Vijay Jayaraj joins Angela Wheeler on Climate Debrief to examine the history of the modern environmental movement and the rise of today’s climate crisis narrative. Drawing on historical and environmental data, he challenges claims about worsening extreme weather, wildfires, droughts, and heat while highlighting improvements in human life expectancy, agriculture, and global greening.
Jayraj argues that CO₂ has benefited plant growth and that humanity has become increasingly capable of adapting to environmental challenges. His central message is simple: look beyond the narrative, examine the data, and ask what the evidence actually shows.
I almost miss the days when WUWT was in flat-out reality denial regarding the fact of global warming.
You know, this site used to regularly host articles that claimed it was actually cooling, not warming. That all and any warming was an artifact of badly-sited temperature stations (even as the air over the oceans warmed as steadily as that over the land).
These days it’s all about downplaying the impacts of the warming, adaptation and mitigation, etc. Or claiming that the warming is because of clouds or solar or magical heat created by the oceans, etc.
Rarely these days do you see the real, old-school, “It’s not happening!!“, style of argument, and it’s just not as much fun any more.
And still no causal link to CO2.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/6375/2024/
“Direct observational evidence from space of the effect of CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances: the unique role of high-spectral-resolution measurements (2024)”
“We present a direct measurement of the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 on the spectra of the Earth’s longwave radiation obtained from space. The goal of this study is to experimentally confirm that the direct effects of CO2 increase on the Earth’s outgoing longwave spectra follow theoretical estimates, by developing a methodology that allows for a direct and more precise comparison between theory and observations. In this methodology, a search is performed to find selected ensembles of observed atmospheric vertical profiles of temperature and water vapor that are as close as possible to each other in terms of their values. By analyzing the spectral radiances measured from space by the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS), corresponding to the selected ensembles of profiles, the effects of increased CO2 on the spectra can be isolated from the temperature and water vapor effects. The results illustrate the impact of the increase in CO2 on the longwave spectra and compare well with theoretical estimates. As far as the authors are aware, this is the first time that the spectral signature of the increase in CO2 (isolated from temperature and water vapor changes) has been directly observed from space.
“This new methodology can undoubtedly be refined and its uncertainties better characterized and understood to establish its accuracy and precision more clearly. But as far as the authors are aware, this study represents the first attempt to establish a more precise experimental confirmation from space of the direct effects of CO2 on longwave spectral radiances. The results (solely based on observations) confirm that the effects of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances follow theoretical estimates. As such, these results confirm a critical foundation of the science of global warming.“
What “global warming”? How do you use this data to explain to the folks in the Yukon and NWT why the temperatures last winter plunged to -50° C, breaking all previous low temperature records?
We don’t have to worry about a little “global warming” but we will always have to worry about long cold and snowy winters in many countries and in Canada where I live. Fossil fuels keep 41 million people from freezing to death in winter.
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
Peer -reviewed science
.
.
“ The results (solely based on observations) confirm that the effects of the recent atmospheric CO2 increase on longwave spectral radiances follow theoretical estimates. As such, these results confirm a critical foundation of the science of global warming.“
The conclusion doesn’t follow the premise. A change in the spectral radiances can follow theoretical estimates WITHOUT confirming the theory of global warming due to increased CO2. The *casual* link between the two is missing!
The question that *is* raised by the increase on longwave spectral radiances is WHY does climate science say that increased CO2 will result in LESS spectral radiance via its blocking of longwave radiation from reaching space!
Chew on these for a while, Gorman:
Guy Callendar (1938): “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature” – Connected industrial CO2 emissions directly to modern global warming trends.
Gilbert Plass (1956): “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change” – Formulated the modern spectroscopic basis for how increased CO2 impacts infrared transmission through the atmosphere.
Modern Assessments and Mechanisms
Lüthi et al. (2008): “High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present” (Nature) – Provided multi-millennial ice-core data establishing the baseline correlation between CO2 and paleoclimate temperatures. Dietrich et al. / IPCC Assessment Reports: The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report offers comprehensive evaluations of radiative forcing, carbon budgets, and projected climatic responses to varying emissions pathways.Soden et al. (2023): Research from the University of Miami detailing how stratospheric cooling increases the heat-trapping potency of subsequent CO2 additions over time.
Analogues? That is not based on direct measurements. What is shown refutes what Happer and Wijngaarden did with using HITRAN. It would make readers suspect HITRAN is incorrect. I’ve not seen that said anywhere.
Over tropical/subtropical oceans in June-July-August and converted to annual?
Have you heard of the term “data mining”? Searching for data that meets a preconceived determination.
Which says absolutely nothing about warming, because they totally ignore all the other methods of energy transfer in the atmosphere, which have been proven to be magnitudes larger .
Any slight change in the CO2 band is more than compensated for by increases in adjacent bands.
There is no energy trapped.
CO2 cannot change the temperature gradient, so cannot change the net radiative flux.
That again bnice?
The Earth can only cool ultimately by LWIR to space.
Your graph shows that the earth’s dominant Eout is being hindered by the CO2 bands.
It shows the GHE response of increasing temperature in response to achieve equilibrium, by being emitted to space at higher frequencies (smaller wavelengths).
Thanks for showing us the actuality of the GHE in response to AGW
“Your graph shows that the earth’s dominant Eout is being hindered by the CO2 bands.”
Hindered? What does this mean?
Look at the following graph. The top curve is the “hindered” temperature decay curve. The bottom curve is the unhindered temperature decay curve. The area under each curve is proportional to the heat emitted.
Which curve shows the most heat being emitted?
“Hindered? What does this mean?”
“hindered
Hindered means held back, slowed down, or blocked from making progress. It is the past tense and past participle of the verb hinder“
And what does slowed down do to the heat emitted over time. See the attached graph. The upper curve is a “hindered” emission of heat. The area under the curve is proportional to the amount of heat emitted.
Under which curve is the most heat emitted? The bottom (unhindered) curve? Or the top (hindered) curve.
I asked you this already and you didn’t answer. Will you answer this time or will you admit you are just quoting from your global warming bible?
What CO2 “back radiation” reaches the surface of the Earth and is absorbed, is immediately reemitted throughout the Planck curve of grey body emissions. Much of that goes into water vapor or straight out the atmospheric window as shown on the graph.
None of your references discuss this. Why is that? Find a reference of yours that discuss that.
I sincerely doubt that you will ever get an answer to this.
Part of the problem is that the measurement uncertainty associated with measurement of radiance and converting it to a temperature is at least +/- 4K. That interval just totally subsumes the ability to identify any difference in the radiative balance in and out.
Climate science, as usual, just ignores this and depends on their magical crystal ball stored in a secure, undisclosed location to peer into the Great Unknown (the measurement uncertainty interval) and find the “true value”.
Yes indeedy … that is precisely what I said!
“What CO2 “back radiation” reaches the surface of the Earth and is absorbed,”
And it then gets HINDERED once more by WV/CO2 bands …. and as a result the Earth has to warm in order to cool.
As I said above.
However the warmer temps mean that more LWIR ougoing is in the shorter wavelengths which by that means bypass the GHGs.
It’s called the atmospheric GHE.
the operative word here is “more”. *MORE* LWIR outgoing”.
Climate science only looks at the radiative operation of the atmosphere and totally ignores the radiative operation of the earth’s surface.
The operative word is “bypass”. Much of the Planck curve re-emittance of the CO2 back radiation BYPASSES the GHGs in the atmosphere.
But climate science never looks at that. They totally ignore the fact that Planck said that reflected heat gets re-emitted at the temperature of the receiving surface. Meaning it gets back a small amount of reflected heat from CO2 and then spreads that small amount over the entire Planck spectrum, So at each specific frequency in the Planck curve an INFINTESIMAL amount of that reflected heat appears. An amount so small that it is not measurable by current satellite technology due to the measurement uncertainty of the satellites equipment.
In other words, climate science doesn’t really know if the earth is actually emitting more heat than it is taking in or vice versa.
Your global warming bible is lying to you. And you can’t even understand what the lie is, can you?
“The Earth can only cool ultimately by LWIR to space.”
False.
The electromagnetic emissions from the surface to space do include LWIR, but also include other band such as microwave. Therefore the statement of “only” is proven false.
Actually the study simply says that CO2 longwave radiance was measured. It says nothing about how that actually effects the atomsphere temperature.
BINGO!
“The results illustrate the impact of the increase in CO2 on the longwave spectra and compare well with theoretical estimates. ” Which says nothing about temperature. Did you comprehend anything?
Yes.
But I fear you didn’t.
They measured a decreasing LWIR flux to space specifically in the absorbance bands of CO2, (isolated from H2O/WV contamination) which we know is increasing.
The observations therefore show that CO2 restricts the Earth’s Eout in those bands (which happen to be at the mid-point of the Earth’s SB emission curve).
Thus showing that the GHE is in play and that it is caused by the increasing atmospheric concentration of anthro carbon emissions (CO2, CH4).
If the hindering results in an increase in temperature, then it should result in MORE longwave radiative flux, not less.
Otherwise it isn’t possible to ever reach equilibrium. CO2 over the millennia would have resulted in earth becoming a molten rock from ever increasing temperature coupled with *less* radiative flux as temperature increases.
There is a missing piece in your logic somewhere. CO2 has been higher in concentration in the past than it is today. Yet the earth didn’t turn into a molten rock.
Why is that?
“If the hindering results in an increase in temperature, then it should result in MORE longwave radiative flux, not less.”
bnice’s graph shows that that is indeed the case.
which science knows about ….
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4250165/
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037527
Look at this graph. Concentrate on the absorptivity and transmissivity of CO2. The absorption at 15 um is close to 1. By the time you reach 13 and 17 the absorbance is practically zero.
If you want to show your math chops, compute how much radiation CO2 would absorb at 288K at 15 um and the surrounding 13/14 and 16/17 um wavelengths. Planck’s Law equation is all over the internet and any scientific calculator (online or in hand) can compute the values.
Then tell us what percent that is of the total radiation computed using the SB equation that is the total area under the Planck Curve.
Once you’ve done that, you will understand why all your references never bother with the calculations and only want to show a graphic that emphasizes CO2. Propaganda is misinformation.
As you pointed out, the earth doesn’t just re-radiate reflected heat from CO2 at the CO2 frequency.
The earth’s radiation is spread all over the spectrum. A decrease at the CO2 frequency is:
Planck’s compensation principle basically says:
———————
-A body receiving radiation must emit additional radiation according to its own temperature distribution, not the spectrum of the incoming radiation.
———————
Copilot can’t find any climate science literature directly addressing how the compensation principle affects radiative flux to space over the entire Planck spectrum of earth.
How the earth’s broadband re-emittance of reflected heat from CO2 affects the greenhouse theory just seems to be totally missing from the literature. Climate science literature seems to be totally focused on how CO2 in the atmosphere acts radiatively which ignores the spectral distribution of radiation from the surface.
Spreading the incoming energy from CO2 over the entire Planck spectrum emitted by earth results in a change so small at any specific frequency that it would not be discernable by current measurement instruments. It will be subsumed in the measurement uncertainty interval of the satellites and the radiance to temperature conversion algorithms.
This is a MAJOR lack in climate science. You could probably do a paper titled ““Spectral Compensation at the Surface: A Missing Piece in Greenhouse Forcing Analysis”
“Once you’ve done that, you will understand why all your references never bother with the calculations and only want to show a graphic that emphasizes CO2. Propaganda is misinformation.“
Hows about formulating that complaint and sending it to the authors of the paper I quoted.
Real world observations.
Which (of course) many on here will not accept.
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/6375/2024/
They are ….
João Teixeira, R. Chris Wilson, and Heidar Th. Thrastarson
I just did formulate that complaint. I’ve not seen any refutation here on WUWT yet. I pretty damn sure I won’t, especially from you.
The title “Spectral Compensation at the Surface: A Missing Piece in Greenhouse Forcing Analysis” sounds pretty good to me.
Do *you* have any references that show this missing piece in the Greenhouse Forcing Analysis?
There won’t be any real world observations. The satellites are incapable of providing such observations accurately enough to confirm or falsify the theory behind the title above.
We’ve never been able to measure the speed of light accurately enough to determine it’s true value. So science just wound up establishing an arbitrary value for it. Does that falsify Einstein’s E = mc^2?
15 microns is not the midpoint of the EM surface emissions. 15 micron occurs at -80 C.
This also does not take into account scattering, which anyone who has done work with EMIR sensors knows.
Yes, in the minds of Deniers.
You call that rebuttal? lol.
There’s still fun to be had with energy topics:
EVs sales collapse any day now
Wind and solar have an EROI < 1
Wind energy peaked in Europe in 2017 (Is Gary still around?)
And my new favourite:
Public transport and bicycles increase fuel usage because cars are stuck behind them.
Your favourite is deeply flawed in the UK context.
Urban roads have 20mph limits and the bicycles go considerably faster than that. And then there are the e-bikes…
Wind and solar require 100% back-up from reliable sources, like Coal, gas and nuclear .. or Hydro where available
They are PARASITIC to any electricity grid because they suck the reliability and add a whole lot of implementation costs, FAR MORE than just using the major dispatchable supplies. Electricity is more expensive where-ever wind and solar infect the grid.
Auto Sales Crash for Eighth Straight Month as EV Demand Collapses and Drivers Feel the Squeeze
Beside the whole car market collapsing because they focused on expensive oversized cars and trumps policies like tariffs…that articles looks oddly AI generated to me.
Also you may look at the world outside the US. The Iran war did wonders to speed the unavoidable up.
EV Transition Check 2026: Measuring progress toward zero emissions for road transport in Europ
https://theicct.org/publication/ev-transition-check-2026/
EV ‘revolution’ is going so well that Volkswagen recently announced another 50,000 job losses in addition to the 50,000 it announced during the winter!
Because of China which can, with the help of securing most rare Earth metal sourcing and via massive CCP support – is able to produce EVs at half the cost.
Why then hasn’t the sale of EV’s gone up from less expensive supply?
One big disadvantage for Volkswagen is the mounting cost of electricity in Germany as the state tries to rely more and more on unreliable wind and solar.
That is A cost but no one in the developed western world can compete with China at anything.
you look oddly AI generated to me.
You really have Trump derangement syndrome bad, don’t you 🙂 So funny !
https://www.news.com.au/technology/motoring/motoring-news/ev-sales-in-australia-drop-to-lowest-level-in-two-years-aaa/news-story/1fed321bda083405e33851b22a1aa5c7
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/america-s-ev-industry-collapse-is-now-basically-complete/ar-AA1T5i78
https://abcnews.com/Business/electric-vehicle-sales-plummeting-become-niche/story?id=130752429
https://enkiai.com/ev/ev-manufacturing-crisis-2026-why-automakers-are-reversing/
Research “weight of batteries”
Hey there, My-U.N.-Retarded,
hook your tricycle up to the grid next time …
before you try to ride it in traffic.
ER-on-EI carries no units; it’s a pure ratio, hence meaningful.
Try to wrap your pea-mind around that.
Best Wishes & Good Luck
U.R. Friend-Indeed
Use data to settle differences of belief and opinion.
Personal belittlement without prior provocation says more about you than the person you insult.
So how do YOU respond to being called a “denier“?
(the undisguised implication being that you must also deliberately deny that 6 million innocent people of the Jewish faith were murdered by the Nazi regime)
You are making a victim out of yourself. Nobody is making that connection.
You don’t deserve the down votes. You are an hard working-everyday commenter here at WUWT and you post useful and interesting information.
I guess there’s a first time for everything.
Every time the subsidies for EVs are cut, sales collapse.
Ah! The expected diversion!
Sophistry at its finest!
Rarely these days do you see the real, old-school,
“It’s not happening!!“, style of argument . . .
_____________________________________________________
It’s not happening and climate science and the news media are lying about it:
They ignore the dust bowl, medieval warm period, and the miracle of CO2 and photosynthesis
They pretend that wind mills, solar panels, and hydrogen are the way of the future.
They lie about methane, polar bears, coral reefs, glaciers, and forest fires.
They rewrite historical sea level and temperature data.
They treat models as fact
It’s a long list. Gish Gallup? Sue me.
Nobody but the oil lobby pretends hydrogen is the future.
The decisive factor is the cost of each energy source.
If the price of oil is $200 per barrel and the electricity price is low, hydrogen could become the cheapest option.
Hydrogen cannot compete with an oil price of $70.
As long as there are alternatives like batteries the losses will always make it the more expensive option. Hydrogen is for cases where it is the only available alternative. Which makes it more or less a niche case.
When was the last time a gas fired electricity generating station exploded? And how many times have mega battery installations gone up in very thick black smoke?
A huge blaze which took 59 hours to extinguish was caused by an explosion at a controversial mega-battery site, a report has confirmed.
Moss Landing, the world’s biggest grid battery, caught fire again
Vistra’s flagship energy-storage project in California turned into a towering inferno
I could very easily go on…
Moss Landing, Monterey Bay, from my kid-sister’s home near Hollister / San Juan Bautista CA, they enjoyed the nice glow in the night sky, weeks-on-end.
Oxygen and hydrogen can drive a car engine.
Gas can be produced in the car at the rate the engine needs gas.
Can oxygen and hydrogen be split at a low cost in a vacuum container?
The demonstration has zero to due with producing hydrogen. Hydrogen is not produced by boiling water.
“When was the last time a gas fired electricity generating station exploded?”
Seems, quite a few in Russia lately.
But only with outside help. The same could happen to any conventional power generation.
Grid batteries make wind and solar the most expensive form of electricity BY FAR.
Batteries are no alternative. They could build 500 of the $5 billion dollar Tesla gigawatt facilities and that would provide just the U.S. alone with enough backup energy for 1 day. One. Day. The amount of materials required to manufacture ‘alternative’ energy sources and storage to replace even half of the current energy requirements do not even exist. Not as in, “They just haven’t mined it yet” or “ReCyClaBleS”, no, the resources are limited and will be nonexistent, some in 30 years, at best. Data centers are already consuming 2% of the global energy and will require their own separate electrical grids that would get power from ‘alternative’ energy sources. EV manufacturers need at least 100 years of production just to replace the personal and commercial fleet vehicles on the road and would have to ramp up their production 10x alone just to meet the global needs on a yearly basis. EV charging stations would also require a separate electrical grid and battery storage facilities throughout the nation. Industrial manufacturers also. That’s just for using “…alternatives like batteries…”, let alone the sheer volume of manufacturing, logistics, installation, and maintenance of the equipment and materials required to harness non-fossil fuel energy.
Batteries charged by conventional fuels. And on the grid they are a complete waste of money and resources.
Batteries have a huge problem with low storage per pound and high costs to make and dispose of or reuse if that were possible. Hydrogen has high storage costs and needs pipelines but is otherwise rather cheap.
Industrial “Hydrogen is the Future“, and also the Present & the Past.
Ever since Bosch & Haber (BASF – TH-Karlsruhe) hooked up their Coal-to-Hydrogen (H2) Reactor to their Ammonia-Synthesizer Reactor, back in ~ 1910 A.D., we’ve enjoyed the Hydrogen-Industrial-Age.
Nevermind steam-reforming of [coal, natural-gas, any other hydrocarbon or carbohydrate source-material] to produce a nice stream of Di-Hydrogen & Carbonic-Acid / bicarbonate / CO2] …
… for all manner of Chemistry, including but not limited to Coal-Liquefaction (wrap your U.N.-Retarded micro-brain around that Cycle).
You can literally poison yourself with corn-syrup sugar & partially-hydrogenated vegetable oils (margarine), all thanks to the miraculous power of Industrial Hydrogen.
Which might account for your own sorry demented state-of-mind.
Good Luck with the Therapy, — RLW
Try follow the discussion, we talk about hydrogen as energy storage and not industrial use.
You do realise that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than that hydrogen then contains?
What exactly made you think I don’t?
Have you any perception of the challenge of hydrogen CONTAINMENT?
Any AT ALL?
Try to follow the discussion. Not this diversion you created, but the article.
The hydrogen produced by the process includes a lot more CO2 which escapes to the atmosphere so it is not a process to produce hydrogen to try and reduce CO2 emissions.
I think you meant the hydrogen lobby. The oil lobby wants to sell oil.
I want you to think about different types of hydrogen, business models and alternatives.
If there is tons of money available, thanks to subsidies and other support, business models will pop into existence to set their roots in that money pile- and having nothing to do with any science.
Business want profits now and in the long term.
Hydrogen is a pipe-dream and all the bankers know it.
Wrong, only clowns on the far-left think hydrogen has a future use as a fuel.
Hydrogen is irrelevant and a dead end, it leaks from everything that has been tried to contain it.
Why deflect to a pointless topic?
Hydrogen is pretty high cost to produce, store and use in a car but may in fact be cheaper the EV which is much higher in resource costs.
There’s always the odd exception!
And that’s the klima-kultists parody of their imaginary ‘Denier-Opponents’.
And they brag about the supposed consensus, as if having a consensus proves anything.
Especially when that consensus is a totally fabricated CON. !
If you disagree with the scientific arguments for global warming, please submit your reappraisals to the appropriate scientific journals. I suggest: The Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry, and Nature, among others. Your arguments will be carefully and expertly peer-reviewed. Work that involves misleading or erroneous arguments or that does not properly cite its references will be rejected. Do not expect to be taken seriously until you show, using accepted experimental and analytical techniques, that you have a credible explanation for the data on climate change. The world’s scientific community awaits your response
You mean like the “accepted experimental and analytical” techniques used in MBH98 and many others? You know, the ones with “novel statistical methods”, with verification stats so bad they had to hide them? Those the ones you talking about?
if the stats are “hidden”, how do you know about them?
I am sorry your memory is so faulty. Part of being brainwashed, I think.
The largest refrain from WUWT for many years has been that while Tavg has risen, the objective view is that Tmin is the culprit, that is, nighttime temperatures have been rising. Some of this is due to UHI, which you also deny.
Wake up, increased Tmin means longer growing seasons, increased CO2 means better plant growth and better water usage, all adding up to more food for a growing global population.
The CAGW Bible is falling apart with the dismissal of the 8.5 and the path being declared implausible. Your belief system is being challenged.
I don’t deny UHI, I just think the adjustments are sufficient to account for it.
That’s borne out by the USCRN data (which, tellingly perhaps, WUWT have not updated at all since May).
USCRN was warmer than ClimDiv every month this summer (JJA) and in both USCRN and ClimDiv it was the warmest Tavg summer on record for the CONUS. Same with UAH lower troposphere.
As WUWT claims that the USCRN sites are “properly sited” and “state-of-the art“, we can hardly blame UHI for this, can we?
yep–it has been a rather warm summer around here–kind of reminiscent of the 1930’s, and the lack of precipitation reminiscent of the 50’s. Nothing but normal weather in the grand scheme of things.
It reminded you of the 1930s then?
Most US temperature records were set during the 1930’s today is not at all unusual
Well, if the record warmest summer in a +130-year long temperature record isn’t ‘unusual’ then you have to wonder what the word ‘unusual’ is for?
Almost certainly warming in the 1930s and 40s in the USA.
… and in most of the NH.
That is what raw data shows.
Natural variation is *NOT* unusual! The issue is that climate science NEVER bothers to actually formalize the variance associated with natural variation.
What is the variance for the Global Average Temperature? What is the range of the natural variation? Do *you* know? If you don’t then how do classify anything as “unusual”?
It’s been a very mild summer in the PNW. Averages are nonsense.
Here are the rankings for this summer:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/american-summer-2/
And here are the summer T trends:
What you’re saying about averages has some merit. They can hide a lot of detail, as this graph clearly demonstrates.
And smearing the averages over entire states gives one a bogus result. West of the Cascades in WA state was nowhere near hot. And “since 1975”? Right, very cool period.
USCRN shows absolute no warming apart from at El Nino events in 2016 and 2023/4/5
ClimDiv is a meaningless FAKE adjusted series, and any comparison to USCRN is purely an artefact of the adjustments..
USCRN shows warming of +0.6C per decade in the US since 2005, despite what my learned friend says.
USCRN show long periods of near zero trend, with a slight step at the 2016 El Nino and a bit more recent, from the dual solar energy charged El ninos.
Since the measurement uncertainty of USCRN could be several °C how do you identify a difference of 0.6°C? That amount of difference is well inside the measurement uncertainty interval – meaning the actual difference is part of the Great Unknown.
Where does climate science keep their magical crystal ball that can see into the Great Unknown?
The measurement uncertainty budget for USCRN in Section 8.10.2b, Site Surroundings, ẟT_site says:
Uncertainty and units: Small at correctly chosen sites, but could be several oC: Not included in the current assessment of overall uncertainty
Several °C? And they leave this out of the overall uncertainty assessment?
How in hell can they properly account for UHI if site uncertainty, which could be several °C, is not included?
UHI is part of site measurement uncertainty.
What you are actually saying wihle trying to hide it is that UHI is a GUESSED AT ADJUSTMENT made to the raw measurements! Which actually ADDS more measurment uncertainty!
And UAH agrees with USCRN?
That’s not a positive for UAH, it’s a NEGATIVE!
“And UAH agrees with USCRN?
That’s not a positive for UAH, it’s a NEGATIVE!”
And there we have it – from the *horses* mouth.
In his world, literally nothing is accepted that goes against the prefered opinion.
Result: He is never wrong (in his own mind).
Same goes for some others here.
The measurement uncertainty of the satellites due to parametrization of path loss is +/- 2K at least.
The same applies for CRN. CRN does not even include a value for site related measurement uncertainty in their measurement uncertainty budget. Even for CRN this would result in a measurement uncertainty of several degrees Celsius.
So you are trying to claim that UAH matching CRN is a positive?
That’s like saying that since a reading from a micrometer with +/- 2mm measurement uncertainty matches a reading from a second micrometer with +/- 2mm uncertainty means they are both accurate!
You *really* don’t have a answer for this do you?
Do you TRULY believe that a measurement of 10mm +/- 2mmm from one micrometer matching a reading of 10mm +/- 2mm from a second one means the value of 10mm is accurate?
Don’t be afraid. Tell us whether you believe that 10mm reading is accurate!
Hammered-F.Nailhead, he can’t hear you, he can’t learn a thing from you, doesn’t matter how Plain-&-Simple you lay this out.
How do you explain why the USCRN temperature stations WUWT describes “properly sited” have warmed at a faster rate than the imperfectly sited but adjusted stations used for ClimDiv over the past ~22 years, WRL?
Jim seems to be incapable of doing so, and WUWT are practically hiding from the fact.
Be the first to explain it!
22 years—a blink in the overall time scale
And 7 years and 8 months?:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/07/02/the-new-pause-lengthens-to-7-years-10-months/
Indeed. The time it takes for trends to become valid here at WUWT are a moveable feast.
If it’s a cooling trend, then a few months to a few years is proof positive.
If it’s a warming trend, then we’re talking centuries to millennia before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
If CO2 is the temperature control knob and it is increasing while temperature is either stagnant or cooling then it raises the issue of whether CO2 is actually *the* control knob.
If CO2 is *NOT* the only control knob then what are the other control knobs and why isn’t climate science focused on changing them? Why aren’t they even identified as control knobs?
Cooling in the face of CO2 is *NOT* being used to project future state variables, it is merely being used to falsify the claim that CO2 is *the* control knob for temperature.
“If CO2 is the temperature control knob and it is increasing while temperature is either stagnant or cooling then it raises the issue of whether CO2 is actually *the* control knob.”
I’m sorry, but again you confound me.
Why is it you cannot conceive of natural variation lying within the long-term (AGW) one?.
After all we see an EN event markedly increasing the atmopsheric temp.
The anthro CO2 signal is but ~3ppm/yr. or currently 3/420 ths.
Why would you expect that small increment to be visible against that sort of backdrop?
It takes several years (yes. sometimes more than a “Monckton pause”) to emerge again from the NV signal.
CO2 is a “control knob” because it is non-condensing.
It builds up, accumulates in the atmosphere.
WV does not.
It is dependent on temp for it’s concentration and so condenses and rains out.
There you have a feeback of rising temps – more WV – rising temps etc.
CO2 is GHG at terrstrial temps, importantly at around the Earth’s ave temp (no it’s not swamped by WV).
Thus CO2 provides a back-stop at which the climate has to slow any fast feedback and then go into the slow ones such as rock erosion for CO2 to deplete and beging a cooling process..
Non sequitur. You want it both ways. CO2 increases temperature but it doesn’t increase temperature.
Pick one and stick with it.
All the EN events do is expose either more area at a warmer temperature or less area at a warmer area. That’s the only impact as far as the “global average” is concerned.
It’s like using an 8″ pan to warm water and then pouring it into a 10″ pan. Climate science says the average temperature of the 10″ pan is greater – because more warm water is exposed. Measure a 10″ circle around the 8″ pan and you’ll get a lower average temperature because less warm water is exposed.
It’s an artifact of the trade winds and not of any increased temperature.
And it is totally bullshite. CO2 is a reflector, it absorbs heat from the earth and returns a portion of it back to the earth. That tiny bit of reflected heat from CO2 is absorbed by the earth and then spread over the complete Planck spectrum of the earth. You’ll see an infinitesimal increase at each frequency in the Planck curve. So infinitesimal that our current satellite technology can’t measure it.
Climate science takes the decrease at the CO2 frequency and then tries to say that the same decrease applies to the whole Planck radiation curve from the earth. It’s garbage science, just like so much of climate science.
Planck states that reflected heat gets re-emitted based on the temperature of the object receiving the reflected heat. It’s called “compensation”. Reflected heat from CO2 does *NOT* get re-emitted by earth solely at the CO2 frequency but that is what climate science wants you to believe.
There is no doubt that CO2 SLOWS DOWN the cooling curve of the earth. But guess what? A slower decaying curve emits MORE heat than a faster decaying curve. See the attached sketch. The top curve is the “hindered” decay curve. The amount of heat emitted is proportional to the area under the curve.
Which curve has the most area beneath it?
So what? It just reflects more and the earth compensates more. The only way the climate science theory works is if all of that reflected heat is RETAINED permanently. But if it is retained permanently then why hasn’t earth become a molten rock millennia ago? How in Pete’s name does an ice age ever happen if all that reflected heat is permanently retained?
And if it is *NOT* permanently retained then what happens to the climate science meme of “the earth will eventually burn up”?
And if Climdiv was “adjusted” a bit differently, there would be a different result…
It is totally “AGW klimate kook” to compare actual against “adjusted”..
and think it has any rational meaning…
… afterall.. “adjustment” is what they do to every bit of data. !
“… afterall.. “adjustment” is what they do to every bit of data. !”
Yeah, hows about we go back the pre 20th ct when “thermometers were hung on verandas” (eg in Oz) and not adjust them?
Or not adjust after moving a site to a warmer spot.
(just fine though if it’s cooler of cours).
Again the biggest data adjustment was to sea-temps via bucket that increased them.
Hows about we remove it?
I suspect you would be uphappy is the above were done?
Coz, would lead to a marked warm bias.
Mind, that’s just fine when it was in the past.
There’s a word beginning wth “h” that decribes that.
Right, but we’ve seen years of threads here at WUWT (Monckton springs to mind) implying that a few years of zero positive trend in even a single data set (usually UAH) is sufficient to cast doubt on global warming as being a thing.
Yet with USCRN we now have over two decades of ‘pristine’ data telling us that the warming observed in the adjusted data is not only real, but that the NOAA adjustment algorithms appear to be introducing a cooling, not warming bias.
USCRN shows long periods of NO WARMING with slight step changes at El Nino events.
.
ClimDiv “adjustments” create a cooling bias compared to its target..
… either on purpose, or by “adjustments” to the “adjustment” algorithm..
They could “adjust” those “adjustments” and get a different set of meaningless numbers if they wanted to.
You should update your second figure to the present.
CONUS had its warmest anomalies this past winter… during a La Niña, not an El Niño.
That doesn’t bode particularly well for your theory, setting aside its other issues.
So you want to include the El Nino..
Thanks… Further proof that it isn’t caused by CO2 🙂
Data show Nino 34 warming from April-August, almost certainly from absorbed solar radiation. CO2 cannot possibly do that.
So… NOT La Nina
ElNinoforecastAugust2026png-1600×1200.png (1600×1200)
Extra few months make stuff all difference to the near zero trend since 2015 anyway
.
CONUS did not. Some places did, some places didn’t. Averaging temperature is bogus.
Gobsmacking:
Then how on Earth can we know how the world’s climate is changing if we don’t “average”.
Any large system has variance – so how do you get a handle on its overall direction of travel without an average?
Do you support the averaging of proxies that determined, oh I don’t know …. The MWP or the LIA.?
Unless you prefer to favour the reports of medieval monks recording anecdotes in diaries.
After all a monastery is sufficiently isolated to not require the term averaging (in areal space).
Would several monasteries be acceptable?
After all it would *prove* that the MWP or the LIA existed. (sarc)
“Any large system has variance – so how do you get a handle on its overall direction of travel without an average?”
What do you average?
Earth is *not* a single system. It consists of a multiplicity of independent systems with an intensive property of temperature.
Would averaging the temperature of ten different water baths from ten different locations tell you anything physically meaningful about water baths? Especially if the water baths have a wide variance of temperature from being used for many different purposes?
Does averaging the temperature in San Diego, a coastal city, with the temperature in Hays, Kansas, an inland city in a semi-arid desert, tell you *anything* that is physically meaningful? Does averaging the anomalies generated by those locations tell you anything physically meaningful since the variance of the temperature data at each location is significantly different?
“Temperature is not climate”
No, it is an indicator of the energy within the climate system.
Which is all we can discover (via past data) and all we can follow into the future.
(including satellite data of Ein and Eout)
Again you rail against common-sense.
It is what it is and it’s all we’ve got.
Actually it isn’t. The metric for the energy within the climate system is ENTHALPY. Temperature totally misses latent heat which *IS* a component of the energy within the climate system.
You and Teyve in “Fiddler on the Roof” would get along splendily! “Tradition” is good enough for you!
Meteorological data sufficient to at least estimate the enthalpy at each measurement point has been available to climate science for 40 years or longer. That is a sufficiently long period to run global enthalpy average calculations in parallel with global temperature average calculations so as to identify any problems with using temperature as a metric.
Yet climate science adamantly refuses to do so. Why? My guess is that it is:
It is what it is and it’s all we’ve got.”
Common sense says you can’t average an intensive property across different things.
If averaging an intensive property across different things works then you could average the temperature of ten different water baths being used for different purposes (i.e. different temperatures) and get an average that would be physically meaningful and useful in developing a value for that intensive property that would work for all ten water baths.
*THAT* my friend is common sense. Averaging temperatures simply doesn’t work as a metric for anything. Nor do anomalies help. The anomalies developed between the current temperature and the long term temperature for each water bath can’t be averaged and give you a physically meaningful value either.
Because an average of temperature tells you nothing about the energy exchanges going on.
Insolation energy arrives from the sun. Some small amount is directly absorbed into the atmosphere. Some is reflected back into space by clouds. Some is scattered by the atmosphere. Some reach the land and ocean and is reflected and some absorbed. Of the absorbed some is conducted downward into the soil while the ocean depths are warmed directly through scattering and a direct absorption.
Some of that absorbed energy is not radiated or conducted into the atmosphere as it is received. Some of it is moved around by currents in the oceans warming some areas and cooling others. Much of it is conducted downward into the soil allowing flora to begin its growth and reproductive processes as spring and summer start. Through winter the stored heat is released to the atmosphere keeping it warmer than it would if nothing was stored in the ground.
Try and find a scientific peer reviewed paper that follows this sequence using appropriate mathematics and thermodynamics. Post it here.
I can’t even find one that has made a definitive conclusion about how much CO2 has been released due to the growth of 20% in greenery and the respiration of CO2 to cause that growth. Most only talk about the photosynthesis part of the equation and never mention that the glucose created by photosynthesis is turned back into CO2 during the respiration phase that actually grows the mass that is green, or the stalks, or the seeds.
What’s gobsmacking is that you think there is a global or even regional temperature.
And no, I don’t support the averaging of proxies. That’s how we end up with Mann’s Bristlecone pines being the only proxy in his various series’ with a hockey stick dictating the final shape. Or Briffa’s One Tree in Yamal. And the Pages2K nonsense creating hockey sticks out of thin air.
“implying that a few years of zero positive trend in even a single data set (usually UAH) is sufficient to cast doubt on global warming as being a thing.”
No, it’s being used to falsify the theory that CO2 is *the* control knob for temperature. That is *NOT* the same thing as denying global warming even though it does raise issues with exactly how great actual global warming is and how long it will last.
This statement says everything people need to know about you. The only thing a “pause” proves is that CO2 is NOT A CONTROL KNOB! I’m sorry you cannot recognize the difference between saying that CO2 does not have a definable functional relationship that determines temperature and claiming that “global warming” is not occurring.
Maybe you can make the point that Tmax is increasing faster than Tmin. That would be a worthwhile project for you to prove.
Would you prefer cooling? Colder than the LIA? I don’t think you would. Any warming we’ve see is nothing but beneficial to humanity.
The CRN measurement uncertainty budget says for site measurement uncertainty:
“ Not included in the current assessment of overall uncertainty”
So how do you judge “properly sited” if site measurement uncertainty is not included in the USCRN measurement uncertainty?
Dear f’Nail-Head Hammered,
reading comprehension not your strong point, but why not try a reasoned line? —
Put forth your best idea, or evidence, out there for all to see.
That way, we’d all have a chance to learn something, in that way,
Instead seeing you as a hammer-headed fool.
Best wishes kind regards,
— A. Friend, when you needed one most
Here.
See Denis below at 0535
No see me below ….
IPCC is the best you have? A summary written by politicians that require science reports to be changed if they do not agree with the summary?
That is the best you have?
If you talked like that in my local pub, your face would be smacked in within five minutes of you opening your mouth.
Are you old enough to go into a pub, I wonder.
“These days it’s all about downplaying the impacts of the warming, adaptation and mitigation, etc. Or claiming that the warming is because of clouds or solar or magical heat created by the oceans, etc.”
Exactly.
Back in the early days of this website, almost every article was about climate.
But these days, more and more of the content seems focused on attacking renewable energy rather than discussing climate itself. WUWT has really drifted away from what it originally set out to do.
Mann noticed this shift five years ago:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/climate-scientist-michael-mann-deniers-are-shifting-tactics/
Er, it was the climate catastrophists who focused on energy since the get-go, not being able to stir much distress in the general populace over weather events.
Shoulda stayed in their lane.
I don’t understand why you guys are so interested in taking the views of the most extreme climate activists and treating them as though they represent the state of climate science.
Who cares what some “climate catastrophist” says? If your goal is to critique climate science, then critique what climate scientists actually publish and conclude in the scientific literature.
Scientists, activists, journalists, and politicians aren’t interchangeable groups.
People here treat them as if they are.
That’s why Al Gore and Greta Thunberg are such recurring figures in skeptical discussions, even though neither is an authority on the state of climate science.
So what multiple disciplines of science does a “climate scientist” possess expertise in, pray tell?
(There being hundreds, if not thousands, of distinctive climates around this planet.)
“There being hundreds, if not thousands, of distinctive climates around this planet.)”
And they are all driven ultimately by Ein from the Sun absorbed globally.
The “climates” you describe are the outcome of the distribution of Ein by the oceans and atmosphere.
Exactly what an acolyte of the the CAGW Bible would say. The thermodynamic processes occurring every moment of every day give the lie to your simplistic attitude. Your statement betrays your lack interest in researching the processes and how they connect.
You want to connect Ein as determined at the TOA directly to atmospheric temperature. Sorry, the world doesn’t work that way.
You’re saying that Mann isn’t a scientist then, since he’s a catastrophist. Got it.
“I almost miss the days when WUWT was in flat-out reality denial regarding the fact of global warming.”
And just when was that? I’ve been active here for several years- and yes, some regulars here say there is no warming- but most think there may be a little warming but nothing to fear and no justification for spending trillions of dollars to fix – and that if there is a trivial warming, we don’t know how much if any is due to carbon emissions. So saying that WUWT was once in flat-out denial is flat out wrong.
I say what I’ve been saying for 20 years. Any warming is not global. Some places have warmed, some have cooled, some have remained relatively static. Some have even warmed, then cooled, then warmed again, then cooled… It’s almost like there are patterns. Weird.
Tone deaf and ignorant and lacking insight still.
MAN MADE global warming is false.Carbon dioxide as global CHANGE determinant false.Solar and wind actual carbon dioxide sparing false.Higher carbon dioxide level BAD is false.Peak oil, peak coal, peak gas is false.Islands NOT being drownedCoral reefs thriving and in abundanceWater to drink and sustain life NOT DRIED UPHumans optimal environment warm since originCold deaths greatly outnumber heat deathsStarted like this, still of the same opinion.
MAN MADE global warming is false.
Carbon dioxide as global CHANGE determinant false.
Solar and wind actual carbon dioxide sparing false.
Higher carbon dioxide level BAD is false.
Peak oil, peak coal, peak gas is false.
Islands are NOT being drowned
Coral reefs thriving and in abundance
Water to drink and sustain life NOT DRIED UP
Humans optimal environment warm since origin in Africa
Cold deaths greatly outnumber heat deaths
Started like this, still of the same opinion.
Your ability to see what was never there, seems to be as good as ever.
Probably because human caused climate change is apparent and can no longer be denied.
Denied!
“it’s just not as much fun any more.”
And yet, you are still here.
Excellent, so good to hear him [VJ-J-a-Raj] in his own voice.
17 minutes wasn’t long enough to include his UEA period.
There is no single global climate – unless you happen to work for the Met Office.
One ocean, one climate – Met Office
France has arrested 402 people linked to wildfires in summer 2026
Antarctica’s Concordia research station recorded the frigid temperature of –119.4°F (–84.1°C) on July 18.
Should we not say global cooling? I wouldn’t, but some parts certainly are.
T = – 120 F at Concordia reminds of that fine June (1990) day of T = +122 F (that’s a flippin’ +50 Celsius!) at my hometown. Magic numbers are a lovely subject, for another cool day.
(We’ve had nothing but Global Cooling, -242 F worth, ever since, HoHoh.)
They closed down the air traffic at the mega-airport Sky Harbor (PHX), that afternoon, because …
… something about not getting sufficient ‘Lift’ thru the Thin Air.
At the ‘Birds of Prey’ show in Heidelberg (Germany), in July of 2006, the big falcons refused to fly, for that same reason, or so they told us. I thought they just needed to electrify(-) their wing (feathers), in order to repel them better from the charged earth beneath our feet.
But the Falconers knew better than to (ever) listen to visiting American vagabonds.
Personally, I believe that Fahrenheit 4,51 (gain per c./4) should be the Motto for our Epoch.
That’s a measly +0.10-Celsius gradations, year-in year-out.
C’mon now; we can do this — Yes We Can!
One ocean, one climate – Met Office
That’s quite a distorted cartography, IMHO.
[We] have nada contra One-Worldisms.
Old Bucky Fuller [R. Buckminster Fuller, 1895-1993, R.I.P.] preached incessantly:
Humanity lives on a One-World-Continent [Island], surrounded by a One-World-Ocean [Southern / Pacific], to which are appended a puny Salt Lake [N. Atlantic], and an inland ice-covered Lake [Arctic].
Certainly, as a Mariner himself, he had a Point, which he backed up Cartographically with his
— his DyMaxion Map (Icosahedral Globe),
— his-North-Polar oriented views of the Globe, and (especially)
— his famous GeoDesic Domes, including the so-called Montréal SkyDome (enclosed the U.S.A. Pavilion, 1967) that stands today on an Isle of the St.-Lawrence Seaway.
As to the One-World-Ocean & its Various Bays, if only its Circulation were true & free!
Instead of being choked by myriad Straits & Channels, and force (if at all) Under-the-Ice at -2 Celsius within the Arctic Circle.
So what’s the Solution to this Conundrum? Pump – Siphon – Plumb (unclog) – Blow-Out from every nozzle; spread the glacier-meltwaters across every land. Re-fertilise the open seas with {carbonate, phosphate, ferrates, ammoniates} until the whole surface is a Plankton – Kelp-Forest Octopus’s Garden.
How to put a final end to all our Dry-Cold-Dead past, Basta
The Question virtually Answers Itself, Si Basta!
Q.E.D. R.I.P. & Amen!
Didn’t save it, but a while back somebody posted the notion that some parts are warming some are cooling and I suppose some are static.
But our the news media only tells us about those that are warming and blames various natural events that cause death and destruction on climate change.
I expect that Covering Climate Now isn’t the only outlet that does that.
I remember a post from years ago that determined that the globe is roughly equally divided between warming, cooling, and static over the last 100 years or so. The warming areas slightly greater warming than the cooling, resulting in an overall (tiny) increase.
In my view, CO2 is a miracle gas. According to Drs. Happer and Wijngaarden, both atmospheric physicists, the first 20 ppm in our atmosphere warms the planet by about 2.5C. The next 20 ppm increment warms it more but by an amount less than the first 20 ppm. When the amount gets to where it is today, about 420ppm, the total warming effect amounts to about 30C but further increments provide very little additional warming. Doubling CO2 to about 840 ppm can do no more than warm the planet by about 1C. The CO2 warming effect is self limiting.
Meanwhile, the presence of CO2 is essential for the process of sunlight-synthesis (photosynthesis) where CO2 is combined with other compounds and elements into plants and ultimately into animals that eat the plants. No CO2 – no photosynthesis – no plants – no animals. And in this process, CO2 is not self limiting. More CO2 leads to more plants as we see today with the increasing amounts of CO2 in air, as can be seen in the vast layers of coal created many millions of years ago when CO2 was in the thousands of pppm and as can be observed in any greenhouse where the CO2 concentration is artificially raised.
CO2, along with water vapor and a few other trace gasses, keeps us warm, but not too warm, and provides us and other animals abundant food. A miracle gas. Without it, we would not exist.
It’s fair to say that Happer and Wijngaarden’s conclusions are heavily contested.
Interesting link that, rusty, me old China.
Asked 3 years, 3 months ago
Modified 1 year, 8 months ago
Viewed 8k times
It’s all over the shop. Why not state your point? What is it you allege is contested and why. Can you manage that? Here’s hoping…
Don’t hold your breath for an answer, strat.
And heavily supported by geology
I read your link. Ha, Ha, Ha! Not exactly a takedown. One of the answers even brought up another peer reviewed paper that pretty agreees with Happer and Wihngaarden.
Problem with H & W is that they are stuck in the radiative realm.
Energy moved by air movement vastly outweighs any tiny theoretical warming by short distance internal radiative effects.
Not sure that we actually use or need it in its CO2 (gaseous) form; that’s probably just a conveyance.
Bicarbonate (HCO3- anion) in the soda / sea-water, would probably do just as well.
People mocked Tyndall et al. for writing about ‘Carbonic Acid Vapor’ instead of just plain CO2.
But { solid dry-ice / pure CO2 in cylinders / sc-liquid CO2 in your dry-cleaners &c &c. } are extremely rare in nature; they’re industrial products, for the most part.
Whereas the bio- and aqueous-active forms (mentioned above) are ubiquitous. Just look up the ferrous forms, Fe(II) [HCO3(-)]2 … say bis-bicarbonato fast, 3X
More to the immediate point:
Whoever has proved that H2CO3 vapor is not the dominant form, in our lower troposphere as we can observe it.
No one has ever denied that tri-atomic CO2 molecules has the infrared-absorption spectrum that every chemistry student has measured in the lab, exploited in his CO2-laser, or detected (remotely) in the Skies.
But that in no way excludes its ‘hydrato’ form, wherever moisture can be found!
“Doubling CO2 to about 840 ppm can do no more than warm the planet by about 1C. The CO2 warming effect is self limiting.”
Just not true (if you mean that that is what W & H said) …
“A comparison of our result for the climate sensitivity defined as the surface warming due
to doubling the CO2 concentration from 400 to 800 ppm, to other work is given in Table
5. “
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.0309
Check the lapse rate….
Tell us exactly when and how the globe is going to reach 800+ ppm.
It won’t make any difference to the temperature, even if it does.
Incremental CO2 does not cause warming…. solar energy does.
Interesting that NOT ONE of those “models” remotely describes Earth’s atmosphere. 😉
ROFL! Comparing adjusted vales to model values. Yep, that’s a *real* eye opener!
Is Earth’s global temperature also affected by rising solar radiation, or is CO2 the sole cause of the rise in global temperature?
“Is Earth’s global temperature also affected by rising solar radiation, or is CO2 the sole cause of the rise in global temperature?”
Yes.
The GHE has put in place a feed-back, whereby, because of a reduction of RH (relative humidity) cloudbases have risen and over the Pacific ocean in particular this has meant that the cloud condensation level has more closely approached the sub-tropical inversion top- and so there has been a reduction of cloud amounts.
Thus more solar has been absorbed – this allowing the imbalance to be countered by higher temps radiating LWIR to space at shorter wavelengths..
This effect has been noted here …..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL037527
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4250165/
Increasing solar radiation is the cause of Earth’s rising temperature.
There is nothing to do about Earth’s temperature increase when increasing solar radiation is the cause of Earth’s temperature increase.
“The GHE has put in place a feed-back, whereby, because of a reduction of RH”
You and climate science need to get on the same page. Climate science says increased CO2 will *INCREASE* evaporation which should increase water vapor amounts in the atmosphere which, in turn, should *increase* clouds.
It is specific humidity that determines the coverage and depth of the clouds. Relative humidity only determines *when* they form, not their coverage and depth. Coverage and depth depends on how *much* water vapor is available and that is determined by specific humidity.
Increased evaporation *increases* the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere which *should* increase the cloud coverage and cloud depths.
The influence of solar radiation is minimized and the anthropogenic effect is maximized in the IPCC models.
This is the reason why the large impact of solar radiation variations on the Earth’s climate is not seen in the climate scientists’ research.
Is this climate research manipulation deliberate?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987123001172
Climate catastrophists don’t care about the environment or the climate. It’s just a political cudgel to implement their perverse ideological objectives for nations.
Funny thing is, I rarely see AGW supporters on here bringing politics into the discussion. The same certainly can’t be said for you guys—you seem to love talking about politics.
IPCC is a political organisation… it says so in its title.
“Climate Change” is all about politics.. Not science.
Well, the climate crisis lobby is obsessed with converting each, all and every politician to follow their false alarm.
To do that, they falsify the past temperature records and cherry-pick events to mainline alarm and panic as well as give false witness.
All based on mathematical models which do not represent reality nor consist of proper reasoning. They EMBED CO2 and then claim to FIND CO2 in the results.
WE ARE NOT DECEIVED
You read too much WUWT.
Yeah they’re deceivers. Ultimately they want to tell everyone else how to live their lives Snakes all of you people.
“look beyond the narrative, examine the data, and ask what the evidence actually shows”
But that’s not as exciting as turning the climate into a threat so that it justifies certain political actions.
Reading the comment of one commenter one has to wonder if the insane are among us and ranting about climate instead of the coming of the messiah, in either case it is the end of times to that crowd. It was cooling for a while and than warmed up a bit and is now apparently cooling a bit from last year. In any case it is cooler than it was in the 1000 AD warm period and prior warm periods as well.
PSA: All the ice on Greenland and Antarctica now and all the ice that was on the planet during the last glacial period maximum, 80 to 85 million cubic kilometers, came from water vapor. Tectonics made it all possible.
I shall limn once again that scientific definitions are specific and concise and use of common/social language context derived definitions makes communications “noisy.”
Heat is the flow of thermal energy via kinetic molecular interactions (from hot to cold).
Infrared is not heat. It is electromagnetic radiation.
Kinetic interactions happen at much slower than the speed of sound.
EM travels at c.