Thus, just as anthro’ contributions are minor, so are the draw-downs. Humans are a minor player.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/22/anthropogenic-co2-and-the-expected-results-from-eliminating-it/
but, Its not a big change at all , the human CO2 contribution of the increase in total atmospheric Co2 is miniscule and the DEMAND that it has to be CO2 because what else could it be is frankly ridiculous and unscientific.
Further, Your ridiculous analogy sucks. Unlike an invisible trace gas, a chair is visible, tactile and completely measurable, Nor does a chair interact with the surrounding atmosphere. therefore it’s easy to believe in chairs, but believing in the singular catastrophic warming capability of a trace gas as opposed to a myriad of other influences, requires very much more proven information/ data.
Personally, i think everyone agrees the planet is warming slowly. Humans must have some influence, but not much, Energy requirements are growing constantly, no-one will accept regressing to caves, the world still has nations to be uplifted out of poverty, AI energy demands appear certain, wars still rage atm delivering masses of assorted chemicals and pollutants into the atmosphere and nothing can be done to halt these things.. so the only way forward is through MITIGATION when and where required.. mitigation requires healthy 1st world economies.
The way forward is clear if we could only stop the scaremongering BS and focus on preparing for the future. Clearly intermittent birdkilling windmills and solar panels are not going to do the job..
AIMO.
Believing in “CO2 warming” is more akin to believing the Easter Bunny is evil, or the boogieman under the bed.
“Personally, i think everyone agrees the planet is warming slowly.”
Nah, I believe it is still cooling. CO2 is not a heat source. Nothing passive in the atmosphere is a heat source, the sky is *not* burning. The earth may be cooling at a slower rate than at other times, but it is still cooling.
What I believe is that natural variation explains it all. You can’t take a 30 year interval on a sinusoidal variation with a period of at least 100 years and more likely centuries or millennia, and say that the Earth is warming unexpectedly because of a minor gas in the atmosphere. That’s just ignoring the “t” in T = f(t,a,b,c,….) where f(t,a,b,c,…..) is a cyclical function.
Climate science likes to use the meme “all measurement uncertainty is random, Gaussian, and cancels” as a justification for using the SEM = s/sqrt(n) as the uncertainty in their calculation of the Global Average Temperature. They ignore the fact that it should be s/sqrt(n_effective) where n_eff << n due to all of the data being highly autocorrelated, highly spatially correlated, and highly temporally correlated. They even tout their infilling and homogenization algorithms as making the GAT *more* accurate when all that actually happens is that n_eff gets even smaller due to the increased correlation between the data elements. I haven’t calculated it all the way out but my guess is that the SEM is actually so large that the difference in temperatures climate science is trying to identify is inside the uncertainty value of the SEM – i.e. it’s hidden in the Great Unknown.
I think you are right :Everyone can agree the temperatures have been gently warming.
Everyone could have similarly agreed the temperatures were gently warming during the period from 1910 to 1940, because the temperatures were gently warming and were doing so at the same magnitude as the current warming, according to Phil Jones.
What happened after the warming of the 1930’s? Answer: The temperatures cooled by over 2.0C from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, prompting Stephen Schneider to claim that a new ice age might be coming as the lows of the 1970’s were comparable to the lows of the turn of the century.
What’s happening now? Well, since the temperature high point of early 2024, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.5C.
So don’t be too sure that CO2 is driving temperatures. CO2 concentrations were increasing all through the period from the 1940’s to the 1970’s, yet the temperatures cooled by over 2.0C, and CO2 levels continue to increase today, yet the temperatures are cooling again.
“What happened after the warming of the 1930’s? Answer: The temperatures cooled by over 2.0C from the 1940’s to the 1970’s,”
Yes they did as it was indeed caused by NV …. however the GH forcing of CO2 was small (~0.6W/m^2) and it thus was able to ….
Now look at the solid black line top right!
And the cooling up to the 70’s was via increased atmos. aerosols emitted by ramped-up industry during and after WW2, with a warming once clean-air acts came in after as CO2 increased and overcame the -ve forcing of sulphates.
IOW: the same conditions as pertained in the 30/40’s don’t now.
Lol.
It’s pure speculation, as are all things having to do with human-caused global warming/climate change.
Or it is just needle chatter.
Utter nonsense. Warming and cooling cycles over short timescales have occurred dozens of times without any noticeable changes in CO2. Why should the current recovery from the Little Ice Age not be entirely natural?
GMST warming is +0.017 C/y, UAH.
Imaginary.
GMST is imaginary, yes.
pure rubbish. more houses. more roads. bigger cities. smaller wild spaces. that means more urban heat island effect
Simple. CO2 is unable to create energy.
Have some catnip, kitty.
I am laughing at you.
Mr. Mass, do you think (not believe) that the inferred warming of the earth from the end of the Maunder Minimum to the late 1800’s (before purported influences of human activity on atmospheric CO2 levels) which is thought to be similar to the extent of warming since the late 1800’s at the very least should cast doubt on your “view” (why aren’t human beings allowed to think anymore…?) that most of that warming is due to “humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions?”
You should ask that on his blog. He won’t answer here.
I hope tat is not the case. I have a question for him.
Then you should post it on his blog. I’ve never see Mass post here.
I think one problem a lot of people have is a lack of perspective because they haven’t lived long enough.
This current cyclical upturn is all they know. They don’t know about cyclical downturns.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
On balance, I would say increasing CO2 is a benefit. Making the case that there’s a down side to more CO2 in the air requires . . . What was that famous quote From Dr. Stephen Schneider?
“We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”
And once again:
1. More rain is not a problem.
2. Warmer weather is not a problem.
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
The only problem is climate policy, some well known quotes say:
‘The Pandemic Remade Every Corner of Society. Now It’s the Climate’s Turn” Time Magazine
“We Must start Planning for a Permanent Pandemic” Andreas Kluth Bloomberg Opinion
“Shutting down the whole economy is the only way of limiting global warming to 2°C” Yvo de Boer head of the UNFCCC
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. George Soros
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” – Christiana Figueres, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary
“We’ve got to go straight to the heart of capitalism and overthrow it.” George Monbiot
Great post thanks.
The scale pf the deception and the agents involved sponsored by UN one world order fanatics is worrying.
They will never stop their crusade to destroy democracy and individual freedom.
Why these wreckers of stable society imagine destroying wealth is going to improve global equality I do not understand and I do not understand why they imagine they will be exempted from the chaos they champion.
They won’t be exempted-the problem children always get shot when the changeover is finished. If they knew their history they would know that, but this time it will be different, right?
When Stephen Schneider was trying to find the right balance between being effective and being honest, was he talking about the time in the 1970’s, where he was claiming humans were causing the cooling of the time and the Earth might possibly be entering a new ice age, or was he talking about how he reversed course and declared that human were causing the temperatures to rise when they started rising in the 1980’s?
Stephen Schneider declared that humans were causing the cooling of the 1940’s to the 1970’s, and then when temperatures started warming up after the 1970’s, he declared that humans were causing this warming. The guy was all over the place.
So I guess it is no surprise that Cliff Mass thinks humans are causing the current warming. There is no evidence for this, Cliff. It’s pure speculation and has been for 50 years. Nothing has changed. There is no new information supporting human-caused climate change, although there is new information disputing it.
Correction:
human-caused global warming is a modest problem AT WORST.
Believe is religion.
Thjink is opinion.
Know is science.
Here is what I know.
You?
GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature would be 288 K or 15 C, while without it GMST would be 255 K or -18 C, a difference of 33 C (not K) and Earth would become a -18 C ball of ice.
That is simply wrong.
There is no consensus that 288 K is the GMST & 255 K is the result of a 30% albedo also no consensus. GMST was 15 C in Arrhenius’ 1896 paper (walked back in 1906) and no GHE means no 30% albedo. Without GreenHouse Gas water vapor there is no GHE and Earth would become much like the Moon, barren, 400 K lit side, 100 K dark.
The GHE energy balance graphic found in TFK_bams09 and a plethora of clones does not in fact balance and violates both 1st & 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
The kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” surface energy upwelling as a calculated 396 W/m^2 black body impossible. 396 fills the denominator of the emissivity ratio: 63/396=0.16.
The GHE is failed science like caloric and phlogiston and Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Global Warming a fear mongering political and social power grab.
Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ‘78
From Google AI:
In the context of climate science, “TFK_bams09” is a shorthand citation for a highly influential peer-reviewed scientific paper on the Earth’s global energy budget. When you see it referenced next to climate graphs or diagrams, it is citing the specific source of data used to map out the arrows of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation
Thanks.
And it & clones are egregious crap. Look for my previous marked up copies. Anthony is tired of my posting them and cut me off.
BTW, why do I persist? (Nevertheless he persisted.)
I am widely banned, cancelled and censored and that would not happen were I actually wrong. They fear I am correct. (I am.)
PS
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.
EVIDENCE:
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
Heat energy transfers three ways, radiation, conduction, convection and latent heat Oops that’s four. However many ways it does, climate science seems to only consider radiation. Probably because that’s the only way that planets cool. Anyway TFKbams09 is pretty strange and deserved some clarification if it was Trenberth’s initials backwards or a typo of some sort.
Are you lumping advection in with convection?
I was trying to think of advection and I just got lazy and went with what I had. Thanks for coming up with the word (-:
Yes.
EMR entering = Reflected + Absorbed + Transmitted = 100%
Emissivity = absorbed/100%
OLR leaving = Conduction + Convection + Advection (forced, fanned) + Latent (evap & cond) + Radiant = 100%
Emissivity 1 = Radiant/100% = 63/160=0.39. Use this for mass/energy calcs.
IR instruments do not measure power flux directly. They are calibrated assuming the target is BB.
Emissivity 2 = IR leaving 63/IR leaving were it a BB at 16 C or 396.
Calculated & not real.
Could somone please provide the full attribution for TFK_bams09? Thank you.
In my best Skippy Peanut Butter “You Ask For It” imitation:
Google AI says:
“TFK_bams09” is the standard file name and academic shorthand citation for the peer-reviewed scientific paper: “Earth’s Global Energy Budget“.
The abbreviation breaks down as follows: TFK: The authors—Kevin E. Trenberth, John M. Fasullo, and Jeffrey T. Kiehl. bams: The journal—Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS).09: The publication year—2009.
And here is Trenberth’s famous chart from 1997:
______________________________________________________________________________
If you add up the numbers on the chart, they balance ie., radiation in equals radiation out. And if you think about it, that means no global warming will occur. So (and it’s my opinion) Trenberth revised his chart to show the needed imbalance of 0.9 W/m² as follows:
161 = .9 + 17 + 80 + solar 63
396 = 333 + calculated 63.
Does not balance. Solar 63 is mia.
396/333/63 is imaginary.
Remove it from the graphic and now it balances.
While I’m at it:
Trenbeth’s “Global Energy Budget” was updated March 2009 to show an imbalance of 0.9w/M² I wonder how that came about, might have gone something like this:
Once upon a time on a bright sunny morning a few years back, Dr. James Hansen was looking at Kevin Trenberth’s iconic “World Energy Budget”
when he choked on his morning coffee because he realized that the darn thing balanced. That’s right, energy in equaled energy out. You see, he’s been saying for some time now that heat energy is slowly building up in Earth’s climate system and that’s not going to happen if the energy budget is balanced.
So he did some fast calculations, snatched up his cell phone and punched in Trenberth’s number.
“Hi Kev, Hansen here, how’s it goin’ with you? Got a minute?”
“Sure Doc, what’s up?”
“Glad you asked. I’ve been looking at your energy budget and it balances, can you fix that?”
“What do you mean fix it, it’s supposed to balance?”
“Kev, listen carefully now, if it balances, heat will never build up in the system do you see where I’m going?”
“Uh I’m not sure, can you tell me a little more?”
“Come on Kev don’t you get it? I need heat to build up in the system. My papers say that heat is in the pipeline, there’s a slow feedback, there’s an imbalance between radiation in and radiation out. Your Energy Budget diagram says it balances. Do you understand now?”
“Gotcha Doc, I’ll get right on it” [starts to hang up the phone]
“WAIT! I need an imbalance of point nine Watts per square meter [0.9 Wm²] for everything to work out right.”
“Uh Doc, what if it doesn’t come out to that?”
“Jeez Kev! Just stick it in there. Run up some of the numbers for back-radiation so it looks like an update, glitz up the graphics a little and come up with some gobbledygook of why you re-did the chart you know how to do that sort of thing don’t you?”
“Sure do Doc, consider it done” [click]
I’ve run the numbers, and 0.9 Wm² will warm the ocean 600 meters deep about 1/2°C in a little over 40 years. Truly amazing stuff. The noon-day sun puts out nearly 1370 wm² and these guys are claiming they’ve added up all the chaotic movements of heat over the entire planet and have determined an imbalance of 0.9 Wm². That’s significance to five? four places. No plus or minus error bars or anything.
What it means is, all of the components
Reflected by clouds, Reflected by aerosols, Reflected by atmospheric gases, Reflected by surface, Absorbed by the surface, Absorbed by the atmosphere, Thermals, Evaporation, Transpiration, Latent heat, Emitted by clouds, Emitted by atmosphere, Atmospheric Window, AND Back radiation!
need to be significant to those five? four places or better for the 0.9 Wm² to be true.
Perhaps Hansen didn’t ring up Trenberth and bully him into changing his chart but, Trenberth did change it to show an imbalance and I bet he did so because he realized that if it balanced like his 1997 version, heat wouldn’t build up.
And we all are supposed to sit still for this sort of thing.
356 – 333 = 23 + 40 = 63. Table for one not two.
Trenberth refuses to engage anyone denying GHE, i.e. me.
Now we see why.
“Pay no mind to that man behind the curtain.”
Trenberth 2011jcli24
8 versions of the graphic.
7 said cooling, 1 said warming.
Guess who?
Beautiful! I laughed a lot at the scene you created! I can see that happening.
what’s Trenbeth’s reason for the update?
Well, no, it does have to balance. Any imbalance is transient.
Q = U (atmos) A (Tsurf – Ttoa)
If Q increases, Tsurf increases. (Ttoa is fixed, -60 F)
If R, 1/U, increases (insulation), Tsurf increases. Warmer house for same Q.
If A increases (fins) Tsurf decreases. Radiator, HVAC exchangers, etc.
It’s that easy (button).
You are a very good detective, Steve. 🙂
“They fear I am correct. (I am.)”
I think it’s much more likely they get tired of seeing your same BS over and over and over…
Y’all dismiss me as a crank but do not refute my points. My BSME and decades of experience warrant better than that.
earthsenergybudget_tre.pdf
Trenberth pulls the 396 out of his S-B hocus pocus butt on page 315.
“Know” is NOT science…
“GreenHouse Effect theory says with it Earth’s Global Mean Surface Temperature would be…”
You can stop right there! Any “theory” that attempts to assign value to a calculation of GMST (or GAT) has as much scientific utility in a study of climate as a calculation of the “average” color of the flags at the UN. You might, by assigning wavelengths to the proportions of red, white and blue, determine the light shade of purple that is the “average” of Old Glory, or even go on to calculate how much this would change with the addition of another star- to the nearest micronanometer. But you could not then go on to claim that the size, fabric, or durability of the flag has thus been destroyed. No more can it be asserted that a minuscule (0.01 K) in GMST per decade spells doom for us all, when it is temperature range, not average, (plus numerous other factors) that describes “climate”, local and regional.
There is no balance in radiative flux-in and radiative flux-out. There CAN’T BE.
Radiative flux-in happens over an approximate interval of 12 hours. Radiative flux-out happens over an approximate interval of 24 hours. If the flux values were the same the Earth would lose twice as much heat as it gets in from sun.
So how did they come up with the balance values in the first place? The only method I know of to do that would be to normalize both to a common time interval. BUT that would require integrating flux-in over 12 hours to get the total joules-in and integrating flux-out over 24 hours to get the total joules-out.
Then you would divide both joule totals by the same time interval to get a common rate. WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT WHEN JOULES-IN AND JOULES-OUT WILL TELL YOU THE BALANCE?
My copy of the Trenberth diagram shows 240 W/m^2 incoming and 239 W/m^2 outgoing. Think about it. 240 joules/sec * 43200 secs/12hrs = 10,368,000 joules/day. 239 joules/sec * 86400 sec/day = 20,649,000 joules/day.
Does 10,368,000 joules-in balance with 20,649,000 joules-out per day?
Measurement uncertainty in the actual radiative flux is about 4W/m^2. How does one identify a difference of 1 W/m^2 (240-239) with a measurement uncertainty of 4 W/m^2? That tells me that these are just *guesses* based on models and assumptions and not measurable facts.
Very good Tom. I always was struck how equating sunshine that can do work with IR that can’t was realistic.
Nice picture, I’ve seen that phenomenon my black top driveway
but not on the lawn.
The sun heats the surface, the surface heats the air.
The sun heats the surface, yes, but to be clear it is primarily the ocean which is relatively flat and much lesser the land with is not flat in a lot of places.
Angle of incidence affects how much solar energy inputs the surface.
396 BB/333 back/63 duplicate net is a fantasy.
The earth received sun light 24/7
Each point on earth receives insolation as a sinusoid from 0 to pi. The maximum at point is ~1365 W/m². The amount absorbed is based upon the angle of incidence. At an angle of 90° at the equator, the average is ~0.64*1365 with no other factors like albedo and clouds/. Each point will receive this amount from sunrise to sunset.
An estimate would be 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of nighttime. In reality orbital variances change the times through the year. Doing the trig calculations get complicated as the angles are in constant motion.
The flat earth model you have seen where a “24 hour” average is calculated is a joke.
Download this meteorology textbook it is free. Read Chapter 2
Practical Meteorology, Dr. Roland Stull, Univ. Of British Columbia
https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/books/Practical_Meteorology/
The insolation received in Bejing is not received in New York. If the entire earth was bathed in the sun’s insolation at the same time your statement would be true. The temperature of each point on the surface is based on the insolation it receives, not the insolation a point on the earth 180° of longitude away.
Indeed. ALWAYS state the error margins/ uncertainty levels.
Trouble is, if you fix the numbers too narrow yr equations/ calculations will come out…correct but that does not mean it cohers with reality. For some that is not a bug but a feature. Well, focusing on ‘temperature’ alone climate natural variability is such that it rather interferes w the fixed numbers paradigm. Leaving ‘temperature’ alone the equally fixed energy budget can be manipulated to state a desired endpoint, if one wishes..and one often does. They claim it is..science. see, fixed numbers and outcomes!
I would want a solid definition of what they mean by both “global warming” and “climate change” before I answered that question.
Humans have made big changes to temperatures in urban regions.. but that is NOT “global warming”
Some have also made large changes to measured data and have just made up data for much of the globe… but that is NOT “global warming”
Climate is always changable, as is weather.. its part of the NATURAL planet.
Currently we are in a cooler period of the Holocene, not much above the coldest period in 10,000 years.
ClimateS ARE always changeable.
Fixed it for ya.
(There are hundreds, if not thousands of distinct climates all around the globe.
All doing their own things, in their own styles, according to the locality influences on the their behaviors.
Including urbanization effects.)
Another weather man posing as a climate scientist who still believes in the man caused warming due to use of fossil fuel since the Industrial Revolution.
This is his expression of faith. He presents no evidence from data.
”expression of faith”. Is a good way to put it.
I’d be a little careful with using “no evidence”. Even Dr. Happer shows CO2 will absorb more energy into the atmosphere as the concentration increases. His data comes from radiation physics.
IMO, the problem comes from selective choices of evidence. Both Dr. William Gray and Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi have shown that as CO2 increases, the absorption of energy by water vapor decreases. The net result is little/no warming. Their views are also supported by physics and data.
So, just like with the alarmists who post here, it all comes down to choice. In that sense, “belief” is part of the equation.
Well, he’s wrong.
Force fed made up stuff to fit narrative.
“The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor”
How about
“The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans MAY BE a major contributor”?
So far as I can see, the earth’s temperature trajectory remains statistically indistinguishable from that of a planet emerging, with what ought to be a profound sense of gratitude, from the Little Ice Age.
Near Earth space is 400 K, 260 F. That’s not a greenhouse unless in Phoenix.
Stand before a blazing campfire on a chilly evening.
Lift up a banket between.
Warmer now or colder?
Drop the blanket.
Warmer now or colder?
That’s what the atmos/water vapor/30% albedo do.
Without them Earth bakes in a 400 K solar wind becoming much like the Moon &
not the 255 K ice ball what GHE says.
Spot on, Cliff. Stripping away the ‘gloom and doom’ apocalypse narrative and keeping the focus strictly on data, physics, and empirical observation is the only way to do honest science.
You hit the nail on the head regarding the institutional cost of refusing to join the panic cult. When scientists or meteorologists get ostracized just for looking at the actual data and pointing out that human adaptation, better forecasting, and moderating extremes mean this is a manageable problem—not an existential collapse—it proves how much climate discussion has devolved into a secular religion.
As a reminder, the blue CO2 line on the chart below is just the pure logarithmic baseline showing where the temperature sits on raw gas alone, based on PPM—the rest is all weather and structural feedback noise. Keep fighting the good fight and calling out the merchants of fear. This graph shows masking and unmasking of the aerosols but it also shows your point.
>> I have had many NSF research grants on climate subjects
Good for you! Could you kindly put all this well compensated expertise to work and describe how current global climate models deal with the additional water introduced to the stratosphere by the hunga-tunga eruption. Real world measurements indicate potential influences on the polar vortices and cloud formation including those affecting the Pacific el Nino conditions. I am guessing that might be a huge source of uncertainty and the older models don’t fare any better..
Could you kindly correct or withdraw any older potentially flawed publications.
Cliff Mass has his own blog. This article was re-posted here with permission. You should ask direct questions to Dr Mass on his blog.
Good Day all- For me, history is an imperative to gasping deception, this either political or military, for they are twins. Being a forrensic histoical correlations Analsyt. To move the opposition to a point, or gain an objective one must deceive if in opposition to to the norm. In this case, of climate, on must go back to at least 1892 for a sort of operational beginning. The following date points while clearly not totally snippet by snippet are inclusive the point of the end that will be more acceptable to those immeshed in the ying and yang of the topic.
1892 – Departments in Univ. of Chicago, Columbia Univ., Univ. of Wisconsin with E.A. Ross
who has career full of Socio-communist relations. Ross’s book “Social Control” (1901) is the
textbook teaching how a few can gain control over Society. Albin W. Small, first Chair, taught
Sociology as History, Economics, and Political Science. This Department and Albin W. Small
were funded by Rockefeller Foundation.
1904 – John D. Rockefeller creates the General Education Board. The Education of the
United States was then created to support the Rockefeller wealth engine along with the
Rockefeller controlled Ford and Carnegie Foundations. The funding amount is monstrous.
Occasional Letter # 1 states their aims and purposes of the Board clearly. “ In our dreams we
have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding
hands.” “The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a beautiful one, to TRAIN
these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are.
1913 – Roscoe Pound, Saint-Simon. Socialized Law substitutes appointed psydo-judges
/ Administrators for judicial Law. This done to adjust social interests over the individual
rights. Supreme Court Justice Frankfurter spoke about “ throughgoing overturning” of
society. It must be done from the outside and translated by those in office. Franklin D. Roosevelt knew.
1917 – Rockefeller & other Fed Res. members gave $22, 000,000 dollars to the Russian
rebels, solidifying their success. ACLU founder Roger Baldwin, and charter members like
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, were ardent Fabian Socialists identified with the Communist movement from the start of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.
I know, wait for it:
1926 Communist Psychopolitics –The description of a course taught at the “Lenin
Institute” to Americans sent by John D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller was member of the CFR
This course still exists. What is “Psychopolitics? The art & science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of Individuals, Officers, bureaus, and Masses and the effecting of the conquest of enemy Nations through “Mental Healing”. Psychopolitics, is a less known oblique to Geo-politics, dealing with molding the highest strata of the “Mental Healing” arena – through this effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through “mental Healing”. Objective, conquest through social chaos. Beria, Mass Murderer of entire villages in the Russian conquests, was the Professor of the 2 year course.
Authors note: Beria was the longest-surviving and the most influential of Stalin’s secret police chiefs of the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD). The responsibility of the NKVD was to ensure the internal security of the Soviet Union and it systematically did so through massive political repression, authorized murders of many hundreds of thousands of politicians and citizens, kidnappings, assassinations, and mass deportations.
OK – now where all this environmental Global business started.
–
1928 –Origin or genesis of the Totalitarian New World Order. This through
Environmental mental fear application. At the Sixth Party Congress held in Moscow in
1928, Communists wrote and approved “The Program” to bring in the New World Order.
What most Americans cannot comprehend is the real nature of this diabolical criminal scheme.
The Program of the Third International called for a global environmental program for
transformation of all human beings on earth to accept the New World Order. These and
other facts are brought to light by General Benton Partin in his videotape, Globalism: The
Program. This through the above 1892, 1913 1923-6 continuing Rockefeller Psychopolitics education program. Now think; 1945, 1946, and on.
As to science, ice coring for me has shown a cyclic pattern that appears to be planet orientation of some type. The rest is in the manipulation of society.
I did not know it went back to 1928.
My perspective was 1945 and beyond.
Thank you for the education.
Cliff, you said, “But there are worsening heat waves.” I don’t find the evidence for that claim: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
When I first posted my analysis of heat waves in 2019, I said, “I would like to invite thoughts on the behavior of the coefficient of variation, and differences in the high and low temperatures, with respect to global temperature changes.” I don’t remember you commenting at the time. If there was something seriously wrong with my analysis, I’d appreciate hearing it. If you have no criticism of my analysis, then how do you explain your quoted claim in the context of my unchallenged analysis?
What a load of double-speak! I’m not fooled, Cliff is still a believer in stupid CO2 climate theory.
Cliff Mass would single-handedly set skeptics back 100% with his
view‘belief‘ in CO2 warming.It is a shame that only now we find out about his close ties to climate exaggerator Schneider.
Mass has missed the fact that strong sunshine was the actual warming agent regarding the NorthWest US heat waves in recent years. Strong sunshine was the real cause of global warming, not CO2 emissions like he so desperately tried to bring back into the conversation with this post.
His high opinion of himself meant nothing to me after he announced humans were responsible for the warming over the past 50 years:
“I made a decision 15 years ago to stand up against those who distort the science.
Those who mislead the population. Those who spread unnecessary fear. Those who benefit financially from the exaggeration and lies.
And woe to a person who stands against the apocalyptic climate vision. They are cast out and rejected. Worse than wrong. Evil”
The entire mainstream climate science is misleading the population over CO2, Mass included.
Because the science itself is distorted regarding CO2 emissions versus sunshine forcing.
The people who are really cast out and rejected are the ones pointing out the science is distorted and CO2 is not the reason for warming.
If Cliff thinks we are going to return to his CO2 climate belief nonsense – it is not happening.
“Cliff is still a believer in stupid CO2 climate theory.”
He further says….
“So what is my view, based on decades of research and study of the climate?
The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor”
There’s belief via persuassion of ideology – as seen by most on WUWT.
And then there’s informed belief, such as Cliff has (seeing, as obviously, we cannot put the earth in a lab and all we have is historical/geological evidence and model projections ) – neither of which is accepted by most here.
He, of course is one of thousands who study the science who also “Believe”.
I and others here have informed belief as well that is science-based, not ideological.
However science and ideology go hand in hand when CO2 believers run things.
Those thousands of believers are not informed enough, imo. More like indoctrinated.
Ideology and rationality cannot function in the same mind space at the same time.
“However science and ideology go hand in hand when CO2 believers run things.
Those thousands of believers are not informed enough, imo. More like indoctrinated.”
Ah, the expected response:
So all or at least 97% of climate researchers are indoctinated, sufficient to doctor their findings (AKA cheating at scrabble).
The scientific findings are what they are and the overwhelming opinion is that man’s fossil carbon burning is the cause.
Like going to 100 doctors and only 3 say you dont have cancer. Now I know where the probabilities lie.
But then I’m just an ex-metman (like Cliff Mass) and I agree with him.
No. The processing of abstracts by an organization determined to prove consensus are the indoctrinated.
The laughing at you continues.
“and others here have informed belief as well that is science-based, not ideological”
Oh…
Why didn’t you tell that you were/are a climate scientist or a Meteorologist of 30 years standing such as I and Mr Mass? (Sarc).
As he says …..
“As a weather/climate scientist, my views are well within the mainstream. “
You’ve identified yourself as from the generation who jumped the gun and proclaimed CO2 the cause before there was enough data in the 1980/90s.
After sufficient time and advances in data, you should have seen the problems we see, but you had all bought into CO2, and are now unable to be objective.
You personally have a false sense of security being “in the mainstream”.
The mainstream hasn’t learned the CO2 climate theory has been falsified.
He is entitled to his opinion, and like you, he is equally entitled to be wrong.
The laughing continues.
If you can’t prove it, why do you believe it? That is how religion works, not science.
Sorry Cliff, you need to try harder. (or not,… whatever)
Yep, not a good article by Cliff at all..
… because it exposes him as a “true believer” in the cult of CO2 warming.
Maybe not as manic as many of the cultists.. but a cultist nonetheless.
40 years of GMST rising at 0.017 C/y, UAH.
“I made a decision 15 years ago to stand up against those who distort the science.”
Good to know.
“The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor. … Most of that warming (about 2F) is due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
One may suppose that to make a claim unsupported by any science is not to “distort the science”. But it certainly misstates the science.
The whole of AGW rests upon climate models, and climate models have no diagnostic value. They cannot detect. They cannot attribute. They cannot resolve an effect, if any, of CO₂ emissions on the climate.
There is no science of CO₂-emissions-caused climate change.
The whole AGW thing is an artful pseudo-science. Akin to Relativistic Astrology.
That Mass uses the phrase “the science” multiple times is a red flag.
“That Mass uses the phrase “the science” multiple times is a red flag.”
Illuminating:
You think science in general cannot tell us about the world?
Or is it just climate science?
And if the latter – why?
Science has been way wrong in the recent past and it is wrong now.
Of course it is Nick – they are all incompetent idiots and you are a genius on a par with Newton, Einstein and Hawking (sarc).
Science in general can help us understand the world.
“The Science” can not help us at all.
The laughter continues.
With all due respect for Cliff Mass in opposing the alarmism, it is disappointing that even from within meteorology the unsound claims are so often heard today. I look back to 1938, when Simpson and Brunt explained so clearly why Callendar’s proposed attribution of reported station warming to a rising concentration of CO2 should be reconsidered.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2026/03/15/open-thread-181/#comment-4174555
About the time-step-iterated models, as you say, “They cannot detect. They cannot attribute. They cannot resolve an effect, if any, of CO₂ emissions on the climate.” The meteorologists should be exposing the misconception of diagnostic authority rather than endorsing it. Thus my disappointment.
Keep up the good work.
Agreed, and thank-you David. I don’t understand it, either.
“I look back to 1938, when Simpson and Brunt explained so clearly why Callendar’s proposed attribution of reported station warming to a rising concentration of CO2 should be reconsidered.”
Ah, the someone said something I agree with but it’s being ignored (even though it was 88 years ago) logic.
“The meteorologists should be exposing the misconception of diagnostic authority rather than endorsing it. Thus my disappointment.”
They don’t because there is no misconception.
(I am a retired Meteorologist)
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply, and congratulations on your retirement.
https://www.regulations.gov/comment/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0371
A bit late but thanks.
Was 20 years ago.
There, room to say “out of touch” or some such withering put down.
But what you see and read from me is what you get.
You do not understand. Trolling is his career.
🙂
“You do not understand.”
Or perhaps I do. 🙂
The one thing that irks me about this article, and it comes up again and again in climate science, is the global warming graph. Temperature is an intensive measurement of which the average has no. physical. meaning. Whole articles have been written about it on this site, e.g. here, here and here.
The whole concept of a global temperature is fiction. And yet, people calling themselves climate scientists keep on using this non-sense. It makes it really hard to take climate science seriously if scientists cannot even get the fundamentals right.
Two of these links don’t resolve.
Yes, indeed. My mistake. The correct links are:
Excellent series by Kip Hansen, he also did a part 3.5 appendix:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/27/numbers-tricky-tricky-numbers-part-3-5/
100%
The data used to calculate the global average is so highly correlated that, even if it had physical meaning, the uncertainty of the average would be so large that it is impossible to differentiate between even decadal temperatures. The differences are smaller than the uncertainty intervals.
Temperature is the comparative kinetic energy of stuff, LoT 0.
The void of space EMR has neither and temperature is meaningless.
But the non-void stuff baked by that EMR has both.
Near Earth space is a 400 K, 250 F, convection oven. (Or paint booth halogen lamps.)
Right you are! Any “scientific” discussion of “climate” must include the range of temperatures over time. Any set of data that includes, e.g., Tmax of 90, 80, 75 and Tmin of 50, 60, and 65 produces Tavg = 70 to represent widely different experienced “climates”. The calculation of Tavg is therefore useless as well as being meaningless.
It’s not Tavg, it’s Tmid-range. Tmidrange has nothing to do with the daily temperature profile. It is determined solely by the range of daily temperatures which really have little to do with an “average”. The daily daytime profile is a sinusoid, the daily nighttime profile is an exponential decay. The average of each is far from linear, it is not a triangle wave for which the average would be (Tmax+Tmin)/2.
Just one more garbage assumption climate science makes in the name of creating long records.
Concur, Average is a linguistical term, Mean, Median, and mode are mathematical. IMO, calculating a Mean is one of the most deceptive things you can do (intentionally OR unintentionally) for the exact reasons you stated.
I prefer not mean but rather median with min and max included.
Anomalies are a misapplication of the term and they represent averages versus an bigger average.
You just laid out the 5-number summary.
Minimum, Maximum, Q1 (25th percentile, Q1), median (the 50th percentile), Q3 (the 75th percentile, Q3), Maximum
This summary makes it easy to evaluate the uncertainty interval. The interval between Q1 and Q3 is always 50% of the distribution, be it normal or skewed. It makes it easy to compare one distribution with another for uncertainty. No confusion with the sampling error of the mean value.
I wish the GUM went into using this.
Art, you noticed something that is often missing in climate change discussions, a linguistic problem. I have commented on this in the past.
Strictly speaking are there any climate scientists? Understanding climate depends on inputs from possibly as many as a dozen sciences, Mathematics and Statistics. How many can even the brightest scientists master?
Then there is the way the media uses words like weather, climate, change and adjectives like severe, extreme and dire. The media were ecstatic about the Hottest July Evah! – The hot, dry July across Britain and parts of NW Europe was proof of climate change. Did they consider this may simply be part of a weather pattern across decades and centuries? Did they wonder if different weather patterns across the globe may have influenced the hot summer? As one swallow doesn’t make a summer, neither does one hot summer make climate change. Of course for their narrative it is better to conflate or confuse climate and weather.
The Köppen-Geiger system conveniently classifies climate into five main classes and 30 sub-types. This is helpful but may be an over simplification. Do we have a Mathematical formula to determine how a change in a particular climatic sub-zone is going to impact its neighbor? Our understanding of how this works is far from complete so assertions cannot be scientific but speculative, opinion not facts based on a sufficient number of empirical observations.
True, even if it were physically meaningful to average temperatures, extremes on both ends of the scale could cancel out. So it could look like you have zero problems, but it just as easily could be two, seven or thirty. Averaging removes a lot of information.
And averaging averages (daily->monthly, monthly->annual, annual->decade) makes it even worse. Averaging is a smoothing function. If you don’t carry the changing variances of the averages along with the average value then you have no idea of how accurate your average value is, and climate science *NEVER* does variances let alone propagate them up the averaging chain.
Mode, mean, median, average.
Mean = (high + low)/2
Average = Sum of n/n
For a spherical surface average will be skewed toward the high end.
For a sphere w 30% albedo mean would be 5.18 C and average 43.07 C,
I have often said the same, challenging where to go to get a PhD in “Climate Science.”
Researchers? Yes.
Code hackers? Yes. Without the A spec, B spec, C spec associated with computer programming… you get the drift.
Climatologists is the best choice, but it does not have the high sounding that their egos prefer.
Fundamentals.
There are Celsius units on a Celsius scale.
There are Celsius units on a Kelvin scale.
There are no a such thang as a Kelvin unit or Kelvins.
Another researcher who confuses correlation with causation.
Do I ‘believe’ in Global Warming. No, I KNOW the planet has warmed over – mostly – the past century. Do I ‘believe’ in Anthropogenic Global Warming. No, because I KNOW the ‘forcing’ by the usual culprits is too small.
You have to say you do otherwise you won’t get any grant funding.
I remember at the event celebrating the 150th anniversary of the founding of the Rothamsted Research Institute the head of research saying in his talk that the words ‘climate change’ had to be included in any grant proposal or it would be turned down.
Cliff Mass’s “science” of human-caused warming has been bought and paid for by our own tax dollars. Whether or not he thinks the warming is or will be a problem is irrelevant.
Cliff Mass is no scientist, although he likes to consider himself one.
For someone who often makes rational, empirically based analyses and statements I find your statement above “The planet is slowly warming, and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor” to be completely without merit.
Was the Roman Warm period, or the Medieval Warm period human caused? What about the Little Ice Age? Also human caused? Are you ignoring the fact that water vapor is 50-80 times more active as the primary greenhouse gas than CO2 due to the combination of their concentration difference and their IR signatures, or the act of phase changes in the hydrodynamic system. Are humans causing the overall water vapor concentration to rise? Are you ignoring that numerous studies have found an empirical relationship between diminishing cloud cover and the last 30 years of warming? (admittedly some of that may be reduction of particulate or sulfate pollution)
Your stance is disappointing to say the least in this respect. Your consideration that warming is not a big issue is laudable, but the primary statement is again without merit – greenhouse gases due to humans is not a major contributor! It is minor at best.
From the article: “Climatologist Stephen Schneider and I at NCAR”
Well, I was wondering what Cliff Mass thinks about Stephen Schneider claiming that human activity was causing the Earth to cool, seeing as how the Earth stopped cooling and started warming thus making Schneider’s Human-caused Global Cooling claims a joke.
And why would Cliff Mass put any faith in Schneider’s claims of Human-caused global warming?
I have been advised that Cliff won’t answer here but I thought I would pose the question. Maybe Cliff reads the replies.
Nevermind.
“… and increasing greenhouse gases due to humans are a major contributor.”
And we are to “believe” that as an article of faith because only modelling has ever been produced as “evidence” this is so and the Consensus must be believed.