After production in the upper atmosphere, the carbon-14 atoms react rapidly to form mostly (about 93%) 14CO (carbon monoxide), which subsequently oxidizes at a slower rate to form 14CO2, radioactive carbon dioxide. 18HIxxno-9A10HIGHLAND SHRUB A. and in GHCN daily (same record as in GHCN V4). Do the math. Virtually no one agrees with Hawking’s view of runaway feedbacks on Earth. Prof. Hansen has suggested that 1987’s climate is a nice place to revisit. Anyone else close? That is insane. Climate science has the Credibility of a Journalist…. Using 13 months does not make the result a yearly (12 month) average, there’s no double counting. Scientists routinely speak in terms of probabilities, and sometimes they enumerate them for public consumption.”. 5) Apply then both 9.5µ and 15µ. “Given sufficient optical depth, CO2 will absorb every photon passing through it. When was the last time that a strong La-Nina did not follow from a strong El-Nino? By May of this year, the UAH 6.0 global temp anomaly should fall to around -0.1~-0.2C. The sun has always been a required element in the GHE. Dating for expats info, Living in Germany is an incredible opportunity to rediscover and reinvent yourself, including the romantic side of your life. (given that as of now, the final data is yet to be published). (ppm) (Kasting 1993; Berner 1997). The difference between flux EMITTED and flux RECEIVED must include details of the geometry — the distances between the surfaces and the orientations of the surfaces. How about the immense electromagnetic field around the Sun? The thermometer scale is calibrated from boiling and freezing water. “Climate change” has always been nothing more than always wrong, wild guess PREDICTIONS of a coming climate crisis. With the same amount of solar input the surface will reach a higher temperature with a GHE than without. That means far less than nothing. But you know that a car engine overheats no hot days more readily than cold ones, even though the engine is always hotter than the ambient air. Compare this to the sea level rise that actually occurred from 1986 to 2020 of a little over 10 cm. Blue objects are blue precisely because they absorb other colors and reflect/transmit blue. (Jan/Feb/Mar/Apr/May)-June-(July/Aug/Sept/Oct/Nov/Dec), so the average has 6 forward months and 5 backward months. Let’s keep going: The second ice cube is a second emitter. I specifically used “kinetic energy”, to avoid anyone confusing the issue. Water is now flowing in from the upper tap and out through the lower tap at the same rate.The volume of water and the water level stay constant. There is anyway no absolute data in UAH for such periods, so you can’t calculate any absolute average for them. One has to have a worst case scenario, RCP 8.5 being among other things, the only one that doesn’t have CO2 removal as part of the scenario. Visible light photons pass through transparent glass quite nicely. Does that sound like someone that doesn’t understand the quantum physics of a CO2 molecule? The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations: Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txtMid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txtTropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txtLower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt. Most of the time ENSO is neutral and there is no apparent long-term trend. Is the data set consistent from 1880, or is it an apples and oranges data set that is meaningless https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1255&context=usdaarsfacpub. Check out this analysis… According to it, the anomaly plummeted in December. In Winter in the Arctic and Antarctic the greenhouse effect has very little effect because it redirects upward longwave radiation from the surface. That was almost funny, Blandidon. Ok, then. 3) If the correlation isn’t causation, you are implying that it is a coincidence. No wonder it gets cold! By my calcs this energy is substantially higher ( 40-50 times) than 15 micrometre IR ? Bindidon wasn’t using NOAA global temp data – that index was the ENSO multivariate index, which uses multiple indices to calculate ENSO fluctuations, like wind speed, for example. Nor does surface treatment. Second…we all know that CO2 forcing is logarithmic. 1) CO2 Gas Or slimy trolls too lazy to think for themselves.”. Alarmists like you have no clue. You are demonstrating a change in the view variable which does nothing whatsoever to establish the one-way glass theory that is fundamental global warming. That makes you both a troll and an idiot. That reads loke a potted hatchet job to me. This experiment would kill 2 birds with one stone. They ignore the obvious ways a normal scientist would define something. CHM00054511 1951 1 15 -19.1 Global Warming if they aren't pointing the finger at Man? Hey remember when chemtrails were a conspiracy theory…oops, https://news.trust.org/item/20201218140025-po1gu. all zero relative, and uniformly scaled to percentiles. Some minor over looked feedback mechanism and amplification that causes increasing water vapor, clouds, albedo change and periodic warming and cooling. 2020: 10.16 It also means that climate sensitivity for CO2 is greater than 1.6. I really want to learn about this new statistical technique of Mikes Nature Trick to Hide the Decline. c) More than 300 W/m^2. The BOM’s model was one of those three models that on that date (May 26) predicted La Nina conditions. I can’t comment on the equations, way out of my league, but anyone who is patient can follow the concepts. Simply look at a temperature chart, it is highly volatile. So if the chamber is -80 C, the gas will stay at -80C. A second ice cube is placed on the other side of the thermometer, equally spaced as the first ice cube. We have had three days of rain and the lights still work. You and WUWT seem to believe that you have discovered something climate scientists haven’t considered. http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png, Uh Oh, looks like the NASA Models do an awful job as well. SPE00120278 1981 1 7 -6.2 But… there was no difference visible, so I switched to 12 month means. Cut down on the fossil fuels and the temp goes up ass well! No ClintR, I explained exactly how IR is trapped, as it takes longer for the IR to leave the earth and escape to space. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time. Am I being too generous? Dave G, you really need to work on your analogies. Alas, measurements show otherwise. To get there would require the technological capture and geological burial of 65 ppm of CO2. Pictet et al also demonstrate what I was blabbing about before. So subtracting 0.12 from my guess, I would have estimated 0.03 anomaly for January. His idea – to demonstrate that the more H2O aka water vapor there is, the more warming you get – sorry: that is really nonsense. The average downward travel would then have to be much less than Nahle’s upward travel time. If you still don’t see the place I mean, then you give, for the 1000th time, the proof to be an absolute ignorant. Digital Playground - Jane Wilde Paige Owens - Lucky Seven Episode 4.mp4. 2) Was it “Adjusted”? When the wind started the cables vibrating, like a huge guitar, the vibrations were transferred to the deck and back to the cables. I only watched the first first minute and a half and he made two points about CO2 and plants and greenhouses. The net result would be a continued warm Arctic which is the biggest single factor in GAST increases of the last 4 decades. 1. There’s no reason to be. The “Unadjusted” data is closer to 90%. Both the start and end portions should be clear and concise. I pointed out Nick was wrong in both the equation he referred to and the way the summation worked which would eliminate his purported dimensional discrepancy. Exclude a couple in the right areas and we have a new yearly winner. The atmosphere is insulation. http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png. Our concept of “temperature” comes from a comparison of kinetic energies. If you want to claim that there is warming in this chart due to CO2, have at it, but only the most gullible fool on earth would believe that. Show me a single IPCC model that doesn’t have CO2 as the most significant variable. In terms of whether desert temps have changed over the period, the signal is what will tell that to you. El Nino and La Nina are transient cycles that provide no long term perturbation either way in Earth’s energy balance or global mean temperature. It remains one of the significant uncertainties for various reasons. Heat is first required. Why the gaps? All who permanently urge in saying something, like those little dogs who constantly have to pee on every tree: they have nothing to say. CO2 will cool the atmosphere all wth way down to -80C&Deg;, and will only warm the atmosphere if it is less than -80C&Deg;. So predict what going to happen in 100 years- our ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5 C {though we don’t know it’s exact temperature} will remain around 3.5 C. The Global Temperatures include the impact of H2O and the Urban Heat Island effect. Exactly barry. Do you really believe anyone can usefully predict future climate states? ps. Explain your nonsense. You seem to be more interested in the optics, and your understanding of the science seems to be chiselled out of your reaction to it. Note that the sea level rise predictions come from Hoffman et al. https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html#comment-form, NCEP/NCAR reanalysis surface temp anomaly area weighted global average: Do you even know what model is being represented in the yellow uncertainty envelope? However, in such cases, the transfer of heat is always from hot to cold. The prevailing estimate seems to be after 2050 from what I’m seeing. ”. The only way you make the model work is if you “adjust” the data, because you can’t “adjust” the physics of a CO2 molecule and the log decay in W/M^2. You reveal having not done enough lab work. Indeed he was quite critical and even supported the view that it was probably a statistical artifact. Did you read the GHCN-M documentation? C, down substantially from the November, 2020 value of +0.53 deg. With no atmosphere, the temperature adjacent to the surface would be at a temperature of -273C. Linear regression from Jan 1979 to Dec 2014, another from Jan 1979 to Dec 2020, and another from Jan 1979 to Dec 2022. Good question, I have no idea, but an open-source approach would add transparency. Sagan had hypothesized that the current atmosphere on Venus was caused by a runaway greenhouse effect, whatever that means. I thought UV will also go straight into ocean warming ? Now why is that? When the molecule absorbs, that’s “La Niña”. There is a 40x difference in W/M^2 between a desert and rain forest. https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3325, “Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3 mm yr−1 in 2014. All that is needed is continued La Nina conditions, some major volcanic activity, PDO/AMO cooperation and all the warming will be wiped out. Well…actually…with the ONI index < 1.0 we would normally expect December to be even lower than what was reported. While nothing with ENSO is 100%, See Will Happer explaining it in next article. And I specifically used the kinetic energy of the photon, not the frequency or flux. Maybe we should stop asking about who is on the “The Human Caused Global Warming Band Wagon,” and rather realize that Roy Spencer is one of this “Bandwagon’s” strongest witnesses. Along those lines temperature deviations should NOT be based upon the 1991-2020 baseline. Bindidon will be able to determine the matter. The modern temperature record is a mess prior to 1980. See for yourself. Not sure, but the greatest increase in greening also happened in that range. Here is a little hint on what your 2006 prediction for the Maunder guy might be worth: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ls0t2D00ifmPGGsNJVYSDGjgwF-Xz_2B/view, Maybe you should read some stuff written by Leif Svalgaard, he knows a lot about our Sun…. Sorry…UAH is not open for examination by the public. This pushes low altitude air away from those regions, blocking incoming humid air and giving low rainfall. But I am more certain that the idea of increasing CO2 content leading to a runaway positive feedback that increases water vapor, thus more greenhouse trapping heat till we turn into Venus (per the late Dr. Hawking) is just simply off the chart nuts! It is okay and even encouraged to be critical of other’s work. Samurai, in one way I hope you are right, but the other way I hope you aren’t. 38.75 | -78.75: 258 That’s why adding 50 ice cubes does not raise the temperature over one ice cube. You first compare TLT temperature to a computer climate model. You might think they were ignorant of basic geophysical concepts and research. SOI values for 7 Jan, 2021 tout ceci est dans la logique de notre histoire climatique, la remonte depuis 170 ans des tempratures moyennes ne pouvaut mannquer de se traduire par une modification des rythmes glaciaires saisonniers, tant dans les banquises que dans les glaciers et calottes permanentes. An ice cube has a surface area around 43 square centimeters (0.0043 square meters). That additional W/M^2 resulted in Δ0.00C° (use the unadjusted data) I have no interest. Lou, thanks, but heat isn’t maintained in the atmosphere. MatureTube.com is the nr. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hOTENXnOTD_on25ssCIJuE3KaL8H2JCb/view. As a result you are right about not expecting to see any major cooling. An infrared lamp can burn your skin, if too close. The averaged temperature is constant. Solar cycles are not bound to twelvemonth cycles, so counting two Decembers won’t interfere with that. No? Stay warm. At this point, “adding more ice” would have no impact. but this is not providing a simple example to explain physics, it is a strawman. See 3). Additionally, all stations within the Tropics were ignored. I say this because you’re talking points suggest you do not understand the current state of the science and what it says. Simply look up Henry’s law or put a Coke Can on a burner. Because, EL Nino warms the ocean and atmosphere and produces tropospheric water vapor. Or have you already accessed the letter? That’s why a colder atmosphere can’t raise the temperature of a hotter surface.”. Some people would claim this to be true. “I’m looking for Y = mX11 + m2X2 + m3X3 + m4X4…+e. Anyway, my machine doesn’t handle it, and I gave up after learning I had to buy some software to do it. Your hypothetical is equally invalid, because as long as the greenhouse gas concentration level in the atmosphere continues to rise, the warming trend will not reverse itself. What happens to the supposedly trapped IR? The ocean average surface temp is warmer than the atmosphere. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-australia-55541183. The simplest source of 9.5 um radiation is the walls of the whatever chamber the container of gas is in. Salvatore: The current head of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, in my opinion, is an arrogant buffoon. When you wrap a heated source in insulation, you are preventing it from dissipating heat through conduction and convection. I think it would not be bad to first scientifically contradict a paper like this one: Leaf Trait Acclimation Amplifies Simulated Climate Warming in Response to Elevated Carbon Dioxide (2018), https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GB005883. I would not think anyone could find proof CO2 can heat the planet. 410 ppm is 2.0 W/m^2 relative to 280 ppm for example. Another view on H2O vs CO2 using the HITRAN data base at SpectralCalc, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I32co5V0Zjp4I-kU-cuW3ayTE-iIFWkW/view, https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I53h9NLc-5mFZroYg2BrOp3AagWyRQiJ/view. Dr Chrisy savaged their complete and utter failure in some of his work. How many times shall I repeat that neither I let alone you are competent to discuss about CO2 ? So yes, there is multi-colinearity, where temperature and water vapor are functions of each other, but so is CO2. I see you’ve added solar cycles to the mix in your latest comment. ” The sea level rise is about 1/2 foot per century. Above the 60th parallel, the influence of pressure and solar radiation on the temperature in the troposphere and the stratosphere is clearly visible. “All the models start with the assumption that warming is due to man-made CO2”. https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/plot/uah6/mean:13. No one has died from the modest warming that has been observed. CO2isLife Says: This is wrong in so many many ways: Absolutely nothing to do with CO2. When you use the above analogy you are skipping some very important steps that explain how emitted heat at low temperatures is retained and accumulates energy in the system . Anyway, to identify the real impact of CO2 on temperature all you need to do is identify desert locations with a BI of 0, download the raw “unadjusted” data, run a regression and record the slope. I believe all of these people scientists who have made it through peer review. You go up and over the hill and back down the other side. Lots of desert. Ever since the start of fire prevention programs and high yield crop agriculture the globe has greened…a whole lot. Daily and Monthly. An insignificant topic for the faculty lounges. The only truly transparent medium is a vacuum. This is a feature I dont share with Nick.”. Here, let me help you. Al? http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png. Wood was also a consummate experimenter. Daily ambient concentrations of CO2 in the WCW during the growing Barry, that is good news. You seem to have accidentally addressed your comment to your mythical bete noir, Flynn. “Note that this paper is quantifying surface CO2 concentrations; not the full column.”. ren, what is behind the Polish move away from coal? Download all the Data for the Temperature Stations with a BI of 10 or Below. The last time I made a full download of GHCN daily was in the beginning of October. richard…”I would be happier if global warming continues, but then I live in relatively cold Michigan…”. s also well known that industrial areas and the wind side of volcanoes can exhibit daily and hourly changes in CO2 concentration. “If the amount of energy the surface receives increases, it must increase its rate of energy output to match. For example: “Why does this discrepancy exist and what does it mean? Arrhenius understood this when he developed the world’s first climate model in 1896. I went to look for a full copy of the paper and discovered it hasn’t been reviewed or published in any science journal. As long as the anomalies stay the same relative to each other, then the trend will always be the same. Same with nitrogen, it absorbs higher energy solar EM. Be courageous, and start reading: ” W artykule autorzy pokazują prostym rozumowaniem, że pomimo nasycenia absorpcji promieniowania pod-czerwonego reemitowanego przez planetę przez cząsteczki gazów cieplarnianych (GHG), ten efekt cieplarniany nadal narasta (wzrost temperatura powierzchni Ziemi), gdy stężenie tych gazów cieplarnianych wzrasta (tak jest w przypadku CO2 w obecnych warunkach). You would KNOW both are needed for some corners in the world! 1. During most winters it’s cold on the Spanish Mesa, especially in… Madrid. When there is nothing to impede heat dissipation, the radiator will radiate at a maximum rate. Once again, simply look at a desert. It is far more neutral and illuminating than your energetic remarks. I would prefer the incredible amounts of money needed for that task to be invested in worldwide reforestation. Dating Tips, © The Best Dating Site for Expats in Germany (DE) Copyright 2000-. Measuring it is merely a proof that not all IR gets radiated to outer space. With this in mind the drop of .26 C in a single month is unusual. The modelers used a set of differential equations that describe flow in gases and liquids then made up physics theories that do not exist in the atmosphere, like positive feedback and a percentage of warming created by CO2, which is unknown. Airport weather station commenced in 1941, Post Office weather station closed in 1953, and has data from 1878. You believe that energy from cooler objects can’t be absorbed by warmer ones. The average is now Move the goalposts? There are more than 100,000 stations contained in GHCN-Daily. There is a lot of research available that describes how agriculture effects weather/climate. He takes a little few stations out of GHCN V3, and says: look, desert, no warming. Longwave stratosphere = -0.13 W/m^2. It includes the principal University library – the Bodleian Library – which has been a legal deposit library for 400 years; as well as 30 libraries across Oxford including major research libraries and faculty, department and institute libraries. Thanks again, Bindidon. In reaching the equilibrium point for transfer of energy the earth does this twice a day at any one location as the sun comes overhead and then at night. No? The physics are included in the paper, and the empirical basis is laboratory measurements of the optical properties of atmospheric trace gases. What is your R-Squared? For reasons beyond my pay grade, relative humidity tends to remain fairly constant, so water content of the atmosphere increases 7% per C. Don’t get confused by which is cause and which is effect. You are an idiot not only by your mindless empty posts that contain zero science or evidence of any of your stupid declarations. to the number of vessels transiting the Northwest Passage: https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2016/04/arctic-shpipping-trends-graph.png, http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png. He believes he is a climate scientist. Please explain. You think that by finding websites that don’t delve into the details of natural variability that it is therefore ignored by the climate science community? Throw in H20 and the numbers for CO2 being the cause of warming even dwindle more. Compressing a gas quickly can increase its temperature. The response I got was to ask another person in the department. The knuckleheads here would tell you that the cooler atmosphere can’t cause the warmer ocean surface to get warmer. Can electrons sense those fields and have their behaviors altered? This winter, they are blaming that on a variant of a virus no one has ever seen. ” Extra CO2 means more emitters to space, meaning more outgoing radiation. Unlike yourself + gullible in the extreme. Average temperature anomaly for the 6 years up to Dec 2020 minus the average temperature anomaly for the next 2 years. The AMO is about +/- 0.2 C, so could slow down GHG warming for three decades (and then add the same amount). https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows No, that won’t happen at all, you nitwit. CO2isLife said: Ive outlined a simple, a very very very simple model that will blow away the NASA and IPCC Model. Incredible. Here are two graphs showing, for 1880-2019 and 1979-2019, a comparison of GHCN V3 unadjusted data with BoM’s raw data: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml, 1. * With the same amount of solar input the surface will reach a higher temperature with a GHE than without. In the same way, neither the atmosphere, nor any of its components can raise the temperature of anything warmer, unless magic is involved. For example, look at G-O-E-S-16 channel 10 over the desert southwest of the United States today. Yes, the gasses do absorb more that the stated wavelengths. And with billions people living in our world, a ocean which .5 C will add challenges, and very severe weather would be part of world with ocean which is about 3 C. Second…this article quotes James Titus. Why it is called ‘the Super El Nino’ is very probably due to the fact that at the time it was active, UAH6.0 LT had its topmost anomaly, what of course is misleading. While the data is on the same scale, the data sets have different baselines – working by ratio is going to skew results, If GISS perfectly matched NCEP/NCAR, December 2020 anomaly would be 0.621. Also, how much energy is released by an El Nino, and how long out it take the W/M^2 provided by the marginal CO2 since the start of the Industrial Age to replace that energy? How do you know what inputs to use for G, S, and C for future time periods? I don’t know what it is but I simply cannot get warm in those conditions, no matter how many layers of clothing I am wearing. From a human viewpoint that was the proper sea level, about 20cm below the current level. This pretty much destroys the AGW claim that GHGs “trap” heat. Sorry angech: you are currently quite a lot in the near of Robertson, Swenson, ClintR! Good job, Gordon. The only difference is that the Corn produced a natural gradient in the CO2. In addition the dataset is reconstructed each weekend from its 25-plus data source components to ensure that GHCN-Daily is generally in sync with its growing list of constituent sources.’ The mathematician, Gavin Schmidt, could not describe positive feedback or give the equation for it, yet he programs climate models at GISS that have positive feedback in them. binny…”R. barry says: Point that dude at a solar illuminated blue object and observe the resultant instrumental spectrum exhibits all wavelengths in the color bands not just blue. Not Bindinon. Every process in the atmosphere must be negative feedback. If you want to learn the science, don’t rely on news media. Being so close, a bit like the election an extra uptick or down tick here and there becomes vitally important. “They will claim it was predicted by the anthropogenic theory.”. 2) Just because photons are emitted to the surface, that does not mean the photons will be absorbed and thermalized. Land vs Sea If you want to continue to defend these results, then you simply choose to live in a world a opinion, not science. 19,442 were in the US. No? I will keep providing simple examples to explain physics. The is NASA, the people that put a man on the moon, are showing to all the world what complete failures they are. Once again, we are dealing with a model. In Oz over 70% of 25 million population live in five cities. I have nothing to do with those you name AGW zealots. He has a degree in applied mathematics and he seems to have absorbed everything spoon fed him by Hansen. If the La Nina ends this Spring as 1 year events typically do then I would guess a return to around values of .2 C for the summer months and higher in the Arctic winter. How dumbass is that? I could be wrong, but I think the 25,000 number is outdated (and should be updated).