Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week

Winter weather whiplash: impact of meteorological events in seasonally snow covered regions [link]

Coral records of variable stress impacts and possible acclimatization to recent marine heat wave events on the northwest shelf of Australia [link]

Three times tectonics changed the climate [link]

The East Asian monsoon is many millions of years older than we thought [link]

The role of cyclone activity in snow accumulation on Arctic sea ice [link]

a new version 3 of the NOAA-CIRES-DOE 20th Century Reanalysis recreates a 180-year history of temp, precip, winds, humidity, & other variables from below the land surface to the top of the atmosphere. usclivar.org/research-highl

Equilibrium climate sensitivity estimated by equilibrating climate models. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102.

New paper showing the (approx) equal importance of atmospheric circulation and soil moisture for driving heatwaves [link]

Internal waves can relieve coral reef heat wave stress [link]

Measurement errors of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) reach 11 W/m². Cloud optical thickness (COT) and water vapor have “the greatest effect” on OLR…a forcing of 2.7 W/m². [link]

What America lost when it lost the bison [link]

130K to 120K years ago, or during the last interglacial, CO2 levels peaked at 280 ppm. Yet there are marine mollusck shells buried in silty sand and clay 12-35 m above today’s sea levels dating to this time period. sciencedirect.com/science/articl

New paper looks at how deformation of the solid-Earth due to mass redistribution affects GPS observations and tide-gauge data.(doi.wiley.com/10.1002/2016GL)

The latest on aerosol radiative forcing [link]

New paper on an urban heat island effect on temperature trends.[link]

Our paper on the developpment of a multi-layer snow scheme for @ECMWF agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102

“Using nationwide light trap data for the period 1967 – 2017, the findings reveal there is around twice the combined biomass of moths in the present day compared with the 1960s”. rothamsted.ac.uk/news/down-not-

“Wetter global arid regions driven by volcanic eruptions” agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102

Atlantic warming since the Little Ice Age tos.org/oceanography/a

shifting subtropical highs have a much stronger influence over North American summertime precipitation than the Hadley cell, and account for a large fraction of projected precip trends. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10

The global climate anomaly 1940-1942 [link]

Out of the top 100 precipitation events in the contiguous U.S. in 1949, “rainfall for Hurricanes Harvey and Florence were ranked 1st and 7th, respectively” agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102
.
Is Extreme Daily Rainfall Getting Worse In England? The answer is No [link]
.
Climate change causes functionally colder winters for snow cover-dependent organisms go.nature.com/2qDM99t
.
Ocean Temperature Changes Are Uneven And Uncertain thegwpf.org/ocean-temperat
.
Jim Steele: Causes of California wildfires [link]
.
How can it be that, during a a very cold phase of our Earth’s climate (between 40 000 and 26 000 years ago), the north-eastern part of the Greenland ice sheet was less extensive than today? Read about it in our #Cryoblog post by Ilaria Tabone! blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/2
.

Policy & Technology

4 years after Paris COP21 it might seem surprising that countries plan for more fossil fuel extraction, not less productiongap.org But this could also be seen as prime example for deliberate inconsistency (& hypocrisy) in #climate policymaking onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.100

Granger Morgan: Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making [link]

A uniform carbon tax would negatively affect the competitiveness of East and South Asia and Eastern Europe [link]

Impact of energy uncertainty on systemic risk in 12 industries [link]

Time varying wind and solar cannibalization and cross-cannibalization [link]

Ken Caldeira on fusion energy [link]

Time is running out in New York’s bitter natural gas showdown [link]

How many lives are lost due to the precautionary principle? [link}

Unraveling the claims for (and against) green growth [link]

Achieving peak pasture [link]

Black boxing unknown unknowns through vulnerability analysis [link]

Environmental co-benefits and adverse side effects of decarbonization [link]

Ten ways to use CO2 and how they compare [link]

Methane leakage from coal mines is equivalent to all aviation and marine emissions globally [link]

‘Green’ Iowa wind energy sending many giant blades to landfill [link]

China set for massive coal expansion [link]

Study Says Fracking is Saving Families $2,500 Annually, Significantly Lowering Greenhouse Gas Emissions  [link]

By tweaking the chemistry of one of concrete’s essential ingredients — cement — and altering its curing process, researchers are trying to make concrete cheaper, while at the same time drastically cutting carbon emissions. [link]

These uses of CO2 could cut emissions – and make trillions of dollars [link]

Disentangling the impacts of human and environmental change on Hurricane Harvey’s flooding [link]

In the path of disaster: the big causes of bushfires that most of us are missing [link]

Why Venice is disappearing [link]

Climate risk disclosure:  Great, but to what end? [link]

Gernot Wagner: Green moral hazards [link]

China’s key role in scaling low carbon energy technologies [link]

Moniz makes case for $11 Billion carbon removal initiative [link]

The idea that denying access to natural gas in new homes is necessary to meet emissions reduction goals is false. In fact, denying access to natural gas could make meeting emissions goals harder and more expensive. [link]

Forget climate excuses: environment agencies ignored flood warnings for years [link]

Cap and trade is supposed to solve climate change, but California’s emissions are increasing [link]

Pielke Jr:  No, hurricanes are not bigger, stronger, more damaging [link]

Long read on the yellow vest revolt [link]

Climate politics and the fractal carbon trap [link]

Faced with energy insecurity, the Chinese government has signalled coal power will be a top priority as it prepares its next Five Year Plan (2021-25) [link]

Africa increases its reliance on fossil fuels [link]

Scientists, inspired by photosynthesis in nature, have created a mechanism that absorbs CO2 and produces methanol and oxygen. [link]

The True Cost of Renewables are Hidden Due to a Lack of Market Transparency wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/14/the

The costs of decommissioning wind turbines [link]

New York’s unstable electric grid [link]

How states are stepping up to make farmers a part of the climate change solution [link]

Why indigenous peoples and traditional knowledge are vital to protecting future global biodiversity ensia.com/features/indig

Climate denial is inflating local real estate prices anthropocenemagazine.org/2019/11/climat

Flooding caused by poor management and flood plain building [link]

The environmental toll of livestock antibiotics [link]

About Science & Scientists

Science beliefs, political ideology and sophistication [link]

Dealing with bias in artificial intelligence and science.  Scientists are some of the most dangerous people in the world because we have this illusion of objectivity…  [link]

Barry Myers has withdrawn his nomination to head NOAA [link]

Historical origins of ‘open science’:  Patronage, reputation and common agency contracting in the scientific revolution [link]

Ravetz: Stop the science training that demands ‘dont ask’ [link]

Peter Gluckman: Towards integrity in public dialogue on issues that matter [link]

Mann Vs Greta: Does Greta Thunberg’s lifestyle equal climate denial? [link]

Greta is right: Study shows that the public is more likely to support systemic climate action if individuals advocating it have a low carbon footprint [link]

Insane character assassination attempt on John Christ [link]

Einstein in Athens: modern science is unwittingly emulating Aristotle, and has much to learn from him [link]

The luxury belief class [link]

The secret ingredients of super-forecasting [link]

36% of respondents to Nature’s PhD survey said that they have sought help for anxiety or depression caused by their PhD studies. [link]

Academic Bias Against Industry Is Toxic Hypocrisy [link]

News stories written by an algorithm were rated as more objective, credible, and less biased than those written by real journalists. tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108

Why diversity issues fail [link]

iewpoint diversity describes a situation where people are approaching questions from a range of different perspectives: disciplinary perspectives, theoretical perspectives, experiential, demographic and also ideological. bigthink.com/videos/improve

388 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Was this paper posted here or somewhere else. Shows post hiatus warming was driven by cloud changes as well.
    https://res.mdpi.com/d_attachment/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/climate-06-00062.pdf
    I just cant understand how the climate establishment ignores observed albedo changes as the main driver of climate. The forcing is so much larger than CO2, and the sat obs of shortwave forcing correlated with OHC and OLR increases.
    A system driven by large forcing (cloud changes) with negative feedback (as demanded by thermodynamic equilibrium law/ Le Chatelier’s principle) is consistent with both observations and physics.

  2. That’s an excellent link on the terrible, although usually hidden, damage wrought by application of the so-called precautionary principle. I remember Dr. Michael Crichton warning in 2004, “The ‘precautionary principle,’ properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory. The precautionary principle therefore cannot be spoken of in terms that are too harsh.”

  3. This is well stated, as is:
    Dr. Michael Crichton warning in 2004, “The ‘precautionary principle,’ properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle. It is self-contradictory.

  4. Renewables have massive hidden costs, only some of which are covered in the linked article. As well as the costs going up, the reliability goes down. To counter this, the are going to build in even more redundancy so the costs will rise higher. The best proof of the problem is the very good correlation between the renewables penetration and the cost to the consumer. It is not only the subsidies (both for generating and not generating!), but the costs like adding inertia, voltage control and keeping plant partly loaded on standby for the unreliables. The problem exists and openly talked about by grid operators and generators, but no one wants to address this.
    I will limit my comments because in Climate Etc ‘s version of Goodwins Law, the comments will invariably degenerate into spamming by Appell and Ellison, neither of whom add anything of note.

  5. The chart below shows that the allowable radiation levels for the public are about a factor of 1000 below the safe levels.

    Graphical comparison of typical monthly radiation doses for therapy, ALARA* and AHARS**.

    Conclusion: Safety is unjustifiably strict by a factor of about 1000

    * ALARA = As Low As Reasonably Achievable

    ** AHARS = As High As Reasonably Safe

    Much more from same author, Emeritus Professor Wade Allison, on the impacts of radiation here: http://www.radiationandreason.com/

    Book in pdf – ‘Radiation and Reason: The impact of science on a culture of fear’ http://www.radiationandreason.com/download/ipmftt

    • It has been well known for decades that the LNT is wrong below the threshold and the allowable radiation limits for the public are about a factor of 1000 too low (too conservative). Clearly the troll is ignorant of the relevant facts. He does not read the relevant material and continually links to the government mandated limits, which are well known to be way too low and doing enormous damage as a result.

      I’d refer others to the series of abstracts and references linked and discussed in about 15 comments starting here https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/09/week-in-review-science-edition-112/#comment-902814 . I’d suggest others ignore the trolls comments.

      • It is incontrovertible fact that global nuclear authorities support the linear no threshold model. There are zealots like Peter Lang who don’t agree and who make up acronyms in the hope that they will catcnh on. He quite obviously is so bound up with confirmation bias that objective anaslysis goes by the board. Just like with any of his other bizarre pseudo scientific enthusiasms. Safe radiation dosage is a 1000 times the current standard? That is more an indication of how divorced from reality these people are.

        The epidemiologjical literature is inconclusive on low doses. That much is certain.

        e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00249.x

    • LNT Hypothesis is wrong at low doses

      Chernobyl early firefighters – Not LNT

      • Above 4000 mSv 27/42 died from acute radiation sickness (ARS) in 2/3 weeks
      • Below 2,000 mSv zero of 195 died
      • Acute threshold about 2000 mSv (ARS)

      See Slide 29: http://efn-usa.org/component/k2/item/693-why-fear-of-radiation-is-wrong-personally-scientifically-environmentally-wade-allison-uk-1-news

      • Luckey (2006), Radiation Hormesis: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

        “Abstract
        Three aspects of hormesis with low doses of ionizing radiation are presented: the good, the bad, and the ugly. The good is acceptance by France, Japan, and China of the thousands of studies showing stimulation and/or benefit, with no harm, from low dose irradiation. This includes thousands of people who live in good health with high background radiation. The bad is the nonacceptance of radiation hormesis by the U. S. and most other governments; their linear no threshold (LNT) concept promulgates fear of all radiation and produces laws which have no basis in mammalian physiology. The LNT concept leads to poor health, unreasonable medicine and oppressed industries. The ugly is decades of deception by medical and radiation committees which refuse to consider valid evidence of radiation hormesis in cancer, other diseases, and health. Specific examples are provided for the good, the bad, and the ugly in radiation hormesis.”

      • Vaiserman et al (2018), Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6149023/

        “Abstract
        Health impacts of low-dose ionizing radiation are significant in important fields such as X-ray imaging, radiation therapy, nuclear power, and others. However, all existing and potential applications are currently challenged by public concerns and regulatory restrictions. We aimed to assess the validity of the linear no-threshold (LNT) model of radiation damage, which is the basis of current regulation, and to assess the justification for this regulation. We have conducted an extensive search in PubMed. Special attention has been given to papers cited in comprehensive reviews of the United States (2006) and French (2005) Academies of Sciences and in the United Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Radiation 2016 report. Epidemiological data provide essentially no evidence for detrimental health effects below 100 mSv, and several studies suggest beneficial (hormetic) effects. Equally significant, many studies with in vitro and in animal models demonstrate that several mechanisms initiated by low-dose radiation have beneficial effects. Overall, although probably not yet proven to be untrue, LNT has certainly not been proven to be true. At this point, taking into account the high price tag (in both economic and human terms) borne by the LNT-inspired regulation, there is little doubt that the present regulatory burden should be reduced.”

      • Similar articles in PubMed
        • Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?[J Nucl Med. 2018]
        • The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT.[Environ Res. 2017]
        • Atomic bomb health benefits.[Dose Response. 2008]
        • Linear No-Threshold Model VS. Radiation Hormesis.[Dose Response. 2013]
        • [Exposure of healthcare personnel to ionizing radiation in the light of radiation hormesis hypothesis].[Med Pr. 2012]

      • Doss (2018), Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era?
        http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/12/1786.long

        Abstract

        “The linear no-threshold (LNT) model for radiation-induced cancer was adopted by national and international advisory bodies in the 1950s and has guided radiation protection policies worldwide since then. The resulting strict regulations have increased the compliance costs for the various uses of radiation, including nuclear medicine. The concerns about low levels of radiation due to the absence of a threshold have also resulted in adverse consequences. Justification of the LNT model was based on the concept that low levels of radiation increase mutations and that increased mutations imply increased cancers. This concept may not be valid. Low-dose radiation boosts defenses such as antioxidants and DNA repair enzymes. The boosted defenses would reduce the endogenous DNA damage that would have occurred in the subsequent period, and so the result would be reduced DNA damage and mutations. Whereas mutations are necessary for causing cancer, they are not sufficient since the immune system eliminates cancer cells or keeps them under control. The immune system plays an extremely important role in preventing cancer, as indicated by the substantially increased cancer risk in immune-suppressed patients. Hence, since low-dose radiation enhances the immune system, it would reduce cancers, resulting in a phenomenon known as radiation hormesis. There is considerable evidence for radiation hormesis and against the LNT model, including studies of atomic bomb survivors, background radiation, environmental radiation, cancer patients, medical radiation, and occupational exposures. Though Commentary 27 published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements concluded that recent epidemiologic studies broadly support the LNT model, a critical examination of the studies has shown that they do not. Another deficiency of Commentary 27 is that it did not consider the vast available evidence for radiation hormesis. Other advisory body reports that have supported the LNT model have similar deficiencies. Advisory bodies are urged to critically evaluate the evidence supporting both sides and arrive at an objective conclusion on the validity of the LNT model. Considering the strength of the evidence against the LNT model and the weakness of the evidence for it, the present analysis indicates that advisory bodies would be compelled to reject the LNT model. Hence, we may be approaching the end of the LNT model era.”

      • Calabrese, E.J. (2017). The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309343?via%3Dihub

        Abstract

        “This paper reveals that nearly 25 years after the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) I Committee (1972) used Russell’s dose-rate data to support the adoption of the linear-no-threshold (LNT) dose response model for genetic and cancer risk assessment, Russell acknowledged a significant under-reporting of the mutation rate of the historical control group. This error, which was unknown to BEIR I, had profound implications, leading it to incorrectly adopt the LNT model, which was a decision that profoundly changed the course of risk assessment for radiation and chemicals to the present.”

      • Peter
        The book by Dr Robert Gale – “Radiation – What it is, what you need to know” supports you. This is by someone who really knows what they are talking about and has been on the ground at major radioactivity incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima. He also has published bookloads of papers on the subject.
        Unfortunately, the know nothings and jobworths who run the regulatory process don’t believe in science. And the people who glowingly quote them without understanding the poor maths behind it are worse.

      • There are 29 recent epidemiological studies reported on in a balanced way in the 2018 NCRP review.

        “Commentary No. 27 was produced by an interdisciplinary group of radiation experts who critically assessed recent epidemiologic studies of populations exposed to low dose
        and low dose-rate ionizing radiation. The studies were then judged as to their strength of support for the LNT model as used in radiation protection. NCRP concludes that the recent epidemiologic studies support the continued use of the
        LNT model for radiation protection. This is in accord with judgments by other national and international scientific committees, based on somewhat older data, that no alternative dose-response relationship appears more pragmatic or prudent for radiation protection purposes than the LNT model.” https://ncrponline.org/wp-content/themes/ncrp/Pub_announcements/Commentary_No27_overview.pdf

        What has acute exposure to do with low dose exposure and LNT? And he links a blog by another very oddly motivated zealot as evidence.

        “Charles Land showed – through a series of relatively
        simple statistical power calculations – that “precise direct
        estimation of small risks [associated with radiation exposures
        of interest] require impracticably large samples.” His
        calculations indicated that:

        • To detect the excess risk from mammography with at
        least a 70% probability, a cohort study would likely
        have required a sample of at least 100 million women
        with 20 years of follow-up. He assumed half of the
        women would receive a single mammography at age
        35y with an average dose of about 10 mGy to both
        breasts, and a resulting excess risk of about 6 breast
        cancers per 10,000,000 person-years. Remarkably, this
        estimated excess rate is almost identical to the
        corresponding BEIR VII model-based estimate (for a
        dose of 10 mGy to both breasts).

        • A case-control study would require about 600,000 cases
        (assuming a ratio of 4:1 controls to cases) to detect the
        risk of breast cancer from a 10 mGy dose to both
        breasts.

        • Sample sizes needed to detect an excess male leukemia
        risk from a bone marrow dose of 10 mGy at age 35y are
        considerably smaller than for breast cancer. Land’s
        calculations indicated a cohort study would require
        about 16 million men (among whom half are
        unexposed). Alternatively, a case-control study would
        require about 1300 cases (matched to 5200 controls) to
        detect the excess leukemia risk. In general, required
        samples sizes are heavily dependent on relative risk
        (i.e., the ratio of the excess rate from radiation divided
        by the baseline rate), and the relative risk for leukemia
        tends to be very large compared to the relative risk for
        many other cancers. Nevertheless, samples sizes would
        need to be extremely large even for leukemia (e.g., in
        1980, 1300 cases “[was] about twice the annual number
        of cases among men in the age range 35-49”).” https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6498/ab2197

      • The radiation experts have known and been reporting for over 50 years that the LNT hypothesis is false and that allowable radiation limits set by the authorities are way to conservative and way too low.

      • An unrepresentative and small cohort of nuclear zealots have claimed that LNT is a model that overemphasises rixk. This is not supported by most of the 29 recent epidemiological studies – all of which I have read – reviewed in the 2018 NCRP report. Yet Peter will argue his motivated bias until the cows come home. This is the nature of his secular sect.

  6. I am relieved you did not link to that bizarre article in Reason written by Ronald Bailey that you linked in Twitter.

    • Indeed, that Ronald Bailey article contained a major boner — he doesn’t understand acceleration. (It’s not a unit of length.)

  7. Being unaware that CO2 is not a pollutant and is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.
    Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate but water vapor does is science incompetence.
    https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com/

    • Dan Pangburn wrote:
      “Being unaware that CO2 is not a pollutant and is required for all life on earth is science ignorance.”

      CO2 isn’t the pollutant — *MANMADE* CO2 is the pollutant. It’s not wanted and it’s not needed….

  8. “Failure to discover that CO2 has no significant effect on climate” – lock that lunatic up?

    • The false indoctrination that CO2 has a substantial effect on climate is deeply ingrained in many people but the evidence that CO2 influence is negligible is compelling. You need to take the blinders off and look. There is more at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

      • Dan,
        You haven’t found the root cause.
        Water vapour is increasing at the surface but decreasing in the upper troposphere. The true driver is reduced cloud cover, that then drives warmer oceans and more surface water vapour, while simultaneously resulting in increased OLR to regain equilibrium. GHG warming does not produce increased OLR. Cloud cover seems to be a complex interplay of stratospheric ozone forcing (solar and volcanic) that drives jet streams and the brewer Dobson circulation, and oceanic cycles which we still don’t understand.

      • Rob,
        I’m not too far off but it’s 3 causes, not just 1. I got a match with measured average global temperature of 96.7% 1895 to 2018 by accounting for WV, SSN and ocean cycles. IMO the clouds are accounted for with the SSN anomaly time-integral (sort of like Svensmark). They divvy up the ~0.9 K temperature rise since 1909:
        sun 17.8%,
        ocean 21.7%,
        WV 60.5%.
        Evaporation from the ocean area got the planet about 33 K which made it warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. The added area now under irrigation (previously dry), about 4 times the area of France, got us another half degree.

      • Dan,
        I agree with you 100 %. And that is why:

        We know now the 288 K – 255 K = Δ 33 oC difference does not exist.

        The Te.earth = 288,36 K = Tsat.earth = 288 K.

        Te.earth = 255 K does not exist.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas wrote:
        “We know now the 288 K – 255 K = Δ 33 oC difference does not exist”

        What would be the Earth’s GMST if there atmosphere contained no GHGs?

      • Dan Pangburn wrote:
        “The false indoctrination that CO2 has a substantial effect on climate is deeply ingrained in many people but the evidence that CO2 influence is negligible is compelling.”

        Dan, when are you going to win a Nobel Prize by publishing this in a peer reviewed scientific journal? Ever?

    • Where is the evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate at all? I’ve asked almost every alarmist I’ve come across for this evidence. They presented none.

      Perhaps Judith could give us a special blog on this – actual evidence?

      I’m aware of models. Manabe and Wetherald, 1967 through to Held and Sogen 2000. But these are pseudoscience. 1) They get the lapse rate wrong. They say it should be 16C/km. 2) They propose a tropical, troposphere hotspot due to water vapour upwelling which is not there. Believing in nonsense models, and treating them seriously (by using them to project climate changes which influence policy) is the height of bad science.

  9. ‘Three times tectonics changed the climate [link]’

    But now, Western academia wants to blame my German ‘tiptronic’…

    • This is the link https://eos.org/features/three-times-tectonics-changed-the-climate
      Interesting, but does not explain the abruptness of change. Geology is replete with evidence but as to timeline geology keeps that closely hidden. It takes evidence from other sources to bring it out. The bias is still in ‘uniformitarianism’. Quote “This cycle still affects the African climate, and scientists estimate that the last occurrence of a green Sahara and Lake Mega-Chad ended roughly 5,000 years ago.” P DeMenocal gave a more precise 5500BP date – corroborated by other proxies- , but there have been tectonic changes before and after that date and occurring at near 487yr intervals (1/2 Eddy of 975+/-yr).

    • The article contains gems like “During the Pliocene … the sea level was 15 times higher.” AGU has a serious quality control problem.

    • “By assimilating only surface pressure observations into an NOAA atmospheric model with prescribed sea surface temperatures, sea ice concentration, and radiative forcings, scientists from the University of Colorado Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, collaborating with international partners, have generated global, 3-hourly estimates of the Earth system back to 1836 at about 75 km resolution, as well as internal estimates of confidence and uncertainty. This dataset recreates a 180-year history of temperature, precipitation, winds, humidity, and many other variables from below the land surface to the top of the atmosphere. ”

      When I (and others) use historic data from respectable sources it is anecdotal. When others use it that becomes ‘cool.’

      You think we have enough highly detailed and accurate surface pressure observations, sea surface temperatures etc etc in far flung and mostly unvisited corners of the world going back two centuries to construct this sort of highly detailed model?

      tonyb

      • I saw the reference to spatial coverage and the 1 degree lat/long grid, but it would give me more confidence to know what they knew about spatial coverage in say, June, 1849, or any such month and year. Maybe Steve could help with navigating the tools to understand how they arrived at data at a specific location (grid) on a specific date and their confidence level in that data on that date.

      • Tony. Yes. Physics.
        And more importantly you can Test it.
        Unlike documentary approaches.
        Test and state uncertainties.

      • Steve

        You didn’t address my question about how they arrived at data for those early years. I’m just looking for answers on the spatial coverage. There was nothing apparent about the percentage of the globe that was covered or even a map depicting what grids were included or excluded.

        Or is it that you don’t know. Which is ok, if that’s the case.

      • Curious George

        Steven, are they using the same physics as CMIP5 models? Is there a reason to assume that their result is more trustworthy than CMIP5?

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Steven,
      Not so cool if you have studied the capabilities and publication successes of the authors. I have done this for the Australian authors and note papers retracted, rewritten almost the same and resubmitted, full of ‘errors’ like misrepresenting the coverage of the Sth Hemisphere, plus an author whose main work is on homogenisation with a huge bias in trend and scientifically unbelievable from adjustments made without justifiable supporting observations. The Aussie wing is, frankly, plain awful science. If the other authors accept the Australian input, as it seems they have, then that reveals something of their own scientific capability or lack thereof.
      The authors claim to be able to construct daily climate to high accuracy. For one parameter, the familiar near-ground temperature, the claimed accuracy verges on being superior to instrumental. Given that instrumental is unfit for purpose (in Australia at least) for accurate temperature time series, how can a synthesis using proxies be useful for any important purpose?
      For important, I mean for scientific assistance, not for creating fictional word pictures and inventing existential climate crises. Geoff S

      • Geoff

        the trouble is that we have international tv stars like Mosh who believe we have highly accurate computer generated results for a very specific time and place dating back 200 years, even though the original measurements (if any) are often dubious in the extreme, other than in a very few specific locations

        tonyb.

      • Geoff. I doubt your smears. I look at data.
        Their product is testable, unlike your smears.

      • Tony. You trust your own undocumented, un reviewed, non repeatable “results”. When you die no one will build on your work, understand your work, be able to repeat your work, or care about it. I wish it were different. If you did science it might be different. But stamp collecting ain’t science

      • Mosh

        Ah Rutherford and Cambridge!, My son got his physics phd there and Rutherford is still a giant figure at the Cavendish laboratory. I looked at some of his original papers in the University library there.

        You will be aware of Rutheford’s simplistic approach as noted here;

        “At these meetings, as in his own lectures, Rutherford’s own attitude to physical problems was always unambiguously expressed. There was always the demand for the “objective” and, if possible, simple reality. Almost invariably there was the question “What are the facts?”. Facts were to be respected and treated quite differently from theory, which was, in a sense, “opinion”.

        As Mooney wrote; ‘The famous physicist once remarked: “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.” What do you think he meant by this? I’m thinking about using the quote in the new book to underscore two different views of science–a deductive approach based upon theory and a Baconian inductive approach based upon the collection of data–but I’m not sure if I’m interpreting Rutherford the right way….”

        I try to deal in ‘facts’ or ‘data’ as written down and verified by other accounts within a very specific area and then put into a temperature ‘score’ as used by various scientific researchers into historic temperatures, a methodology I have pointed out to you many times.

        I certainly don’t consider the global assertions using very limited or non existent data as used in your link to be scientific but it was interesting, for which I thank you.

        Did you ever get a copy of your TV stardom?

        tonyb

    • Kinda like imagining the Mona Lisa from connect the dots:

    • Steve

      Apparently there is no way of knowing the specifics of spatial coverage based on actual observations. There can be the most sophisticated nomenclature ascribed to the methodology in assigning data values, but in the end if there are spatial gaps across the globe, as there are temperatures, then it is just guessing. Hi brow, academic guessing. But in any language, in the end guessing is guessing, not very reliable, perhaps a notch below anecdotal.

  10. Re item three on possible acclimatization of coral to recent marine heat wave events in NW Australia, here is a blog and short film from Jennifer Marohasy from the other side of the continent, the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists who know what attracts funding are all gloom, doom and despondency, to the chagrin of those making their living from Reef tourism, who know that it is not true but that their potential customers have been scared off. Peter Ridd and JM have been seeking to correct the record by the devious means of providing hard evidence backed up by film.

    https://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/11/why-deny-the-beautiful-coral-reefs-fringing-stone-island/

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      In Australia drought continues until the SOI index will not increase.

      • Trades winds will pick up when the new solar cycle takes off causing La Niña. Then we may see if the recent bout of El Niño is a driver or response. Ie is El Niño a response that has a net cooling effect by increasing the area of evaporative cooling and humidifying the atmosphere, outside of the obvious initial warming components.

  11. Pingback: Week in review – science edition — Climate Etc. – Climate- Science.press

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The current winter in the northern hemisphere will go down in history. This is evidenced by the forecast ozone distribution and pressure in the central stratosphere. The polar vortex over North America will change the direction of rotation in the opposite direction. Strong flux current ripples.

    This ozone distribution occurs in spring when the polar vortex weakens.

  13. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A strong wave from the stratosphere will hit in three days in the northwest of the US.

  14. CLINTEL moving forward. MEPs surprised by science!
    https://www.thegwpf.com/european-parliament-told-there-is-no-climate-emergency/

    I am working with them.

  15. The 180 year “re-analysis” is literally unbelievable. They say this:
    “By providing 3-hourly estimates of the global weather over a 180-year period, the 20th Century Reanalysis allows researchers to study climate trends, historic storms, and how the frequency and quality of extreme events are changing over time.”

    In other words we are supposed to take these wild guesses as accurate. Truly ridiculous.

    • One wonders how many papers and theses will be based on detailed analysis of this worthless data.

    • “In other words we are supposed to take these wild guesses as accurate. Truly ridiculous.

      Its testable. Using pressure only and a physics model you can derive
      everything else you need. One of you outputs will be the temperature
      at 2meters. This model output is a consequence of the Observed pressure
      and a physics model.

      you then compare the model prediction with the actual temperature recorded
      you then measure the skill of the prediction.

      but you know nothing about reanalysis. At least Judith recognizes its value
      She prefers it.

      • Where there are no observations, there is no testing.

        Where there are measurements, there is a problem: reanalysis may give values which differ from the actual observations. That’s to be expected given that non-linear physics can yield an infinite array of equally valid solutions. But the reanalysis can’t be more accurate than the observations.

        Other problems with reanalyses are that they tend to differ from one another (at least CFS vs. MERRA vs. ERA5). The physics applied are the same, but even temperature trends vary a lot.

        And a another problem with reanalyses is that many (most?) are prognostic – they take observations and spin up. Also, they contain the same parameterizations that the GCMs do. So, if the errors with the GCMs are because of the parameterizations, compounded by sequential prediction, the same biases and errors may be present in the reanalyses.

  16. Harvard-Yale Football Game protest.

    An indication of just how pedestrian, undiscerning and unenlightened our most esteemed institutions have become, both for playing football as well as for failing to understand that “climate change” is a fabricated scare tactic to invoke political power.

      • “OK boomer”

        Generational divide with the climate change fabrication?

        Young people don’t have as much experience with other past failed predictions of doom nor knowledge that the weather/climate of the 1970s ( or 1950s, or 1930s, or … ) wasn’t all that great.

      • I love this general denigration of the Boomers by the history illiterate young. Who do they think marched in the streets in the 60s for liberal values, like Civil Rights, addressing poverty and taking on the establishment.

        Even as a pre-Boomer, I shared their values and marched myself. But according to them, none of it happened. A bunch of pampered, customized meal eating, participation trophy winning knotheads

      • Nixon shouldn’t have gone to China, it convinced them to turn fascist and become a clear and present danger. Without the Vietnam war and the Chinese menace all those protesters would have stayed in their dorms playing hula hoop and trying to do Rubiks Cube while juggling Cabbage Patch Dolls.

      • JCH- Can you show anything where global warming is making the climate measurably worse for the USA?

      • cerescokid – so why did the Boomers ignore climate change for over 30 years?

      • Nixon went to China in 1972. The Vietnam war ended in 1975. Although invented in 1974 Rubik’s cube wasn’t sold until 1980. By then boombers were in their yuppy ’30s.

        fernandoleanme – needs to weave a more convincing reanalysis.

      • Boomers – born between 1946 and 1964.

        Interesting, the WW2 babies, of which there were a ton, are not Boomers. So my oldest brother, who was born while my Dad was in combat on Iwo Jima, is not a Boomer.

        I suspect a large number of the young people who were considered important people in the 1960’s were actually born during WW2. The Beatles, for instance, where all born during WW2, as was Bob Dylan.

        The three Civil Rights Activist who were killed in Mississippi were not Boomers. The four young girls killed in the Alabama church bombing were Boomers.

        The oldest Boomers were 9-years old when the Vietnam War started in 1955, and 29 when it ended. The youngest 11 when it ended.

    • 2020 will be the Year of Climate madness.

    • TE: I’ll see your Harvard-Yale [“climate change” is a fabricated scare tactic to invoke political power.]
      and raise you a Rick Perry [“And I actually gave the president a little-one pager on those Old Testament kings about a month ago and I shared it with him… I said, ‘Mr. President, I know there are people that say you said you were the chosen one and I said, ‘You were.’ I said, ‘If you’re a believing Christian, you understand God’s plan for the people who rule and judge over us on this planet in our government.'”]

      https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/11/sometimes-god-chooses-cancer.html

  17. TE
    Thanks. I enjoy your discussion of undiscerning institutions. As a student of deep time, one can appreciate massive changes in climate and tectonic changes that include seaways in the center of N American conglomerate and accretion of island arcs on west coast of N America. Life survived and flourished. As it will w 2* change in delta T.

    In medium time of 100 years, this will all be forgotten. Maybe by then Africa and S America can accomplish clean water, sewage treatment, lights at night and clean cooking heat beyond dried dung. A lot of high priorities for real humanists, not foolish CAGW skyfall activists.

    Thanks again TE.
    Scott

  18. An ode to wind power

    I met a traveler from an antique land
    Who said: a rusting column, overgrown
    Stands on a hillside. Nearby, on the ground
    Half sunk, a long and curving shaft lies prone
    Though rusted through, its pointed arching shape
    Tells of design-ed form to catch the wind
    And force a mighty gearing to rotate
    Creating power free from carbon sin
    And on the pedestal these words appear
    Upon a green-corroded plaque of brass
    “Clean as the air” words written out of fear
    Of warming doom that never came to pass
    Uncluttered hills and valleys all around
    Sun kissed, breathe free from baleful infrasound

    Original: Ozymandius, by Shelley

    I met a traveler from an antique land
    Who said – two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the ground
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command
    Tell that its sculptor well these passions read
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    “My name is Ozymandius, king of kings
    Look on my works ye mighty and despair.”
    Nothing beside remains, round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

    • Phil

      Very nice, I recognised the rhythmn immediately as ozymandius is one of my favourite poems that I sometimes use to remind people that civilisations can decay as well as grow.

      If it were you that rewrote the original perhaps you would have a go at another of my favourites?

      This essentially predates yours in as much we seem to be too ready to throw away the civilisation we have painstakingly built up over centuries. If the climate should change, energy should fail, or we believe we can feed our vast populations through cosy green farming, then there may be dire consequences.

      https://faculty.washington.edu/lynnhank/The_Curse_of_Akkad.html

      Tonyb

      • I could have a go, I didn’t know the “Curse of Akkad”, although it seems suitably gloomy! (It’s quite fitting as it is.)

      • Phil

        Youre right, Akkad is already a warning of the consequences of climate changes through the centuries and that we don’t cause it and there is little we can do about it other than prepare

        tonyb

      • Matthew R Marler

        Tonyb, thank you for the link to The Curse of Akkad.

      • Tonyb
        I also love this poem.
        Scott

      • Thanks for the link on the ‘Curse of Akkad’. I did not expect the accompanying material. Fruitful.
        Going down to where it starts “Peter deMenocal is a paleoclimatologist—” That piece is very interesting. Akkad collapsed when agriculture failed. P DeM found from sea sediments in Gulf of Oman same evidence of climate change at just or little before 2200bce.
        At another time PDeM in sea sediments off Mauritania found the abrupt dessication of the Sahara at 3550bce. Lat 23.41

        In link here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/08/12/searching-evidence-4-prehistoric-mass-burials/ 3550bce is earth tilt change to low, which increase/concentrates insolation below the tropics, thus the Sahara abrupt dessication. At 2345bce tilt increase to high, increasing insolation further above the tropics – where Akkad had flourished at Lat 33.1deg.
        Other dates -6200- also correlate. It can also be perceived that the changes effect different places differently depending on latitude. However the events themselves are not unnoticeable smooth.

      • It shows how an off the wall piece such as the one by Phil can spark an interesting discussion and how much can be learnt about weather and climate by looking at literature

        Shelley of course died in an unexpected and violent storm in Italy that came out of the blue, Mary Shelley write Frankenstein due to their confinement by appalling weather possibly caused by volcanic action whilst their friend Keats came to my home town and complained of the unseasonable and wet weather again thought to have been caused perhaps by Krakatoa.

        Akkad is interesting in as much as Melitamegalithic points out There do seem to be some interesting elements of hisorical fact we can draw from it

        Tonyb

      • Tony
        I didn’t know about that climate-weather connection with the Shelley’s. A lot more people died of climate back then.

      • Melitamegalithic
        3550bce is earth tilt change to low, which increase/concentrates insolation below the tropics, thus the Sahara abrupt dessication. At 2345bce tilt increase to high, increasing insolation further above the tropics

        Say what? Obliquity changing over the course of 5 years? I don’t think so. Obliquity changes smoothly and sinusoidally with a frequency of 41,000 years. It has been decreasing smoothly for about 18,000 years.

      • phil salmon: (just saw your question; sorry, late answer)

        Obliquity is assumed to have been changing smoothly, according to the old Stockwell calculations for the ‘Secular’ planetary influences. Other influences and forcing was never proved non-existent. In fact others had come to that conclusion also, after suspecting that the theory was not borne out by the facts.
        From another field I stumbled on an enigma/anomaly, which after much searching has indicated that the evidence I had found corroborated what the earlier researchers had concluded. Now, and in the last couple of years, more corroboration has been coming from the various proxies. But as I said elsewhere, the proxies indicate contradictions to the basic uniformitarian ‘dogma’, but give no hint of what happened. My source is man-made engineering and very easy to unravel – it is clear.
        For short, pls see https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/08/12/searching-evidence-deaths-tsunamis-and-earth-dynamics/
        The last tilt change to high is recorded in one exceptional calendar; in its later modification to accommodate a higher tilt. That calendar I used in model form to predict the solstice day (something science and wiki say it could not be done). For short, see here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/first-blog-post/
        No rocket science, just plain ingenuity (and an obvious understanding of the planetary movements; earth’s orbit was near circular then, or so says the science).

    • Phil Salmon: An ode to wind power

      Well done.

  19. The conclusion of the New York grid piece really says it all about green energy policies:

    Conclusion

    New Yorkers can look forward to higher electricity prices and future blackouts as its electricity sector is being transformed by the Climate and Community Protection Act, which mandates 100-percent renewable generation by 2040. The state’s residential customers are already paying 44 percent more for electricity than the average U.S. residential price. The choices the state government is making are clearly not in the best interest of its residents because they will raise prices and make the New York electric system less reliable. The consequences of these actions will not be felt immediately, but they will be real for residential and business consumers when they begin to occur after the next election. New Yorkers have become guinea pigs in an experiment they may very well come to regret.

    • Sounds like Australia.

    • In the WUWT link about hidden costs of renewables:

      Texas electricity prices went up 40% as natural gas cost went down 15%. It seems to be that transmission infrastructure costs in particular have hit a tipping point where they skyrocket with increased solar/wind.

      As well, because wind gets a huge subsidy for producing, when demand is low they’ll even bid negative – paying money to transmit power in order to receive the subsidy they make money off of. So 1 in 3 bids are negative and non-renewable power investment is at a standstill as there’s no market for them to sell into.

    • Canman: “The conclusion of the New York grid piece really says it all about green energy policies: …… “

      A close family friend of ours recently moved to Long Island to take a much better position with a different company and at a considerable increase in salary, even with the cost of living differential between here and there.

      So I said to him, are you aware that Indian Point will be shutting down in 2021 and that New York State is refusing its major utilities permission to upgrade and enlarge their natural gas pipeline systems?

      His response was that he can well afford a large emergency generator for his new residence and that he knows how to properly install and operate it.

      How many others who live on Long Island can afford to do the same thing?

  20. Dear Phil and Canman.
    Should the World come through this madness? Is the only way to let it overgrow the mental crisis?
    Why they do not listen to the words of reason?

  21. The civilization will survive, but at what costs?

  22. A new catalyst to split hydrogen from seawater –
    https://wordpress.com/media/watertechbyrie.com

    Add that to a CO2 catalyst and there are liquid fuels and other products.

    “The electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to CO is usually described as:

    CO2 + 2 H+ + 2 e− → CO + H2O

    ” WikipediaThe redox potential for this reaction is similar to that for hydrogen evolution in aqueous electrolytes, thus electrochemical reduction of CO2 is usually competitive with hydrogen evolution reaction.[3] Wikipedia. With high temperature and pressure available from a solid core of networked small, modular nuclear reactors. There can be any amount of wind and solar at low LCOE. Can they compete with new advanced nuclear costs? When the frakked gas runs out. This is the energy-rich futures scenario.

    https://wordpress.com/media/watertechbyrie.com

  23. A new catalyst to split hydrogen from seawater –\

    https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/21/a-new-catalyst-to-split-hydrogen-from-seawater/

    Add that to a CO2 catalyst and there are liquid fuels and other products.

    “The electrochemical reduction of carbon dioxide to CO is usually described as:

    CO2 + 2 H+ + 2 e− → CO + H2O

    The redox potential for this reaction is similar to that for hydrogen evolution in aqueous electrolytes, thus electrochemical reduction of CO2 is usually competitive with hydrogen evolution reaction.[3]” Wikipedia. With high temperature and pressure available from a solid core of networked small, modular nuclear reactors. There can be any amount of wind and solar at low LCOE. Can they compete with new advanced nuclear costs? When the frakked gas runs out. This is the energy-rich futures scenario.

    • Shouldn’t that really be posted in reply to a chemical engineering blog?

      This is a climate blog – you know – about climate change.

      • Technology innovation is one element of rational climate responses. This is a climate etc blog and technology is commonly canvassed. There is even a science and technology section above. What hole have you been hiding in?

      • I cannot find the reply link to reply to Robert Ellison so…

        The rational response to 3 decades of miserably failed forecasts by the IPCC is to sack them. Climate scientists can do a far better job than alone free from the shackles of bureaucrats and wannabe ‘world leaders’.

      • I stopped reading IPCC assessments in 2007.

  24. Australia gets its rain from the Southern, Indian and Pacific Oceans. All cool around the continent now. A mercy so far with bushfires given how dry it is.

    bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/tmean.aus.0112.25985.png
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/#tabs=ACORN%E2%80%90SAT

    It is all there – anything you’d like to know transparent, professional, in-depth, expansive and great fun. I have been doing this for a long time now and I’d trust these guys with my Maserati.


    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

    Suspect decadal, centennial or millennial scale shifts in the Earth system state – ice, cloud, vegetation, rain, water vapor, dust, dimethyl sulfate and so etc. More salt is a strengthening of the south-west leg of the South Pacific Gyre. A process starting with the polar vortices pushing wind and currents on the eastern Pacific coast – to be diverted by planetary spin nearer the equator. Upwelling cold water pumps to the surface and a high-pressure zone forms in the atmosphere above. Wind and current drive more upwelling in the Pacific cool mode. More warm water piles up against Australia and Indonesia. Cool Pacific states brought rain and cyclones to Australia and drought and megadrought to the US over much of the last 1000 years. Switching in the early 20th century and adding to global warming. Will it switch back soon? I do hope so.

    Clouds cells form and rain out in low-level marine strato-cumulous cloud – letting in sunshine. Warm oceans have a memory for sunshine. Closed cloud cells persist over cool water and cool the planet.

    e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

    Chances of a wet Christmas? Some relief in the north-west perhaps.

  25. Are you describing a burning of hydrogen in carbon dioxide?

  26. I see little changes in phD students where depression is concerned. Almost exactly 30 years ago, I told a new Director of a Research Institute that ‘I am going to the Alps to recover my health because I am a mental and physical wreck.’

    My therapy modality of choice was simple:
    1. 3 healthy meals a day.
    2. Outdoor exercise everyday possible.
    3. Interacting with kind, decent generous people not self-serving charlatans.

    I engaged no physicisns, took no pharmaceutical drugs and my health was restored within 4 months.

    There is a lesson there for control freaks who try to impose profitable medicaments on people: we can do just fine without you, thank you very much…
    .

    • That situation existed even 50yrs ago. The motto then was that “a pint a day kept the priest and the psychiatrist away”.

    • rtj1011: I see little changes in phD students where depression is concerned. Almost exactly 30 years ago, I told a new Director of a Research Institute that ‘I am going to the Alps to recover my health because I am a mental and physical wreck.’

      There is a lesson there for control freaks who try to impose profitable medicaments on people: we can do just fine without you, thank you very much…

      Since the 1960s there has been considerable progress in developing reliable diagnoses of clinical depression. For patients who are clinically depressed by modern criteria, nothing works better than modern antidepressant medications. Your story is interesting, but self-reported anecdotes are not reliable guides for people who are clinically depressed.

      • matthewrmarler:
        “… nothing works better than modern antidepressant medications.”
        That’s a bit of a sweeping statement. Taking nothing isn’t ALWAYS better, but by and large it is.

  27. Planet’s Mars Te misfortunate coincidence

    Comparison of results for planet Te:

    Planet or…….. Te.satellites……… Te.incomplete…….Te.complete
    moon …………..measured …………..formula ……………formula
    Mercury ………….340 K ……………..437,30 K …………346,11 K
    Earth ……………..288 K ……………..255 K …………….288,36 K
    Moon ……………..220 Κ ……………..271 Κ …………….221,74 Κ
    Mars ………………210 K …………211,52 K …………215,23 K

    Let’s focus our attention on the Planet’s Mars the measured by satellites

    Te.mars.sat = 210 K

    and the calculated by the incomplete:

    Te = [ (1-a) S /4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 211,52 K

    and the complete effective temperature formula:

    Te = [Φ (1-a) S (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ]¹∕ ⁴ = 215,23 K

    The difference between the incomplete and the complete Planet Effective Temperature Formula is:

    *[Φ (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴

    For Planet Mars we have:
    (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = (150*1*0,19)¹∕ ⁴ =
    =(28,5) ¹∕ ⁴ = 2,31052 Φ =
    =0,47 [Φ (β* N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    =( 0,47* 2,31052 )¹∕ ⁴ =
    =( 1,08594 )¹∕ ⁴ = 1,02082

    So the difference between these two formula for Planet Mars is only 2,08 % !
    And this is a coincident.

    It is a coincident, but with very important consequences:

    Te.mars.sat = 210 K measured by satellites (it is still considered as Tmean.sat = 210 K, but it is not).

    There is only by 2,08 % difference by coincidence , it is almost equal with
    Te.mars.incomplete = 211,52 K and
    Te.mars.compl = 215,23 K

    When measuring by satellites the
    Tmean.mars = 210 K

    and calculating with the incomplete effective temperature formula
    Te.mars.incomplete = 211,52

    the scientist were led to a mistaken conclusions. (They didn’t know about the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula yet).

    First they concluded that the planet effective and mean temperatures should normally be equal.

    Secondly they concluded that Earth without atmosphere should have effective temperature, according to the incomplete formula calculation,
    Te.earth.incomplete = 255 K.

    The measured by satellites Tmean = 288 K.

    The difference of Δ 33 oC
    was, according to scientists, due to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse warming effect.

    Now we have the effective temperature complete formula that gives Te.mars.compl = 215,23 K

    This result is very close to the measured by satellites Te.mars.mean = 210 K.

    And the Complete Formula gives very reasonable results for all the other planets without-atmosphere in the solar system.

    We know now the Δ 33 oC does not exist.

    The Te.earth = 288,36 K = Tsat.earth = 288 K.

    Te.earth = 255 K does not exist.

    And I dare to assume now, that this Complete Formula may be applied to all the planets without atmosphere in the whole Universe.

  28. What caused the 1940–1942 climate anomaly?

    Short term drops in indirect solar forcing driving strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation anomalies. The El Nino conditions are an effect not a cause. Anomalies of this strength occur at the various quadrupole configurations of the four gas giants. Stating from late 1939 with a negative signal of Jupiter superior conjunct Neptune, negative inferior conjuncts through 1940-41. The next positive signal is from Spring 1942. The monthly NAO and regional temperature anomalies are to do with which gas giant the inner bodies are clustering towards, on either side of the Sun.

  29. Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:

    7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]

    Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.

    8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical (chart B) [9].

    A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from charts A and B shows that the carbon density decrease from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
    Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
    Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
    Total: y = -1.975x + 241

    9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [10], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [11]. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

    [8] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geb.12245

    [9] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77 (p84)

    [10] https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019

    [11] https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf

    • My original comment was that animal or vegetation migration in response to warming or cooling was constrained in today’s crowded world. This makes Peter’s oh too simplistic hypothesis irrelevant. But let’s look at it. Some basics may not go amiss.

      http://resources.hwb.wales.gov.uk/VTC/env-sci/w 23_id_nppterr.htm

      Primary production may be higher in the tropics – sunlight, water availability, temperature and fast nutrient cycling.

      e.g. http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf

      The latter can be seen in Lang’s graphic above where organic carbon is being added to soils at higher latitudes more than in the tropics. This is net ecosystem production.

      “Temperature has diminished the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems to sequester C, which jeopardises future C sink capacity in light of global warming. So far, our results suggest that the benefit of increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are still compensating the negative ones of temperature rise, in terms of C sequestration. However, if it has not started to change already, this pattern may eventually reverse with saturation of land C sinks or because warm ecosystems tend to decrease NEP as temperature rises (Figure 2).” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0367-7?fbclid=IwAR0r2FUe19r686rpawghfgTEwf_NFcIPgCpoCpSptCtMx6lrHEGgrD6lQq0

      And don’t forget the oceans.

      https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/37516/1/CC_PrimaryProduction.pdf

      It suggests that a competent conceptual framework is required.

      https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Shaveretal2000Warming.BioScience.pdf

      • My original comment was:

        “Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum [1] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).”
        https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/12/legacy-of-climategate-10-years-later/#comment-903224

        I then supported this with 9 points containing 11 references. Three were to Wikipedia because they are concise. They contain links to the published references.

        The overall point that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is substantially higher than present and that global warming is beneficial for ecosystems has not been shown to be incorrect.

      • Peter

        We’ve been through this many times before.

        -The references you use do not claim “optimum temperatures” for life
        – The earth’s biota were entirely different to those now
        – sudden changes in temperature in the geological record are almost invariably associated with mass extinctions of varying extent.
        – those extinctions take up to 10s of millions of years to recover from.

        Claiming then that a rapid anthropogenic global temperature rise will be beneficial is risible, and you cannot find a single source source that supports such a claim.

        To use an analogy: even if it’s nice down on the beach, jumping off a cliff top get there is still foolish.

    • My original comment was on biological responses to warming or cooling. Both are possible. Organisms adapted to specific environments may once have been able to migrate when conditions change. It is less possible today.

      7. NPP is not the biosphere.
      8, Net Ecosystem Productivity greater in higher latitudes.
      9. Productivity and carbon storage is limited by water and nutrient availability. Respiration increases in warmer conditions. That’s the other half of the equation. e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ele.13379
      10. That life is easier today than at the LGM does not suggest that yet warmer conditions are favorable for life. This study reveals complexity and not simplicity.
      11. An IPCC chapter on paleoclimate?

      It is drawing a very long bow on the basis of tangential ‘evidence’ – more tangent than evidence – from someone with a desperately inadequate grounding in ecology.

  30. NASA/RSS has measured water vapor (TPW) monthly since Jan, 1988.
    Measured water vapor increase trend is higher than the highest possible WV trend from CO2 feedback. This demonstrates WV increase is a driver of temperature change and CO2 follows. http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

    ==$0

    • Dan: Water vapor, on average, can only increase when the temperature first increases. See the Clausius-Claperyon equation — which is, again, predicated on equilibrium conditions, not saturated conditions.

    • Well, what a surprise, the models say “It’s worse than we thought”, whereas reality differs.

      • Yes, it easily could be worse than many fools think it can be. The Pacific wags the tail, and it has the capacity to slam the dog into a brick wall. The Pacific is a beast.

      • Matthew R Marler

        JCH: Yes, it easily could be worse than many fools think it can be. The Pacific wags the tail, and it has the capacity to slam the dog into a brick wall. The Pacific is a beast.

        That’s nonsense. Do you have a point..

      • Wagging the tail:

      • JCH
        Half the time you deny that natural multidecadal variations exist.
        When you acknowledge them, you produce simplified versions with the sole purpose of implying “look – CO2 is overwhelming them”.
        Your “logic” is transparently motivated, toward worship of all-powerful V
        CO2.

      • Actually, no.
        :
        The AMO cult:

      • One of your stock images, you’re getting as predictable as Robert Ellison :-)

        The AMO is not a monotonic oscillation.
        Not many know this, the solar forcing peleton believe that it is since everything is forced astrophysically in pure oscillations.
        But in fact it’s a weakly periodically forced chaotic nonlinear oscillator, so its period and amplitude will change. Nonstationarity. Just like the PDO.
        You have much more work to do to overcome the null hypothesis that all recent climate change is of natural origin.
        Fortunately for you, no-one with any political influence cares about the scientific method any more.

      • None of the warming is caused by natural variability: oscillations.

        It’s Feynman’s Cargo Cult. The witchdoctors of the climate contrarians have the their true believers believing the negative phase of the AMO is coming back to save the Christian capitalists from the Satanic progressives.

      • None of the warming is caused by natural variability: oscillations.

        This is a statement of pure irrational religious belief.

        Let’s see how you Satanists fare in your own version of capitalism.
        You’ve made a job for yourself already – you’ll be making those straw aircraft for a living.

      • Actually, it is POTUS and Most Powerful Man in the World, Donald J. Trump, who is saving Christian capitalists from the Satanic progressives.

      • Don, I’m a progressive. Does that make me demonic?

        PS: Since when did capitalism become Christian? I see few Christian values in how capitalism plays out, then or now.

      • JCH wrote:
        “It’s Feynman’s Cargo Cult. The witchdoctors of the climate contrarians have the their true believers believing the negative phase of the AMO is coming back”

        Wait, I thought the narrative was we’re now in the positive phase of the PDO, and that’s causing all the warming. Ignoring the fact that the GMAT is now much higher than the last time the PDO was positive…..

        Confusing.

      • I don’t think the PDO causes global warming. ACO2 does that.

      • Curious George

        David Appell, “progressive” I don’t know. “Demonic”, judge for yourself:
        https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/14/week-in-review-politics-edition-13/#comment-817514

    • phil salmon wrote:
      >> None of the warming is caused by natural variability: oscillations. <<
      "This is a statement of pure irrational religious belief."

      So then just tell us the natural factors that have caused modern climate change.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The animation below shows the current impact of the polar vortex on the jet stream over North America.
    The coldest air comes from the intrusion of stratospheric. It is very dry and contains a lot of ozone. These properties can increase the risk of California fires.

  32. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The height of tropopause drops very much during stratospheric intrusion. This is the height of the convection.

  33. Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum [1] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).

    Mass extinction events:

    1. Most major extinction events [2] have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not global warming

    2. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions. “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.” [3]. The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.

    3. The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification and an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017) [4]

    4. There appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (approximately ~7–13°C above present)

    Rapid warming:

    5. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) [5] Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 year BP. Life thrived during these events.

    6. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013) [6], Zhu et al. (2016) [7], Greening of the Earth and it drivers). GMST increased by about 0.4°C during the period analysed (1982–2010).

    Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:

    7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]

    Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.

    8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].

    Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77

    A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from charts A and B shows that carbon density decreases from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
    Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
    Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
    Total: y = -1.975x + 241

    9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [10], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [11]. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

    These points suggest that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13°C above present GMST).

    References:

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events

    [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

    [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630

    • 1.  If your bar is that “minor” mass extinction is ok, I suggest you have the wrong bar.  I further suggest you read and understand what a mass extinction is. 

      2.  See (1)

      3.  Irrelevant to your argument. 

      4.  Irrelevant.   The point remains,  there are no significant episodes of rapid global warming which are not associated with mass extinctions.  I challenge you to find one. 

      5.  You are extrapolating a single study on a single ecosystem to a global event.   I respectfully suggest you cannot generalise the point.   I could point you to any number of studies concluding the opposite, just for instance Klein et al 

      Ecology Letters 7 (12), 1170-1179, 2004

       “climate warming could cause dramatic declines in plant species diversity in high elevation ecosystems over short time frames” 

      6.  As a thought experiment: even if we accept without question your analysis, these things show that the warming and CO2 changes to date are transforming ecosystems.   Further  change will,  presumably bring  massive habitat change by your own argument.  To expect the ecosystem to respond without similar upheaval, including species loss as habitats are transformed is naive in the extreme. 

      7, 8.  Let us note that,  again the claims you make for change are entirely your own and not reflected in the references you provide, which relate to current steady state. 

      9.  At least you’ve now corrected your arithmetic here from previous interactions.  How it is relevant I cannot guess.

      A summary:

      1.  You have no references that conclude anything even remotely close to what you do.   This is entirely your own extrapolation and speculation, based on trying to find studies to back up your own preconceptions.   To undertake such a task you need absolute mastery of the subject – you should ask yourself if you really are a brilliant paleoecologist who has realised something entirely missed by the whole of science. 

      2.  You have neglected  timescales.   The timescale for AGW is just a century or so.   For your points to be valid,  migration of species (think trees…) and evolution of species must be faster than AGW.

      • VTG
        There have been numerous past episodes of climate change much faster than the present.
        For instance every one of the 20 or so Dansgaard-Oeschger events during the last glacial interval in which NH temperatures changed by 10 degrees or more over a century or two.
        This fact alone invalidates all your criticism of Peter Lang’s points.

      • Phil, see misplaced response above

      • phil s: and so what do you think this means? That temperature can change very fast under certain circumstances?

      • VTG

        In your above reply you imply that GISP ice cores speak only about Greenland (eg DO events) and are unrelated to climate elsewhere.

        This paper:

        http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.949.2822&rep=rep1&type=pdf

        shows that climate oscillations closely matching DO events 9-13 were found recorded in speleothems on an island in the Indian Ocean.

        The same paper also referred to other DO -matching fluctuations in China and the Bahamas. It was not Greenland only.

      • David
        phil s: and so what do you think this means? That temperature can change very fast under certain circumstances?

        Even the CET record indicates a period of warming in the early 1700s similar to the last century. Within the Holocene there was a sharp cooling about 8000 years ago. As we go further back the declining temperature resolution doesn’t any more allow a fair assessment of how “unprecedented” current climate change – and even CO2 change – is.

        We know that over the Pleistocene at glacial terminations global temperatures have increased rapidly, at rates sometimes of several degrees per century. In that case it’s a runaway albedo driven ice sheet collapse. The ice sheets paradoxically get less stable as they increase in extent. (That’s perhaps why the latest research is moving away from the idea that there were fully global snowball earth glaciations.)

        While glacial inceptions have been generally less catastrophic than terminations, they have included episodes of sharp temperature drop. This is in the ice core and ocean sediment isotope record.

        The PETM was also a sharp temperature fluctuation. Back then the record may not have the frequency / resolution to compare rates of change accurately with the recent record.

        Even further back at the end of the Cryogenian glaciation however, ~ 600 Mya, there is evidence that that glacial epoch ended with a period of glacial-interglacial “flicker”, possibly similar to what we’re in now.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2502

      • Phil, your claim was of 10 degree changes in the northern hemisphere.

        Your cite claims no such thing.

        Citation for 10 degree hemisphere temperature change please, or withdraw your claim.

      • phil salmon wrote:
        “Even the CET record indicates a period of warming in the early 1700s similar to the last century.”

        So what?

        It’s one single location, which is not representative of the globe.

        And the evidence today clearly points to manmade GHGs as the cause of modern *global* warming, with no end in sight.

        It doesn’t matter what happened in the past, it matters what’s happening now.

      • phil salmon wrote:
        “The PETM was also a sharp temperature fluctuation. Back then the record may not have the frequency / resolution to compare rates of change accurately with the recent record.”

        We don’t need high resolution to understand the PETM.

        It’s warming was about 6 C in 20,000 years, an average of 0.003 C/decade — 70 times SLOWER than today’s rate of warming.

      • CET captures variability due to changes in the polar annular mode in the globally coupled – stadium wave – flow field. It is thought that solar variability influences – just as one factor in many – polar surface pressure.

        https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

        https://ncas.ac.uk/en/climate-science-highlights/2567-possible-climate-impacts-of-a-future-grand-solar-minimum

        The gyre hypothesis is that these meridional or zonal flows influence ocean circulation leading to cooler or warmer surface temp regimes. The global energy dynamic responds to cloud cover changes over the upwelling regions of the Pacific. This was the source of most 20th century ocean and atmosphere warming with increased El Nino frequency and intensity.


        https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/gsofacpubs/140/

        We may actually cool – but you still have tipping points David.

      • VTG

        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379108000759

        Terrestrial and marine proxies (pollen, planktic and benthic foraminiferal oxygen isotopes, alkenone- and foraminifer-derived sea-surface temperatures (SSTs), ice-rafted debris) from IMAGES deep-sea cores MD95-2042 and SU81-18 (37°N, 10°W), MD99-2331 and MD03-2697 (42°N, 9°W), and MD04-2845 (45°N, 5°W) show that western European and offshore environments were strongly affected by Dansgaard–Oeschger (D–O) and Heinrich (H) events. We concentrate here on latitudinal variability in the forest cover extent and composition of western Europe during the succession of D–O events, showing new pollen records for core MD04-2845 and for marine isotopic stages (MIS) 3 and 4 of core MD99-2331. In general, cold SSTs characteristic of Greenland stadials were contemporaneous with the expansion of semi-desert or steppic vegetation while Greenland interstadials were synchronous with the expansion of forest. Our data reveal that the amplitude of Atlantic and Mediterranean forest expansions differs for any given D–O warming during the glacial period (74–18 ka). In the western Mediterranean, D–O 16–17 and D–O 8 and 7 (corresponding to minima in precession) were associated with strong expansion of forest cover contrasting with weak expansion of forest cover during D–O 14 and 12; the opposite pattern is revealed at the Atlantic sites. Further north, the strongest Greenland warmings are recorded for D–O 19, 11 and 8. This contrasting latitudinal climatic scenario is compared with other northern hemisphere records, revealing similarities between the Mediterranean climate and the Asian monsoon regime, which may relate to a summer atmospheric teleconnection between the two regions comparable to the present-day situation. Parallels between Mediterranean climate enhancement and peaks in global methane (CH4) during the last glacial period suggest a significant role of monsoon activity in determining CH4 emission from wetlands.

        Abrupt glacial climate shifts controlled by ice sheet changes

        Xu Zhang, Gerrit Lohmann, Gregor Knorr, Conor Purcell
        Nature 512 (7514), 290, 2014
        During glacial periods of the Late Pleistocene, an abundance of proxy data demonstrates the existence of large and repeated millennial-scale warming episodes, known as Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) events. This ubiquitous feature of rapid glacial climate change can be extended back as far as 800,000 years before present (bp) in the ice core record, and has drawn broad attention within the science and policy-making communities alike.

      • Yet again Phil.

        Your *claim* was of a 10 degree temperature change in the Northern Hemisphere.

        Your citation does not claim this, nor anything close to it.

        Retract your claim, or provide a citation.

    • VTG apparently has not understood the 9 points as a combined argument demonstrating that biosphere productivity is higher when the planet is warmer (up to the optimum for the biosphere). He needs to understand that, except for migrating birds, insects and fish, life lives locally, so is effected by their local climate, not GMST. The evidence demonstrates that rapid warming is overall beneficial for the biosphere (up to the optimum). It’s true some species are disadvantaged by climate changes, but these are replaced by species that are advantaged by the change. The adaptation occurs quickly, much faster than over century time scales.

      VTG’s point 4 is nonsense. None of the mass extinction events have been attributable to global warming when GMST has been below the optimum. PETM was above the optimum.

      RIE’s comment about the 252 Ma mass extinction event is incorrect. That mass extinction was caused by a major volcanism period causing acidification and an ice age. He has ignored (perhaps not studied) the Baresel et al. (2017) [4] paper in Nature which studied and reports on empirical geological evidence, and instead prefers a modelling simulation study.

      Baresel et al. (2017) [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630] Abstract:

      “New high-resolution U-Pb dates indicate a duration of 89 ± 38 kyr for the Permian hiatus and of 14 ± 57 kyr for the overlying Triassic microbial limestone in shallow water settings of the Nanpanjiang Basin, South China. The age and duration of the hiatus coincides with the Permian-Triassic boundary (PTB) and the extinction interval in the Meishan Global Stratotype Section and Point, and strongly supports a glacio-eustatic regression, which best explains the genesis of the worldwide hiatus straddling the PTB in shallow water records. In adjacent deep marine troughs, rates of sediment accumulation display a six-fold decrease across the PTB compatible with a dryer and cooler climate as indicated by terrestrial plants. Our model of the Permian-Triassic boundary mass extinction (PTBME) hinges on the synchronicity of the hiatus with the onset of the Siberian Traps volcanism. This early eruptive phase released sulfur-rich volatiles into the stratosphere, thus simultaneously eliciting a short-lived ice age responsible for the global regression and a brief but intense acidification. Abrupt cooling, shrunk habitats on shelves and acidification may all have synergistically triggered the PTBME. Subsequently, the build-up of volcanic CO2 induced a transient cool climate whose early phase saw the deposition of the microbial limestone.”

      None of the commenters have provided valid empirical evidence demonstrating that global warming, when GMST is below the optimum, has caused mass extinction events or caused a net decrease in biomass productivity or a decrease in the mass of carbon tied up in the biosphere.

      The evidence indicates that global warming, when GMST is below the optimum for the biosphere, is net beneficial for the biosphere – ignoring the motivated reasoning of the Greens and the alarmists.

      • “The adaptation occurs quickly, much faster than over century time scales.”

        Evolution is much faster than century scale?

        Trees move at much faster than century scale?

        Seriously??

      • VTG,

        My point was that adaptation takes place very quickly. I was not talking about evolution.

        When the climate changes and disadvantages some species, others replace them. It happens very quickly. For example, if we ring-bark eucalypts, and graze sheep and cattle, the trees are replaced by grasses. In other cases, if one type of tree dies out due to environmental changes, another species of trees or grasslands replaces them.

        As the planet cooled rapidly at various times, grasses replaced trees. As the climate warms, biosphere productivity increases.

      • Peter, some reading for you on rate of change

        https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2007.0997

      • RIE’s comment about the 252 Ma mass extinction event is incorrect. That mass extinction was caused by a major volcanism period causing acidification and an ice age. He has ignored (perhaps not studied) the Baresel et al. (2017) [4] paper in Nature which studied and reports on empirical geological evidence, and instead prefers a modelling simulation study.

        “The impact of climate change on marine biodiversity depends on both its magnitude and on species’ diverse biological sensitivities. Tolerances of marine animals to warming and O2 loss are physiologically related and can be represented in a single metric: the ratio of temperature-dependent O2 supply and demand rates. This ratio, termed the Metabolic Index (Φ), measures the environmental scope for aerobic activity and is governed by ocean conditions as well as thermal and hypoxia sensitivity traits that vary across species. If climate warming and O2 loss reduce Φ below the species-specific minimum requirement for sustained ecological activity (Φcrit), the ocean would no longer support active aerobic metabolism and, by extension, long-term population persistence…

        To test the geographic selectivity of the model extinction, we compared model predictions to spatially explicit reconstructions of genus extinction from the marine fossil record. We found that across diverse taxonomic groups, the observed extinction intensity indeed increases with latitude, consistent with the predicted signature of aerobic habitat loss. Comparison of the model to the fossil record implies that temperature-dependent hypoxia can account for more than half of the observed magnitude of regional extinction (i.e., extirpation).” https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6419/eaat1327

        From Peter’s single study.

        “The mainstream claim that the mass extinction occurred “during the transgressive pulse when anoxic bottom waters often became extensive”4 is untenable in the view of our timing from the South Chinese record with its locally restricted occurrences of Griesbachian anoxic marine deposits.”

        There is some doubt and I do not rely on single studies. I read broadly and with an open mind. It is not that I reject the study or prefer another one. It is a matter of weighing contested facts.

        The problem is of considerable scientific interest when Peter is not draining the life from it with pedantry and dogmatism. But that was a different world a 1/4 of a billion years ago.

      • RIE,

        Neither you nor any of the other commenters here have provided persuasive evidence that global warming has been the cause of any of the mass extinction events when GMST was below the climate optimum (~7C–13C higher than present).

      • The reverse is true. Your case is so underwhelming that it’s a complete failure. There is absolutely nothing in the literature you list that supports such wild speculation. There is nothing that explicitly says what you are saying. There can be nothing in such ancient proxies that can be by the nature of such data as definitive as you are. There is nothing to suggest that such ancient events are relevant to today – the PETM may come closest.

        No one but you insists that the planet can be 7-13 degrrees C warmer than now and everything will be hunky dory. Even if warming is guaranteed – it is not – the claim is so far beyond the pale that it can’t be countenced.

      • RIE,

        You didn’t answer the question. You have not provided evidence to support your Green motivated reasoning that mass extinctions were caused by global warming when GMST was below the optimum. PETM is not an example because it occurred when GMST was about 27-29C (Hansen et al. 2013, Figure 2) https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294 .

        Sun et al. 2018 (https://www.pnas.org/content/115/15/3782) doesn’t support you either. It says the main phase of the extinction event occurred over about 0.4 Ma at 251.9–251.5 Ma. They do not give the change in GMST over this period. They says “The enhanced continental weathering delivered excessive nutrients to the oceans that could lead to marine eutrophication, anoxia, acidification, and ecological perturbation, ultimately resulting in the end-Permian mass extinction.” This suggests that the root-cause of the extinction event was change in seawater chemistry due to the Deakin Traps volcanism. It also says “Based on the low sea level at the end-Permian …” which suggests an ice age. That is, the Baresel et al. 2017 [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630] and Sun et al (2018) are basically in agreement.

      • The Hanson graphic goes back 35 million years – not 56. Not the PETM. And I supplied evidence on the mainstream interpretation of causes of the The Permian–Triassic extinction event. As I said – I retain an open mind on cascades of multiple causes of ancient extinction events. Because it is a complex, dynamical system. But much is simply not an analog of modern conditions.

        The idea that Earth could be 7-13 degrres C warmer on average than today with entirely beneficial effects fails a sanity check.

      • Wrong!

      • I am by the way an economic rationalist who endorses development and economic growth in an energy rich world – including HELE coal as a least cost interim option – as the way to social and environmental progress.

        Your sort of mad skeptic theories are a self defeating distraction leaving the policy field in the hands of progressives and neo-socialists.

      • Your writing and perpetual trolling demonstrate you are a fanatical Greenie that ignores all evidence that does not agree with your Greta Thunberg like beliefs.

      • “When the climate changes and disadvantages some species, others replace them. It happens very quickly. For example, if we ring-bark eucalypts, and graze sheep and cattle, the trees are replaced by grasses. In other cases, if one type of tree dies out due to environmental changes, another species of trees or grasslands replaces them.”

        OK. So you’re claiming that climate change will change the speciation rapidly in every ecosystem on earth.

        This change will occur seamlessly, with species, including plants, moving more rapidly than the changes. This will be without negative impacts, including on extinctions, as all current ecosystems will be maintained, either in different places or with a different species mix.

        The very, very best of luck convincing anybody else of such an opinion.

      • Try and get your head around the 9 points. Biomass productivity increases as GMST increases up to the optimum. Conversely, it decreases as GMST decreases. Many lines of evidence show this.

      • I understand all the points perfectly Peter.

        They just don’t point to the bizarre conclusion you draw from them, that sudden global warning will be beneficial to ecosystems. As I have patiently explained to you on several occasions.

        Now, please explain why you cannot provide a single citation that draws the same conclusions you do.

        Is it either

        (1) you are a brilliant paleo ecologist who has insights nobody else reaches,

        Or

        (2) You are wrong, for the reasons I have explained.

        You’re entirely out on a limb here, so there’s really no other option.

      • This change will occur seamlessly, with species, including plants, moving more rapidly than the changes. This will be without negative impacts, including on extinctions, as all current ecosystems will be maintained, either in different places or with a different species mix.

        The dinosaur disaster resulted in a dramatic proliferation of avian species – as Gondwanaland broke up and fauna drifted north on continents. This took quite some time.

        Ecological discontinuities end in a depauperate community. This ultimately results in colonization by organisms of vacated niche environments. Life always finds a way – even in harsh conditions like the poles or deep oceans.

        But we are experiencing biomass collapse – mainly due to land use, fragmented habitat, habitat destruction, nutrient pollution of waterways and over exploitation. Although abrupt climate change is theoretically an ecological discontinuity – in modern fragmented landscapes. How many species do we want to lose as a result of human activity? Development and economic growth is a big part of the solution.

      • The Holocene extinctions are duse to habitat distruction and over hunting, not global warming. Global warming is increasing biosphere productivity and the increasing the mass of carbon tied up in the biosphere. All good – which together with he other indicators mentioned indicates that global warming is beneficial.

      • There has been 500 GT of carbon lost from terrestrial stores in the Holovene (Rattan Lal 2018). Warm is so good for life that respiration depletes carbon stores in mid latitudes where it accumulates.

      • Peter, the objections to your … novel… analysis are based on rate of change and measures of impact. You have addressed neither.

        You have also ignored:

        Now, please explain why you cannot provide a single citation that draws the same conclusions you do.

        Is it either

        (1) you are a brilliant paleo ecologist who has insights nobody else reaches,

        Or

        (2) You are wrong, for the reasons I have explained.

        Please respond.

    • Peter: tl;dr. Don’t write posts like this and expect anyone to read them, let alone respond to then. They’re useless here.

    • This discussion has been helpful. None of the nine points have been refuted. The CAGW alarmists have tried their best to discredit the argument – but mostly by derision, vitriol, abuse of me, etc. – but have provided nothing relevant that refutes the proposition that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems globally.

      The nine points may be summarised in three main points are:

      • The optimum GMST for ecosystems is somewhere around 7–13C higher than now

      • There have been no mass extinction events that were caused by global warming when GMST was below the optimum

      • Biosphere productivity and the mass of carbon in the biosphere is higher in warmer climates and increases as GMST increases towards the optimum.

      • The reality is that ecologies are adapted to the broad range of different environments in which they live. Changing environments result in changed assemblages with sometimes far reaching implications for trophic webs. In today’s world fragmented and lost habitat restrict movements of plants and animals. Coral spawn may move on currents – the white pygmy possum perhaps not so much.

        The likelihood of 7-13 C rise in average global temps not having adverse impacts on biodiversity seems remote. A single global number – at any rate – says nothing about regional changes in conditions. Nor of course anything about changes in rainfall, soil carbon, nutrient availability, fire regimes, etc.

        Somehow the PETM extinction couldn’t have happened because average surface temps were too low. Other extinctions were caused by cascades of other factors. It is all of questionable relevance to modern conditions.

        “Background
        ƒ Carbon stored in soils worldwide exceeds the amount of carbon stored in phytomass and the atmosphere.
        ƒ Carbon emissions from land use and land cover change (LULCC) represent the second largest anthropogenic source of carbon into the
        atmosphere, and they are the most uncertain component of the global carbon cycle.
        ƒ Hence, a need exists for improved understanding of soil carbon stocks, their distribution and likely impacts of management options on soil
        carbon emissions to improve models and policies.
        Global soil organic carbon stocks
        ƒ Global soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks estimated to be about 1500 PgC.
        ƒ Considerable uncertainty with estimates ranging from 504 to 3000 PgC (n = 27 studies) reflecting sampling of soil-profile data and
        differences in approaches to stock calculations (Figure 1).
        ƒ Spatial distribution of SOC stocks differs substantially from carbon stored in above- and below-ground phytomass (Figures 2 & 3), which
        has management and policy implications.
        ƒ Uncertainty in SOC distribution data due to reliance on soil maps developed in 1970s and limited databases of soil profiles. Furthermore,
        soils are often sampled to 1 m depth only, but there is 1.5–2-times as much SOC to 3 m depth.
        Impact of management on soil carbon emissions
        ƒ LULCC is likely to have substantial impacts on SOC with estimated loss of 25–50% of SOC when converting native vegetation to cropland.
        ƒ Currently soil carbon impacts are not considered explicitly in most emissions reduction policies.
        ƒ Large uncertainties in estimates of SOC impacts of LULCC highlight the need for more research to improve our understanding of SOC
        losses under LULCC to enable better decisions for soil carbon management.”

        As a rule respiration by autotrophs increases in warm conditions resuklting in loss of soil organic carbon.

        “Abstract. Soil respiration, RS, the flux of microbially and plant-respired carbon dioxide (CO2) from the soil surface to the atmosphere, is the second-largest terrestrial carbon flux. However, the dynamics of RS are not well understood and the global flux remains poorly constrained. Ecosystem warming experiments, modelling analyses and fundamental biokineticsall suggest that RS should change with climate. This has been difficult to confirm observationally because of the high spatial variability of RS, inaccessibility of the soil medium and the inability of remote-sensing instruments to measure RS on large scales. Despite these constraints, it may be possible to discern climate-driven changes in regional or global RS values in the extant four-decade record of RS chamber measurements. Here we construct a database of worldwide RS observations matched with high-resolution historical climate data and find a previously unknown temporal trend in the RS record after accounting for mean annual climate, leaf area, nitrogen deposition and changes in CO2 measurement technique. We find that the air temperature anomaly (the deviation from the 1961–1990 mean) is significantly and positively correlated with changes in RS. We estimate that the global RS in 2008 (that is, the flux integrated over the Earth’s land surface over 2008) was 98±12 Pg C and that it increased by 0.1 Pg C yr-1 between 1989 and 2008, implying a global RS response to air temperature (Q10) of 1.5. An increasing global RS value does not necessarily constitute a positive feedback to the atmosphere, as it could be driven by higher carbon inputs to soil rather than by mobilization of stored older carbon. The available data are, however, consistent with an acceleration of the terrestrial carbon cycle in response to global climate change.” http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf

        Peter’s carbon article is a nice little study but Peter has got entirely the wrong end of the stick. He confuses biomass for total organic carbon. The article is about restoring soil carnon as I have frequently discussed. The table reveals the true state. Soil organic carbon is conserved in cooler climes. Quite a lot of it as fungi.


        https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77

        “Carbon stored in soils worldwide exceeds the amount of carbon stored in phytomass and the atmosphere. Despite the large quantity of carbon stored as soil organic carbon (SOC), consensus is lacking on the size of
        global SOC stocks, their spatial distribution, and the carbon emissions from soils due to changes in land useand land cover. This article summarizes published estimates of global SOC stocks through time and provides
        an overview of the likely impacts of management options on SOC stocks. We then discuss the implications of existing knowledge of SOC stocks, their geographical distribution and the emissions due to management
        regimes on policy decisions, and the need for better soil carbon science to mitigate losses and enhance soil carbon stocks.”

        I suppose that makes me a fanatical greenie and not an environmental scientist with decades of experience.

      • Ah.. respiration by heterotrophs that is..

      • RIE is talking nonsense as usual – misrepresenting and demonstrating his Green-CAGW motivated reasoning.

        Peter’s carbon article is a nice little study but Peter has got entirely the wrong end of the stick. He confuses biomass for total organic carbon.

        Wrong again! I did not confuse biomass and total organic carbon. I gave the carbon density as a function of latitude for each and the total. Quote from my first comment here: https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/23/week-in-review-science-edition-113/#comment-903372:

        A rough calculation of biomass and soil organic carbon density from charts A and B shows that carbon density decreases from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
        Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
        Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
        Total: y = -1.975x + 241

        That is, soil organic carbon density, biomass carbon density and the total organic carbon density all decrease with increasing latitude (and decreasing temperature).

        Where does RIE think soil organic carbon comes from? It comes from vegetation. So it is biomass productivity and biomass carbon density versus latitude that demonstrate that biosphere productivity increases as temperature increases.

        Regarding forests, recall Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]

        Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.

  34. Now Climate Change affects Gender Inequality. Is there no limit to the devastation from this scourge.

    https://time.com/5738322/climate-change-gender-inequality/?amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

  35. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The strong drop in temperature in the Rocky Mountains.

  36. This article at first looked like a promising admission that tectonic movement (and not CO2 alone) can change climate.

    Tectonic movement changes climate primarily by rearranging ocean circulation.

    https://eos.org/features/three-times-tectonics-changed-the-climate

    But NO!

    As so often in alarmist narrative (that’s now includes most published climate “science”) – the oceans are completely forgotten.

    Tectonic movement now only affects climate VIA CO2 drawdown due to silicate weathering.

    This is politically mandated nonsense.

    When Antarctica became isolated by a continuous Southern Ocean, stopping previous warm currents from Africa, was it silicate weathering and CO2 that made it freeze over?

    Of course not – it was interruption of meridional warm water supply.

    The CO2 story here is utterly bogus.

    • phil salmon wrote:
      “The CO2 story here is utterly bogus.”

      Do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any.

      • My opinion on that subject is the same as Albert Einstein’s:

        During absorption and emission of radiation there is also present a transfer of momentum to the molecules. This means that just the interaction of radiation and molecules leads to a velocity distribution of the latter. This must surely be the same as the velocity distribution which molecules acquire as the result of their mutual interaction by collisions, that is, it must coincide with the Maxwell distribution. We must require that the mean kinetic energy which a molecule per degree of freedom acquires in a Plank radiation field of temperature T be

        kT / 2

        this must be valid regardless of the nature of the molecules and independent of frequencies which the molecules absorb and emit.

      • Phil, does the kinetic energy of the molecule depend on how often the molecule absorbs and emits energy, in your opinion?

      • angtech
        If it always absorbs and emits the same amount, then it matters not how many times the self-cancelling absorption-emission occurs. No energy change in the gas molecule itself.

        But the back radiation warming effect does not necessarily depend on the air itself warming up. It would be enough for some photons to hit the earth’s surface and warm it up a bit.

      • Some IR photons result in changes in internal energy of the greenhouse gas molecule. Conceptually a quantum jump in electron orbits. Some photons change the kinetic energy of the molecule and this energy diffuses by collision through the atmosphere.

        The problem then is what happens to photon paths in a greenhouse gas enriched atmosphere.

      • phil salmon “If it always absorbs and emits the same amount, then it matters not how many times the self-cancelling absorption-emission occurs. No energy change in the gas molecule itself.”

        Raises some interesting arguments, observations and concerns.
        The question with a greenhouse gas is if it must, if it’s only way of releasing the energy, is by emiting it.
        Apparently there is at least one other way.
        By transferring the energy into kinetic energy.
        Which in turn can be transmitted to other atoms and molecules which lack the ability to absorb that “photon” of energy.
        Which means it can then absorb another and another photon of energy and continue to increase the energy of the atmosphere it is in through collisions.
        Hence it stops being a zero gain and instead becomes an atmosphere warming GHG.
        The Maxwell distribution is for the amount of energy stored in the system, not the amount of energy passing through the system.

        “But the back radiation warming effect does not necessarily depend on the air itself warming up. It would be enough for some photons to hit the earth’s surface and warm it up a bit.”

        No.
        The warmth of the air is different to the radiation passing through it.
        You have just denied any mechanism for heating of the actual air.
        “No energy change in the gas molecule itself.”
        Without the input of energy from water vapor and CO2 the O2 and nitrogen would be cold and friendless as both the energy going into the ground and coming out of the ground would be unable to affect it ( not absorbed) and thus heat it up.

  37. Twice as many moths now as in the 1960s in the UK.

    https://rothamsted.ac.uk/news/down-not-out

    Populations of organisms such as insects oscillate chaotically especially when involved in predator-prey relationships.

    In the contemporary mindset that any change in any natural parameter of any kind whatsoever is always sign of impending disaster and of the moral bankruptcy of right wing politics, the study of insects is an exceptionally rewarding field.

    Maybe too many bats, who eat moths, are killed by wind turbines and that is causing moth numbers to increase?

    Or maybe it’s all just stuff that happens.

    In any case it’s worse than we thought and the only solution is a left-progressive one world government.

    • An increase in biomass to 1982 – and a 10%/decade decline since?

      Populations fluctuate wildly due to changes in recruitment and mortality. Climate, weather, predation, resource exhaustion, disease… Despite Phil’s habitual skeptic polemic, there are 1000’s of key species that have seen population declines of 50% on average since the 1970’s.

      “I think that if we keep things up long enough, we’ll get to a mass extinction, but we’re not in a mass extinction yet, and I think that’s an optimistic discovery because that means we actually have time to avoid Armageddon,” Doug Erwin

  38. H/T GWPF https://mailchi.mp/5c5241f5f46d/press-release-european-groups-call-on-meps-to-reject-climate-emergency-vote-175421

    European Groups Call On MEPs To Reject ‘Climate Emergency’ Vote

    “A group of European organisations is calling on MEPs to reject a motion to announce a ‘climate emergency’ when the European Parliament votes on it tomorrow.

    The European Climate Realist Network (ECRN) is concerned that unjustified panic and alarm could pressure MEPs into supporting costly policies that will hurt European families, businesses and Europe’s economic stability and competitiveness.

    In reality, over the last 30 years the world has warmed far less than predicted by the IPCC and most climate models.

    Only last week, a declaration by more than 700 scientists and researchers was presented in the European Parliament, showing that global warming is happening, but is far more gradual and far less detrimental to the wellbeing of people and societies than activists have been claiming.

    A rejection of the ‘Climate Emergency’ motion by MEPs would send out a clear message that the European Parliament is no longer willing to follow unilateral virtue signalling. Europe has far more important issues to address.”

      • From North to South the European Union is tilting at windmills; either at the Netherland’s dikes or Don Quixote in Spain. Personally I have mixed feelings about such European unilateral political declarations. On the one hand, the good news for the US economy, the European Union has voluntarily hobbled itself with more useless regulations related to climate as an existential threat.

        Hooray.

        On the other hand..well…on the other hand, the European Union will demonstrate for the umpteenth time, that going it alone on global climate alterations is worse than useless. An object lesson for the rest of the world. The 2015 (has it been that long ago?) Paris Accord failure was a direct result of failing to obtain the buy in of China, Africa and India for expanding their emissions. Instead of recognizing these regions’ need for abundant and cheap energy to lift these political entities’ population out of abject poverty, the Accord felt obliged to distract from a reality and saddled the guilty developed nations past emissions with $100 billion a year free and clear. The USA would take a 25% of that cost alone. Talk about a quid pro quo diplomatic bribery?

        Well, Thank You Mr. Obama.

        Boo

      • You haven’t read the Paris country commitments have you?

      • RiHo08 wrote:
        “…on the other hand, the European Union will demonstrate for the umpteenth time, that going it alone on global climate alterations is worse than useless.”

        “Today we face the possibility that the global environment may be destroyed, yet no one will be responsible. This is a new problem.”

        – Dale Jamieson, “Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 139-153.
        https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/ethics_pub_policy.pdf

      • It is speculative science – tipping points – in the Earth system. There are 9 of them apparently. Climate change being in the zone of less current impact but increasing risk.


        https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/planetary-boundaries/about-the-research/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

        Speaking as an environmental scientist – there is an underlying reality. But these are far from beyond the capacity of rich economies to redress. As we are demonstrating.

        e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2015/10/04/biological-abundance-and-economic-growth/

        There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to emerge organically in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?

        This is the Earth System Science challenge for the 21st century. But unless economic rationalists and classic liberals (i.e. not in the American sense) forge policy the problems just get worse.

      • Matthew R Marler

        David Appell: “Today we face the possibility that the global environment may be destroyed, yet no one will be responsible. This is a new problem.”

        – Dale Jamieson, “Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Spring, 1992), pp. 139-153.
        https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/ethics_pub_policy.pdf

        Not a lot of prognostications from 27 years ago have proved to be accurate, and that one is clearly absurd now. Oh, he did say “may be”, and perhaps it “may be so” eventually.

      • MRM: Why is Jamieson absurd now?

      • Robert I. Ellison

        “,,the Paris country commitments..”

        Which components of these commitments are you referring? I certainly may have mis-read, always highly possible, and yet, China, India, Africa don’t have commitments until two to three decades from now. Or, did I get that wrong. Please illuminate the specifics to which you refer.

      • They commit to HELE coal plants, better land use management and energy efficiency. It results in a 3 Mt increase in annual electricity sector CO2 emissions by 2030. Much slower than the rate of increase in energy consumption.

        https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/India%20First/INDIA%20INDC%20TO%20UNFCCC.pdf

        I suggest you start with India.

      • Matthew R Marler

        David Appell: MRM: Why is Jamieson absurd now?nce

        The evidence collected since is far from supporting this assertion: Today we face the possibility that the global environment may be destroyed,

        Unless he meant, as I think he did not, “extremely remote possibility” (for “possibility”) or “is extremely unlikely to” (for “may”). Interpreting “may” and “possibility” is uncertain, but the call to urgent action is clear. Evidence that urgent action is needed to prevent the [destruction of the global environment] remains sparse.

  39. Dan Schwartz. About Christy. I feel sorry for Schwartz. He listed off some people. Every one of their quotes was fine. He thought there was something wrong with what they said. Schwartz is an unhappy man.

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Winter in North America is not waiting for December.

  41. Not on your list, but important. Kim Cobb gets the science on El Nino completely backwards. El Nino episodes are a response to periods of weaker solar wind, which is why they typically double in frequency during centennial solar minima, or a response to volcanic aerosol cooling events.

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/el-nino-weather-climate-change

  42. Jupiter’s Effective Temperature

    Jupiter’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.jupiter is:

    Te.jupiter = [Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ]¹∕ ⁴

    Jupiter’s sidereal rotation period is 9,925 h
    N = 24h/9,925h rotations/per day

    R = 5,2044 AU, 1/R² = 1/5,2044² = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth.
    So = 1.362 W/m² is Solar constant

    Jupiter’s albedo, ajupiter = 0,503
    Jupiter is a gaseous planet, Jupiter’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φjupiter = 1
    (Jupiter has not surface to reflect the incident sunlight. Accepted by a Gaseous Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 1)

    Cp.jupiter = 3,1388 cal/gr oC , H₂ specific heat at 175 K,
    Jupiter has not surface

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    So we have:
    Planet Jupiter’s effective temperature Te.jupiter is:
    Te.jupiter = {1*(1-0,503)1.362*0,0369(W/m²) [150*(24h/9,925h)*3,1388]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸(W/m²K⁴) }¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.jupiter = 159 K

    And below are the measured by satellites
    Tsat.mean.jupiter = 165 K (at 1bar level)
    Tsat.mean.jupiter = 112 K (at 0,1 bar level).

    Because Jupiter has no surface, the base of its atmosphere is usually considered to be the point at which atmospheric pressure is equal to 100 kPa (1.0 bar).

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Cold low in early December will move over the Great Lakes.

  44. Pingback: Isohko virhe OLR:ssä? | Roskasaitti

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The winter polar vortex develops in the stratosphere, its pattern depends only on the direction of ozone inflow on the polar circle. This gives a temperature difference that creates a stream current.

  46. “The theorists could now review the data analysis and develop hypotheses that fit the data better. But reanalyzing the same data over and over again carries a big risk: Instead of developing a better theory, they could merely find a way to better amplify noise.”
    https://www.quantamagazine.org/black-hole-echoes-would-reveal-break-with-einsteins-theory-20180322/
    Tease the signal out.
    “The more types of echoes they look for, the more likely they are to find something. But these repeated attempts will render measures of statistical significance unreliable.”
    Here’s what I see:
    We know it’s there. Now we have to find it. Then we have to prove it. Because of the Koch brother. This is objective.

  47. The Original Milankovitch Cycle ( cooling trend )

    According to Milankovitch Ice Ages are generally triggered by minima in high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, enabling winter snowfall to persist through the year and therefore accumulate to build Northern Hemisphere glacial ice sheets.
    That is why the Original Milankovitch Cycle shows a contemporary cooling trend.

    It was Milankovitch’s misfortunate assumption. Earth cannot accumulate heat on the continents’ land masses. Earth instead accumulates heat in the oceanic waters.
    The Milankovitch Cycle should be read reversed.

    The Reversed Milankovitch Cycle ( warming trend )

    Milankovitch’s main idea was that the glacial periods are ruled by planet’s movements forcing.
    The minimums in the reversed Milankovitch cycle are the maximums in the original.
    These two cycles, the original Milankovitch cycle and the reversed differ in time only by a half of a year.
    According to the reversed Milankovitch cycle there are long and very deep glacial periods and small and very short interglacial.
    The reversed cycle complies with the paleo geological findings. According to the reversed Milankovitch cycle, we are getting now to the end of a long and a slow warming period.

    In our times, with especially intense high-latitude Southern Hemisphere summer insolation, determined by orbital changes, there is what we have – a warming trend.

    The Global Climate Warming is the culmination of the orbital warming trend.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  48. At times I wish you could read real science and findings as I have explained in my papers the solar variability and the derived climate variability issues, instead of spending the time in dead-end conflicts.

  49. Have you read this article in Nature? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0

    • Tipping points are not what they used to be. Marriage is not what it used to be. Free speech is not what it used to be. Science is not what it used to be. University is not what it used to be.

    • The article in Nature makes some interesting reading, but questionable. Some comments:

      One view/aspect brings back old memories. It is what was then termed “high impact low probability” faults. In that respective field it was then countered by a hefty financial guarantee. However the ‘cost-benefit perspective’ today does not even begin to address a problem that is still unknown and invisible.

      Why? Quote: “Regional tipping occurred repeat-edly within and at the end of the last ice age, between 80,000 and 10,000 years ago (the Dansgaard–Oeschger and Heinrich events).” That is a pointer, except that it was not regional but global. It has also occurred repeatedly since then, in the last 10,000 years, on a global level, but impacting different regions in different ways. The Sahara remains scorched from 3550bce. Akkad around 2200bce was deserted. There are others; in the Med a civilisation aborted its rebuilding, pulled up its roots and left. See also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301621337_Why_we_shouldn't_ignore_the_mid-24th_century_BC_when_discussing_the_2200-2000_BC_climate_anomaly

      Quote: “A model study shows that when this sector collapses, it could destabilize the rest of the West Antarctic ice sheet like toppling dominoes — leading to about 3 metres of sea-level rise on a timescale of centuries to millennia”. We are at the first 20kyrs or so of a cycle. See fig 3 here : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/04/paleoclimate-cycles-are-key-analogs-for-present-day-holocene-warm-period/ Sea level has already risen; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png . However tipping points come faster than millennia. Fig 3 shows the 8.2kyr event, a geological face-lift. There were similar others that followed; a 5k2bce, 4375bce, 3550, 3200, 2345; ??? (my evidence runs out there with a civilisation collapse in the Med, and the evidence of the root cause is in their structures).

      Formulas are of no help if the main and critical variables are not unrecognised.

  50. So many mad theories so little time. All mutually inconsistent. All claiming that everyone – especially climate scientists – have got it all wrong.

    My theory is that it is all so complex and determintically chaotic that understanding cannot emerge from ridiculously simple math, eyeballing graphs or narratives superficially in the objective idiom of science. One can provisionally put together some pieces of the puzzle with near absolute certainty that future climates states are unpredictably and abruptly changeable as the planet is driven inexorably towards the threshold of the next tipping point.

    To be uncertain is uncomfortable – but certainty is absurd. Sums up the human condition according to Voltaire.

    • as the planet is driven inexorably towards the threshold of the next tipping point, climate always tips back to complete the next normal, natural, necessary and unstoppable well bounded phase of the self correcting cycles.

      • In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’

        The theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation. But the extreme
        limits of past climate states are hardly reassuring about the prospects of future change.

        Dynamic climate sensitivity implies the potential for a small push to initiate a large shift. Climate in this theory of abrupt change is an emergent property of the shift in global energies as the system settles down into a new climate state. The traditional definition of climate sensitivity as a temperature response to changes in CO2 makes sense only in periods between climate shifts – as climate changes at shifts are internally generated. Climate evolution is discontinuous at the scale of decades and longer.

  51. DOE should revive the Office of Policy Analysis (my latest article)
    https://www.cfact.org/2019/11/29/doe-should-revive-the-office-of-policy-analysis/

    Now that Rick “do nothing” Perry is quitting as U.S. Secretary of Energy, there is an opportunity to do something truly useful. My proposal is to re-establish the Office of Policy Analysis (OPA) in DOE’s massive Office of Science (SC).

    SC is the world’s biggest funder of physical science and OPA could bring some of that weight to bear on pressing, science intensive policy issues. SC also runs a bunch of National Laboratories, which are far less political than the universities funded by other federal science agencies. The opportunity for balanced assessments is clearly there, given proper direction.

    The Office of Policy Analysis had a distinguished history, until it was killed by the Gore Administration for being too objective. Yes I know it was what is commonly called the Clinton Administration, but when it came to issues of energy and environment Al Gore was the bad King. Gore did enormous policy damage, much of which continues to this day.

    I even have a candidate Director for the new OPA, which is Dr. Walter Warnick. Walt ran one of OPA’s two divisions until Gore axed it, then went on to run SC’s prestigious Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) until he retired a few years ago. I worked closely with him for ten years at OSTI. His specialty is solving hard problems with small budgets, so we are not talking about a lot if money for the new OPA.

    Walt is also very good at interagency coordination. At OSTI he orchestrated the building of the Science.gov portal, that integrates millions of scientific documents from pretty much all of the federal science agencies. This was an incredible feat, given the independent nature of these groups.

    In fact Walt directed one of OPA’s most famous projects — the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Project, commonly known simply as NAPAP. DOE played a leading role in this 10 year, multi-agency investigation into the validity of the so-called “acid rain” scare. Their finding was that there was little scientific support for the scare.

    America today faces a number of environmental scares, some as big as or bigger than acid rain, especially climate change. Major policy issues are at stake. DOE’s Office of Science and the National Laboratories are the proper place for an objective assessment of the science pertaining to these issues.

    Note that DOE already has a parallel office of energy policy analysis. According to its webpage, the role of the Office of Energy Policy and Systems Analysis is to deliver unbiased energy analysis to the Department of Energy’s leadership on existing and prospective energy-related policies, focusing in part on integrative analysis of energy systems. But there is no scientific counterpart, which puts the energy policy cart before the science policy horse.

    Also, the Interior Department has an Office of Policy Analysis. The Energy Department needs one just as badly, probably more so since America’s energy future is at stake.

    As with NAPAP, the key to objective assessment is to only draw those conclusions that can be supported by strong and non-controversial evidence. Either that or to report that no firm conclusion can be drawn, which may often be the case. The kind of scary speculation and self-serving hype that infects the academic journals is simply not allowed. This is just how Walt works.

    I propose that the DOE Office of Policy Analysis be revived, with Dr. Walter Warnick as its Director.

    David

  52. Australia has about 6% wind and solar – 100% backed up with hydro.

    Wind and solar keeping prices lower in SA. 🤣

    • Do you as a consumer pay a spot price on your bill?

    • “Australia has about 6% wind and solar – 100% backed up with hydro.”

      Further undeniable evidence that no amount renewable energy can prevent, slow, stop global warming bushfires.

      • What incredible nonsense is this?

      • Mark M wrote:
        “Further undeniable evidence that no amount renewable energy can prevent, slow, stop global warming bushfires.”

        ANY amount of renewable energy reduces global warming, and its effects.

      • Q. “What incredible nonsense is this?”
        A. At UN Environment, we believe that sustainable energy presents an opportunity to transform lives and economies while safeguarding the planet.

        https://www.unenvironment.org/explore-topics/energy/why-does-energy-matter

        Dave Appell: “ANY amount of renewable energy reduces global warming, and its effects.”

        Sadly for DA, he couldn’t supply any evidence for his incredibly nonsense comment.

      • Australia is a fire adapted landscape – we pay indigenous landowners to burn wet and dry savanna. Cool season mosaic burning is the ideal and is part of Australia’s ambitious Paris target. It is much more effective in itself in reducing CO2-e emissions and so much cheaper than wind and solar.
        The dry savanna protocol was released just last year. It has to be verifiable.


        https://www.clc.org.au/articles/info/fire-management1

        Wind and solar cannot cost competitively achieve deeper penetration with today’s technology. It is really not an option for cheap and abundant energy but a niche product. Combining it with small modular nuclear – however – provides opportunities for expansion of low LCOE wind and solar to produce liquid fuels.

        But realistically – 6% wind and solar is some 1.2% of Australia’s total emissions from all sectors – which is some 1%% of total global emissions. Who’s going to notice? And this has no impact on fire in Australia.

        The rationale for wind and solar subsidies is the sunrise industry argument. Something that has been spectacularly successful in reducing cost. And we are winding back subsidies to nothing in 2030.

        I’m not sure what the UN was talking about but a high energy planet is the sine qua non of social, economic and environmental progress this century. Will they ever see the woods through the trees?

      • Australia is a fire adapted landscape – we pay indigenous landowners to burn wet and dry savanna. Cool season mosaic burning is the ideal and is part of Australia’s ambitious Paris target. The dry savanna protocol was released just last year. It has to be verifiable.


        https://www.clc.org.au/articles/info/fire-management1

        Wind and solar cannot cost competitively achieve deeper penetration with today’s technology. It is really not an option for cheap and abundant energy but a niche product. Combining it with small modular nuclear – however – provides opportunities for expansion of low LCOE wind and solar to produce liquid fuels.

        But realistically – 6% wind and solar is some 1.2% of Australia’s emissions from the electricity sector which is some 0.5% of global emissions. Who’s going to notice? The rationale for wind and solar subsidies is the sunrise industry argument. Something that has been spectacularly successful in reducing cost.

  53. Dr. Curry, reg. INM-CM5
    To paraphrase the saying “predictions are difficult especially regarding the future”, how about “predictions reg. the past being equally difficult when tested against IPCC climate models”?. Several major GG emitter nations’ leaders, notably Russia’s Putin, China’s Xi and India’s Modi have consistently at best paying lip service to the Paris Accord (unenforceable) pledges or simply ignoring the “existential threat to planet earth” calls and expanding their economies based on increased usage of fossil fuels? Could it be that given that “by now we should’ve all fried” as James Lovelock quipped, these autocratic leaders are more confident in the Russian climate INM-CM5? which after all best reproduces Climate changes observed in 1850-2014? Are there any updates reg. this model’s successor being extended into the future decades?

    • I’m Victor Adams.

      I’d really like to see a discussion on the IPCC GCMs and the greenhouse gas effect. I believe every single IPCC GCM relies upon the core greenhouse gas model of Manabe/Wetherald, 1967 – Held/Soden, 2000. It’s clear the model is wrong. It predicts the wrong clear sky lapse rate of 16C/km, and its tropical hotspot at the troposphere is nowhere to be found.

      I reason I’d like to see the discussion here is because Judith has defended the consensus greenhouse gas model in the past. I don’t see how she can. On what grounds?

      • mark4asp wrote:
        I’d really like to see a discussion on the IPCC GCMs and the greenhouse gas effect.

        The greenhouse effect is obvious if you measure the Earth’s outgoing electromagnetic spectrum at the TOA:

      • “The greenhouse effect is obvious …”

        <– What a load of nonsense.
        The greenhouse gas effect is used to drive policy. Which may authorise spending of $100 trillion, or more, worldwide. It's is central to the IPCC climate projections.

        Depending on how a GHGE is modelled, CS values are 0.01K to 11 K. A range of 1:1100. I'm quoting Dai Davies model for the low value and some extreme model published a few years back for the high one.

        How are we to distinguish the better from the worse? We can't allow model authors to be the arbiters, nor their friends & allies. Independent testing and validation is best. Tests should be as rigorous as possible; written in such as way to give unambiguous, precise, quantitative, replicable, answers. Not "I'm very confident that it's right". Nor "I'll keep using this model because it keeps my funding flowing", … or any of 101 other excuses modellers can dream up for resisting testing and validation.

      • ” I believe every single IPCC GCM relies upon the core greenhouse gas model of Manabe/Wetherald, 1967 – Held/Soden, 2000. ”

        nope. next.

      • As usual David posts factoids. The absorption spectra might be corrrect, but it is incorrectly labelled. If one looks at the individual components like shown here http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page15.htm, water vapour covers most of the absorption of CO2 and all of methane.

      • Modelling is a tool which gives very different answers dependent on the understanding and biases of the modeller. In times past, I was engaged with a lot of economic modelling, and came to be very cautious about its output. In one instance, three of Australia’s leading academic modellers were asked to model potential growth as an input to policy. They came back with wildly different answers, which could be traced back not to the modelling per se but to the world views, biases and assumptions of the modellers.

        The kind of modelling I was mainly engaged with often would be an assessment of the potential impact of alternative policies. The models looked only ten years ahead, and did not give us forecasts of the future – the future is so opaque that it is pretty difficult to model accurately. What they did was to estimate the impact of, say, policies A, B and C, with a view to seeing which option was best, in terms of economic growth or return on any investment involved. This was not a forecast, but an assessment of the difference which might arise from each policy. It was not our job to promote a particular policy, merely to provide a basis for better decision-making by politicians.

        It seems to me that one of the problems in the greenhouse gas issue over the last 30-odd years is that modellers, or promoters of modelling results, claim a spurious accuracy and uncertainty in a field which is far more complex and less understood than economics, and project far into the unseeable future. This has IMHO led to exaggerated fears and a mis-direction of public funds at great cost for little or no benefit.

        A little more modesty from climate modellers about their models and their claims, many of which have already been shown to be grossly exaggerated, would surely have left us in a better place than we are now, and would not have helped feed completely irrational stances by the UN and others.

      • Having done lots of hydrodynamic modelling I can tell you it comes as quite a surprise when you get nonlinear gobbledegook as output. Reduce the time step my academic advisor suggested. Climate models are promoted and disparaged by a clueless multitude. You all have heard about sensitive dependence but it doesn’t quite compue. Off to the side there are high profile climate modellers scratching their heads and wondering why.

        “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWiliams

        There is a Youtube video of Tim Palmer who says that these opportunistic ensembles – they are not a model output – might give some idea of future climate trajectories. A ringing endorsement.

        As far as spectral radiances go – the Planck response ensures that these notches will ultimately disappear in a warmer world. A year or a 1000 years years for oceans to equilibriate to increased surface radiative forcing is the quintessential problem.

      • mark4asp wrote:
        Depending on how a GHGE is modelled, CS values are 0.01K to 11 K.

        Yes, the existence of the greenhouse effect is obvious. After all, Fourier deduced it in 1827.

        “On the Temperatures of the Terrestrial Sphere and Interplanetary Space,” Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, Memoires de l’Academie Royale de Sciences, 7 569-604 (1827).
        https://is.gd/UPEtym

        English translation by William Connolley:
        http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html

        You can determine its magnitude (in W/m2) by using the spectrum plot I gave and numerically integrating it, and subtracting that from the integration of the isoterm for 288 K.

        Recently Chris Colose of NASA looked at the effect of snow and ice from removing all noncondensable GHGs from the atmosphere:

        Then there is the Lacis et al paper in Science 2010, which removed ncGHGs and found a surface temperature drop of about 34 C after 30 years. See their Figure 2:

        https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Lacis%20et%20al.,%202010,%20Science.pdf

      • mark4asp wrote:
        We can’t allow model authors to be the arbiters, nor their friends & allies. Independent testing and validation is best. Tests should be as rigorous as possible; written in such as way to give unambiguous, precise, quantitative, replicable, answers.

        The idea that modelers don’t take validation seriously is just hogwash — it’s the very first thing any modeler does. Validation of climate models is the longest chapter (9, I think) in the 5AR. Papers are published on validation all the time. Anyone can do the same. In fact, an independent assessment by two computer scientists in 2012 found that “…climate models all have very low defect densities compared to well-known, similarly sized open-source projects.”

        Assessing climate model software quality: a defect density analysis of three models, January 2012, Geoscientific Model Development Discussions 5(1):347-382
        DOI: 10.5194/gmdd-5-347-2012
        J. Pipitone + Steve Easterbrook
        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258645862_Assessing_climate_model_software_quality_a_defect_density_analysis_of_three_models

      • Chris Morris commented:
        water vapour covers most of the absorption of CO2 and all of methane.

        First of all, it hardly covers it completely. Secondly, there is little water vapor in polar regions, so there CO2 etc dominate. Also true in the stratosphere.

      • And third, your figure is just a crude representation. There are hundreds of thousands of absorption lines for all the GHGs in the IR region. I once counted the CO2 absorption lines in its prominent absorption window of 666-668/cm (about 15.0 microns), and the number from the Hitran database was 1,406.

    • Victor

      If countries such as China (30%) and India are seen to be greatly increasing their co2 emissions to an even greater proportion of global co2, then many smaller countries will say that their !% is so trivial that it makes no difference, and why should they upend their lifestyles and incur enormous costs by cutting drastically as it will have no effect.

      The £1 trillion pledged by our former Prime Minister Theresa May will make a difference of three hundredths of a degree according to New Scientist journal, assuming the sensitivity is as great as believed, which seems doubtful

      tonyb

  54. 1. Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Calculation:

    So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,30
    Earth is a rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

    N = 1 rotation per day, is Earth’s sidereal rotation period
    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Earth’s-Without-Atmosphere Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.earth is:

    Te.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Τe.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,30)1.362 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.earth = 288,36 Κ

    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  55. Comparison of results for planet Te:

    Planet or…….. Te.satellites……… Te.incomplete…….Te.complete
    moon …………..measured …………..formula ……………formula
    Mercury ………….340 K ……………..437,30 K …………346,11 K
    Earth ……………..288 K ……………..255 K …………….288,36 K
    Moon ……………..220 Κ ……………..271 Κ …………….221,74 Κ
    Mars ………………210 K ……………..211,52 K …………215,23 K

    So we may conclude:

    The Te.earth = 255 K does not exist.

    The 288 – 255 = Δ 33 οC difference does not exist.

    There is NO +33 oC greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.

    The Earth’s atmosphere does not warm Earth.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  56. “The reason why I have been recently defending the basic physics of the greenhouse effect is because I think the credibility of those who claim that the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere cannot be increased (or doesn’t even exist) is compromised when they object to something that – as far as I have seen – has no alternative explanation.

    I’m always open to new theories, but as I have said before, until someone puts their alternative physics into an energy-conserving model of the vertical temperature profile of the atmosphere, which then produces the present-day temperature profile as current models do, it is little more than hand-waving.” Roy Spencer

    I’m no longer open to ‘alternative’ physics. The 33 degrees C is the 60 odd degree greenhouse gas warming of the surface less cooling through enhanced convective and radiative cooling.

  57. Thank you, Robert.

    A Planet Effective Temperature Formula is based on the planet radiative equilibrium and in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    This Formula is incomplete and thus produces very confusing results.
    Te.earth.incompl. = 255 K

    Thus the incomplete Planet Effective Temperature Formula lead to the wrong conclusions that there is a strong 288-255= Δ 33 oC Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect.
    I have rewritten anew the incomplete formula, and here is what we have now:
    Comparison of results the planet Te calculated by the Incomplete Formula:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    the planet Te calculated by the Complete Formula:
    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)
    and the planet Te (Tsat.mean) measured by satellites:
    Planet or……Te.incomplete…….Te.complete ……….Te.satellites
    moon…………..formula……………formula…………….measured
    Mercury…………437 K……………..346,11 K…………….340 K
    Earth……………255 K……………..288,36 K…………….288 K
    Moon……………271 Κ……………..221,74 Κ…………….220 Κ
    Mars……………211,52 K………….215,23 K…………….210 K

    The Complete Formula gives for all the planets almost the same results as measured by NASA satellites.

    The First Step

    At very first look at the data table we distinguish the following:
    Planet or…….Te.incomplete… Te.satellites…..Rotations
    moon…………..formula…………measured…….per day
    Mercury…………437 K……………340 K…………1/58
    Earth……………255 K……………288 K…………..1
    Moon……………271 Κ……………220 Κ…………1/29,5
    Mars…………….211,52 K………..210 K…………..1
    For the slow rotating Mercury and Moon the Incomplete Formula:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    gives us much higher results comparing to measured by satellites.
    For the fast rotating Earth and Mars the Incomplete Formula:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    gives us much lower result for Earth and almost alike for Mars.

    The first conclusion is that the Incomplete Formula:
    Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    should be abandoned because it gives us very confusing results, or it should be completed, as we already did.
    The Mercury’s and Moon’s higher calculated temperatures were because we hadn’t inserted the factor Φ = 0,47 in formula yet.
    The incomplete formula “was ignorant” of the spherical surface solar irradiation geometrical dependent absorption. That is why the absorbed by insolated planet hemisphere fraction of solar flux was overestimated.

    That is why Mercury’s and Moon’s by incomplete formula calculated temperatures appeared higher than the measured by satellites.

    The second conclusion is that the faster rotating Earth and Mars according to satellites measurements appear to be warmer, and we conclude it happens because of their fast rotation period. We already have “N” (rotations/per day) in our Complete Formula.

    I should mention here again that I believe in NASA satellites temperatures measurements. None of these discoveries could be possible without NASA satellites very precise planet temperatures measurements.

    They resulted in Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula:
    Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (1)

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  58. Satellite temperature sensors measure oxygen excitation in the troposphere. It is not surface temperature. Surface temperature is about 288 degrees K. What is relevant is how surface temperature changes with changes in albedo and greenhouse gases.

    Yes Judith – you really should discuss the standard model of the atmosphere. Although you would lose most of your sky dragon slayer denizens.

  59. Including the atmospheric pressure (or density) together with the vertical height would produce a graph with more significance. Who cares if you get so high that there is nothing out there.

  60. 2. Moon’s Effective Temperature Calculation:

    So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,136
    Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,3216 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days

    Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor
    Φmoon = 0,47
    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

    cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

    N = 1/29,5 rotations per/ day

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Moon’s Effective Temperature Complete Formula Te.moon:

    Te.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Te.moon = { 0,47 (1-0,136) 1.362 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
    Te.moon = 221,74 Κ

    The newly calculated Moon’s Effective Temperature differs only by 0,8% from that measured by satellites!

    Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  61. The Steffan-Boltzman equation enable approximate calculation of the surface temperature of a planet without an atmosphere. Adding greenhouse gases in an atmosphere is what further warms the surface. Not rotation – an ‘alternative’ physics that is way out there.

    • Thank you Robert.

      Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law

      Planet Energy Budget:
      Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius “r” after reflection and dispersion:
      Jabs = Φ*πr²S (1-a) (W)

      Total energy emitted to space from a whole planet:
      Jemit = A*σΤe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)

      Φ – is a dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
      (1 – Φ) – is the reflected fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux

      S – is a Solar Flux at the top of atmosphere (W/m²)
      Α – is the total planet surface (m²)

      Te – is a Planet Effective Temperature (K)

      (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
      A = 4πr² (m²), where r – is the planet’s radius

      Jemit = 4πr²σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)

      global Jabs = global Jemit

      Φ*πr²S (1-a) = 4πr²σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
      Or after eliminating πr²

      Φ*S*(1-a) = 4σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴

      The planet average Jabs = Jemit per m² planet surface:
      Jabs = Jemit

      Φ*S*(1-a) /4 = σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)

      Solving for Te we obtain the effective temperature:
      Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

      β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

      N rotations/day, is planet’s sidereal rotation period
      cp – is the planet surface specific heat

      cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

      Here (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
      σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

      The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.362 W/m².
      With an albedo of a = 0,30 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have Te = 288,36 K or 15°C.
      This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured Tmean.earth = 288 K.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean

      Tmin↑→ T↑mean ← T↓max
      when n2>n1 (it happens because Tmin↑ grows faster than T↓max goes down)
      It happens in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

      Let’s explain:
      Assuming a planet rotates faster and Tmax1-Tmax2 = 1 oC.
      Then, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
      Tmin2-Tmin1 > 1oC
      Consequently Tmean2 > Tmean1

      Assuming n2>n1 the solar irradiated hemisphere average temperature
      T1-T2=1oC
      Then the dark hemisphere average temperature
      T2-T1>1oC
      Consequently the total average
      Tmean2 > Tmean1

      So we shall have:
      n2>n1
      Tmin↑→ T↑mean ← T↓max
      The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com


    • “The Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument aboard NASA’s Aqua satellite senses temperature using infrared wavelengths. This image shows temperature of the Earth’s surface or clouds covering it for the month of April 2003. The scale ranges from -81 degrees C (-114 F) in black/blue to 47 C (116 F) in red.”
      https://www.space.com/17816-earth-temperature.html

      The standard model of radiative physics model of the atmosphere involves IR interactions with greenhouse gas molecules warming the surface.

      Christos has invented a new physics fudge factor to explain something that already has an explanation. It is very strange.

  62. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In areas where bison graze, plants contain 50 to 90 percent more nutrients by the end of the summer. This not only provides extra nourishment for other grazers, but prolongs the growing season of the plants themselves. And by trimming back the plant cover in one year, bison allow more sunlight to fall on the next year’s greenery, accelerating its growth. When Geremia’s team looked at parts of Yellowstone where bison numbers have fluctuated, it found that the green wave grew in intensity and crested over a longer period as the herds grew larger. The bison engineer and intensify the spring. And astonishingly, they had a stronger influence on the timing of plant growth than weather and other environmental variables. They’re equivalent to a force of nature.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/11/how-bison-create-spring/602176/

  63. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The cyclone wind speed in the Midwest is rising.

  64. Atlantic warming since the Little Ice Age:
    https://tos.org/oceanography/article/atlantic-warming-since-the-little-ice-age

    Radiocarbon observations suggest that the deep Atlantic Ocean takes up to several centuries to fully respond to changes at the sea surface.

    You would expect the deep ocean circulation with a cycle time of several millennia, to indeed respond slowly at depth to any changes at the surface. Not surprising that the data confirm this.

    This does not stop alarmist scientists claiming that “missing” warming heat is somehow hiding in the deep ocean. That – miraculously – less than a century of surface warming is suffusing the abyssal ocean depths with disastrous warming.

    This is like a cosmologist proposing that a part of the universe outside of our “light cone” is influencing earth. This is impossible – outside of our light cone, light cannot travel to earth during the history of the universe. As the R.E.M. song put it, “you can’t get there from here”.

    The deep ocean is not in causal contact with the surface in real time. It takes centuries and millennia for changes of temperature and insolation at the surface to reach the deep ocean via changes in downwelling patterns.

    Alarmists snatching at the deep ocean as a place to domicile their missing warming, only shows that they are ignorant and contemptuous of oceanography.

    • This does not stop alarmist scientists claiming that “missing” warming heat is somehow hiding in the deep ocean. …

      This is just wrong.

      • So you reckon cold water floats, eh?

      • No, I reckon his rendition of what a climate scientist actually said is complete and udder bullchit.

      • Robert
        Water in the deep ocean can be defined in n terms of “age” in years since its “formation” by downwelling from the surface. This age can reach 3-4000 years in places like the North Pacific.

        The atmospheric nuclear bomb tests in the 1950’s and 1960’s have provided a valuable opportunity for a tracer study, using tritium (^3H, half life ) to directly map in 4D the Thermohaline circulation starting from the most important site of downwelling in the Northern Hemisphere, the Norwegian Sea.

        If eddys from surface wind were mixing seawater down the the bottom, then deep water would not have this old “age” of thousands of years. In general the thermocline is a barrier to vertical mixing.

      • I have read a few tracer studies. Downwelling is the minor component. It is the rate of isopycnal mixing by mesoscale eddies – strongly dependent on wind strength – in all the oceans that is more significant. It is a fine balance between downward eddy diffusion and convection as warmer water at depth rises to the surface.

        e,g, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066238

        I’m inclined to think that this can be seen in Argo depth profiles. Well beyond the thermocline.

        The residence time has traditionally been calculated as the volume of the deep sea divided by upwelling or downwelling – the latter were assumed to be equal. It is a simple and old fashioned idea. I was taught some 40 years ago that the residence time was something like 1500 years.

        But there is no missing heat. If you look at CERES and Argo – it was never there. Until the post hiatus period of course.

      • What Trenberth actually said.

        1. it was a travesty that the scientific means of monitoring of the earth could not answer the question of what became of the heat the satellites and the computer models indicated should have resulted in a higher GMST.

        True.

        2. That the “missing heat” had either been reflected harmlessly back to space, or…

        it had gone into the oceans, where it would be possible to find it. The only way that would be possible would be a higher OHC than modeled. He did not talk about any ridiculous blobs of heat in the deep oceans. This is memorialized on Pielke’s blog when Willis, Pielke and Trenberth would discuss the latest ARGO numbers.

        3. That, regardless of which of the two possibilities had actually happened, it would eventually come back to haunt us.

        And it has. So there was missing heat. It appears most of it was reflected back to space. When the reflection reversed, the surface of the earth heated up very quickly. The haunting is ongoing. The current rate of warming is around .3 ℃ per decade. Sea level is rising at around 4.5 mm/yr.

        So pray for cooling. Unicorn farts can happen. They really really can.

      • JCH commented:
        it had gone into the oceans, where it would be possible to find it. The only way that would be possible would be a higher OHC than modeled.

        No, it could have gone into the deep ocean, > 2000 m in depth.

        Trenberth has a statement about this on his Web site:

        “In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”

        http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/

      • There are studies of the heat content of the deep ocean, which present oof mixed bag, Trenberth, Willis, and Pielke included one of those in their discussions. It does not look like it went into the deep ocean. ARGO has deployed deep floats, and once the data from those is analyzed and presented, we will know.

        There is ample evidence a lot of it was reflected back to space.

      • JCH wrote:
        There is ample evidence a lot of it was reflected back to space.

        Maybe I missed it above, but what’s that evidence?

      • Just curious, since Trenberth said, from day one, that reflection back to space was one of the two possibilities for what caused the missing heat, why haven’t you followed it?

      • Sorry, I thought you knew of evidence, not just what people said.

      • <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2828&quot;Impact of decadal cloud variations on the Earth’s energy budget

        Abstract
        Feedbacks of clouds on climate change strongly influence the magnitude of global warming1,2,3. Cloud feedbacks, in turn, depend on the spatial patterns of surface warming4,5,6,7,8,9, which vary on decadal timescales. Therefore, the magnitude of the decadal cloud feedback could deviate from the long-term cloud feedback4. Here we present climate model simulations to show that the global mean cloud feedback in response to decadal temperature fluctuations varies dramatically due to time variations in the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature. We find that cloud anomalies associated with these patterns significantly modify the Earth’s energy budget. Specifically, the decadal cloud feedback between the 1980s and 2000s is substantially more negative than the long-term cloud feedback. This is a result of cooling in tropical regions where air descends, relative to warming in tropical ascent regions, which strengthens low-level atmospheric stability. Under these conditions, low-level cloud cover and its reflection of solar radiation increase, despite an increase in global mean surface temperature. These results suggest that sea surface temperature pattern-induced low cloud anomalies could have contributed to the period of reduced warming between 1998 and 2013, and offer a physical explanation of why climate sensitivities estimated from recently observed trends are probably biased low4.

      • Thanks. But does reflection suffice to explain the missing heat? Or does it explain some of it? Seems the latter. From the paper:

        “The average SST pattern-induced component of 1Rcloud is
        −0.35 W m−2 during the 2000s (Fig. 2a), which is comparable to
        current TOA net flux anomaly (∼0.6Wm−2)25. To the extent that the
        global warming rate is affected by the TOA net flux imbalance26, SST
        pattern-induced negative R_cloud anomalies—together with oceanic
        heat storage at depth23 and aerosol forcing27,28
        —are likely to have
        contributed to the global warming hiatus in the 2000s.”

      • Here’s an early model of ocean circulation which shows some paciic intermediate water to be 2000-3000 years old, and 5000 years needed to recycle the whole ocean.

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281995%29025%3C2756%3ATAOWAV%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      • I think it explains some of it; likely the majority of it as the second the low clouds flipped, the GMST shot up like a rocket. Trenberth called this coming back to haunt us, which the ridiculously intellectually challenged turned tino blobs of hot water popping off the bottom of the oceans and shooting to the surface.

        When the low clouds flip, the PDO region gets very warm, which is why the GMST almost always closely follows the direction of PDO index. Not saying the PDO is simply a cloud flip, but could be exactly that.

        I have long been a doubter of the notion that El Niño warms because of large releases of energy from the oceans. An El Niño warms in large part because solar radiation stops being reflected to space above the Eastern Pacific and is instead absorbed by surface waters of the Eastern Pacific. A recent paper largely agrees with me on the amounts of heat released from the oceans during an El Niño.

      • JCH wrote:
        I have long been a doubter of the notion that El Niño warms because of large releases of energy from the oceans.

        The 0-100 m ocean heat content data show noticeable drops during El Nino seasons:

        https://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-p0-100m.dat

      • JCH, David
        Missing heat “reflected out to space” is the same presumably as TOA imbalance-warming being less than supposed.

        If something is a strong logical inference it doesn’t need a reference. (Although it’s still nice to have one.) To fall back on the old cliche, Einstein’s first relativity paper (apparently) had no references. According to him it was all derived from Maxwell.

      • phil salmon wrote:
        If something is a strong logical inference it doesn’t need a reference.

        It’s not a logical inference that the missing heat was reflected to space — it could also have been absorbed by the deep ocean. Only data can answer the question.

        Yes, it’s true that Einstein’s paper on special relativity had no citations. But he derived everything from first principles from his two axioms.

        http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

    • I agree, Phil.
      “The deep ocean is not in causal contact with the surface in real time”.

    • Phil confuses mixing rates with residence time in the deep ocean. But even ‘several centuries’ is an order of magnitude greater than in models. Think of it as ess heat in the pipeline. But I suspect it is faster still.

      “Mesoscale turbulence in the ocean strongly affects the circulation, water mass formation, and transport of tracers. Little is known, however, about how mixing varies on climate timescales. We present the first time-resolved global dataset of lateral mesoscale eddy diffusivities at the ocean surface, obtained by applying the suppressed mixing length theory to satellite-observed velocities. We find interannual variability throughout the global ocean, regionally correlated with climate indices such as ENSO, NAO, DMI, and PDO. Changes in mixing length, driven by variations in the large-scale flow, often exceed the effect of variations in local eddy kinetic energy, previously thought of as the primary driver of variability in eddy mixing. This mechanism, not currently represented in global climate models, could have far-reaching consequences for the distribution of heat, salt, and carbon in the global ocean, as well as ecosystem dynamics and regional dynamics such as ENSO variance.” https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaav5014

      As for models.

      “AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

      The problem is not model formulation – a work in progress. A posteriori solution behavior is a bit of a worry.

    • phil salmon commented:
      That – miraculously – less than a century of surface warming is suffusing the abyssal ocean depths with disastrous warming.

      There have been a few studies on deep ocean warming, or the lack of it:

      Deep ocean heat content changes estimated from observation and reanalysis product and their influence on sea level change
      Kouketsu et al, GRL v116 (March 2011)
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JC006464/abstract
      below 3000 m: global heat content change is 0.8 e22 J/decade

      Carl Wunsch and Patrick Heimbach, 2014: Bidecadal Thermal Changes in the Abyssal Ocean. J. Phys. Oceanogr., 44, 2013–2030.
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JPO-D-13-096.1
      “For 1992-2011…. In the global average, changes in heat content below 2000 m are roughly 10% of those inferred for the upper ocean over the 20-yr period.”

      “NASA Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed,”
      NASA 10/6/14
      http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/october/nasa-study-finds-earth-s-ocean-abyss-has-not-warmed

      Deep and abyssal ocean warming from 35 years of repeat hydrography
      Desbruyères, D.G., S.G. Purkey, E.L. McDonagh, G.C. Johnson, and B.A. King
      Geophys. Res. Lett., 43(19), 10,356–10,365, doi: 10.1002/2016GL070413 (2016)
      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070413/abstract
      “The global long-term temperature trend below 2000 m, representing the time period 1991–2010, is equivalent to a mean heat flux of 0.065 ± 0.040 W m−2 applied over the Earth’s surface area.”

      There may be more I don’t know about.

  65. 12. Pluto’s (dwarf planet) Effective Temperature Calculation

    So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    Pluto’s albedo: apluto = 0.49 to 0.66 (geometric) Let’s have apluto = 0.50

    1/R² = 1/39,48² = 1/1.558 = 0,0006418
    Pluto’s sidereal rotation period is 6,38723 days
    Pluto does N = 1/6,38723 rotations/ per day

    Pluto is a rocky planet, and Pluto’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φpluto = 0,47.
    Pluto’s surface is composed of more than 98 percent nitrogen ice.
    Pluto can be considered as a nitrogen crust surface planet,
    Cp.nitrogen N2 = 0,24845 cal/gr*oC

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Pluto’s effective temperature Te.pluto is:

    Te.pluto = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Τe.pluto = { 1*(1-0,50)*1.362 W/m² *0,0006418*[150 *(1/6,38723)* 0,24845]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
    Te.pluto = 41,60 K

    Tsat.mean.pluto = 44 K (- 229 oC)

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  66. 2019 American Association for the Advancement of Science. All rights reserved. AAAS is a partner of HINARI , AGORA, OARE, CHORUS , CLOCKSS , CrossRef and COUNTER .

  67. Thank you, Robert.

    I agree with:
    “The standard model of radiative physics model of the atmosphere involves IR interactions with greenhouse gas molecules warming the surface”.
    Yes, it happens exactly as you said. These greenhouse gas molecules’ IR interactions indeed warm the surface.
    But there are only traces of greenhouse gasses in Earth’s atmosphere.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  68. Assuming there is not a rotating planet surface solar irradiation warming phenomenon.

    Let’s take a closer look at the Mercury, Moon and Mars.
    All of them are considered planets without atmosphere.

    Everything else equals the Tmean temperatures should be related as:

    (1/R²) ¹∕ ⁴ = (1/R)¹∕ ²

    Where – R in AU is the planet’s average distance from the sun.

    So we have the distance related planet mean temperatures:

    Tmean.mercury : Tmean.moon : T.mean.mars

    (1/Rmercury)¹∕ ² : (1/Rmoon)¹∕ ² : (1/Rmars)¹∕ ²

    (1/0,387)¹∕ ² : (1/1)¹∕ ² : (1/1,5)¹∕ ²

    1,6075 : 1 : 0,8165

    Now let’s have in a row the planet satellites measured temperatures

    Planet or……Te.incomplete…….Te.complete ……….Te.satellites
    moon…………..formula……………formula…………….measured
    Mercury…………437 K……………..346,11 K…………….340 K
    Earth……………255 K……………..288,36 K…………….288 K
    Moon……………271 Κ……………..221,74 Κ…………….220 Κ
    Mars……………211,52 K………….215,23 K…………….210 K

    Tmean.mercury = 340 K
    Tmean.moon = 220 K
    Tmean.mars = 210 K

    Let’s compare the measurements

    Tmercury:Tmoon:Tmars
    340 : 220 : 210

    340/220 : 1 : 210/220

    1,5456 : 1 : 0,9545

    Let’s put them together

    …………………….Mercury Moon Mars
    T distance related…..1,6075 : 1 : 0,8165
    T sat. measured…….1,5456 : 1 : 0,9545

    Let’s see what it is we found:

    Distant related Mercury’s temperature appears to be higher than the measured.

    Distant related Mars’ temperature appears to be lower than the measured.

    Mercury has a lower than Moon albedo (the measured T should be higher, but it is lower).

    Mars has higher than Moon albedo (the measured T should be lower, but it is higher).

    I have repeated it many times; I believe in NASA satellites planet temperature measurements.

    This can be explained only by the planet sidereal rotation period differences:

    At very first look at the data table we distinguish the following:
    Planet or…….Te.incomplete… Te.satellites…..Rotations
    moon…………..formula…………measured…….per day
    Mercury…………437 K……………340 K…………1/58
    Earth……………255 K……………288 K…………..1
    Moon……………271 Κ……………220 Κ…………1/29,5
    Mars…………….211,52 K………..210 K…………..1

    Mercury rotates 1/2 the Moon does. So the measured Tmean.mercury appears lower.

    Mars rotates 29,5 times faster than Moon. So the measured Tmean.mars appears higher.

    Thus we once again conclude: the faster a planet rotates the higher is the planet’s mean temperature.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • I’d be wary of 1st law of thermodynamics violations. But I suppose that’s just me.

      • Robert, to be honest with you I had exactly the same dilemma:

        “Extra energy due to spin alone contravenes the first law – which should be a criminal offense”.
        It took me many sleepless nights to figure out what exactly happens here.

        There is not any extra energy involved. There is not any additional energy “produced” by planet’s faster spinning.
        The energy from solar flux in, equals the energy reflected and emitted by the planet’s surface out to space.
        To explain the phenomenon of a planet being warmer when spinning faster one should refer to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law non-linearity.

        I have a paradigm of how it happens here:

        The faster a planet rotates ( n2 > n1 ) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑ mean

        T min ↑↑ → T↑ mean ← T↓ max

        when n2 > n1 ( it happens because T min ↑↑ grows faster than T↓ max goes down )
        It happens in accordance to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

        Let’s explain:
        Assuming a planet rotates faster and
        Tmax1 – Tmax2 = 1 oC.
        Then, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

        Tmin2 – Tmin1 > 1oC

        Consequently Tmean2 > Tmean1

        Assuming n2 > n1 the solar irradiated hemisphere average temperature
        T1 – T2 = 1oC
        Then the dark hemisphere average temperature
        T2 – T1 > 1oC

        Consequently the total average
        Tmean2 > Tmean1

        So we shall have:
        when
        n2 > n1
        T min ↑↑ → T↑ mean ← T↓ max

        The faster a planet rotates ( n2 > n1 ) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑ mean.

        When a planet rotates slowly the solar irradiated hemisphere warms at higher temperature. Consequently a warmer surface emits

        Jemitt.₁ = σΤ₁⁴ .

        When a planet rotates faster the solar irradiated hemisphere warms at lower temperature. Consequently a colder surface emits

        Jemitt.₂ = σΤ₂⁴ , and

        Jemitt.₁ > Jemitt.₂

        In both cases, slow or fast, the rotating planet absorbs the same amount of energy:
        Jabs = Φ (1-a) So (1/R²)

        The difference of

        Jemitt.₁ – Jemitt.₂

        is what keeps the faster rotating planets warmer, everything else equals.

        Now we should focus on what happens at the planet’s dark side.

        As Ulric said “The change would be the difference between dawn and dusk temperatures, which would be smaller with a faster rotation period”.

        At dusk a faster rotating planet will have a higher local temperature.
        At dawn a faster rotating planet would have a higher local temperature.

        The new day for the faster rotating planet starts with a warmer surface.

        At the culmination hours in the midday the slow rotating planet surface warms much higher and emits much more energy out to space

        Jemitt.₁ = σΤ₁⁴

        compared with

        Jemitt.₂ = σΤ₂⁴ .

        Τ₁ > Τ₂
        and due to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law non-linearity we have

        Τ₁⁴ >>> Τ₂⁴

        so we have

        Jemitt.₁ >>> Jemitt.₂

        Thank you for your Patience.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • No – thank you. But I think you are going to need a few more sleepless nights.

      • Not even close to NASA numbers. But then they are purveyors of fake science. Right?

      • Ulric wrote:
        “…the sunlit hemisphere temperature profile should be parabolic”.

        I agree with that.
        Can you see the sunlit hemisphere reflection profile? It is parabolic too, isn’t it?
        When calculating over the hemisphere, what is the hemisphere’s mean reflection value?
        I would like to have your estimation on that.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • If the Moon rotated at half or at twice its actual rotation period, the sunlit side at any given time, would still be approximately in equilibrium with solar irradiance, and heat capacity of the regolith would give the same mean surface temperature to the dark side, at any given time. The change would be the difference between dawn and dusk temperatures, which would be smaller with a faster rotation period.

      https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/heat-capacity-neglected-from-climate-models-ulric-lyons/

      • Whoa there. A faster spinning moon gives less time to warm under the sun and less to cool to space. But the energy content of the ‘regolith’ – on Earth it is about 4% of energy storage – would be exactly the same.

        Extra energy due to spin alone contravenes the first law – which should be a criminal offense.

      • Robert, if the Lunar rotation was twice as fast, the sunlit side at any given time will still be roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance. The regolith heat capacity is only worth about 4.6W/m^2, which equates to about 0.34K total warming at the midday equator. It’s effect on maximum temperatures is a gnats whisker.

        Christos, a faster rotating Moon should have a marginally cooler dusk temperature and a marginally warmer dawn temperature. Less time to warm, and less time to cool.

      • Ulric, the planet effective temperature

        Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        gives these very confusing results:

        Planet or…….Te.incomplete… Te.satellites…..Rotations
        moon…………..formula…………measured…….per day
        Mercury…………437 K……………340 K…………1/58
        Earth……………255 K……………288 K…………..1
        Moon……………271 Κ……………220 Κ…………1/29,5
        Mars…………….211,52 K………..210 K…………..1

        It is obvious now that
        Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴ is an incomplete effective temperature formula.

        The planet effective temperature complete formula is based on the newly discovered Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law

        Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law

        Planet Energy Budget:
        Solar energy absorbed by a Hemisphere with radius “r” after reflection and dispersion:

        Jabs = Φ*πr²S (1-a) (W)

        Total energy emitted to space from a whole planet:

        Jemit = A*σΤe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)

        Φ – is a dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
        (1 – Φ) – is the reflected fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux

        S – is a Solar Flux at the top of atmosphere (W/m²)
        Α – is the total planet surface (m²)

        Te – is a Planet Effective Temperature (K)
        (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability

        A = 4πr² (m²), where r – is the planet’s radius

        Jemit = 4πr²σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)

        global Jabs = global Jemit

        Φ*πr²S (1-a) = 4πr²σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴
        Or after eliminating πr²
        Φ*S*(1-a) = 4σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴

        The planet average Jabs = Jemit per m² planet surface:
        Jabs = Jemit

        Φ*S*(1-a) /4 = σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)

        Solving for Te we obtain the effective temperature:

        Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
        N rotations/day, is planet’s sidereal rotation period
        cp – is the planet surface specific heat
        cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
        Here (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
        σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

        The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.362 W/m².
        With an albedo of a = 0,30 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have Te = 288,36 K or 15°C.
        This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured Tmean.earth = 288 K.

        Here is the Planet Effective Temperature Complete Formula:

        Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

        And the results are very satisfactory:

        Planet or……Te.incomplete…….Te.complete ……….Te.satellites
        moon…………..formula……………formula…………….measured
        Mercury…………437 K……………..346,11 K…………….340 K
        Earth……………255 K……………..288,36 K…………….288 K
        Moon……………271 Κ……………..221,74 Κ…………….220 Κ
        Mars……………211,52 K………….215,23 K…………….210 K

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Robert, I hope I wouldn’t need too many sleepless nights, just a few more will do.

      • Sorry to tell you that the moon would receive end emit the same amount of energy regardless of the rate of spin. I’d suggest that you spend those nights contemplating energy dynamics in a far from equilibrium system.

      • Robert, for all planets there is the newly discovered Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law.
        It is based on the radiative equilibrium and on the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

        Jabs = Jemitt

        Φ*πr²S (1-a) = 4πr²σTe⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴

        Solving for Te we obtain the effective temperature:

        Te = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

        N rotations/day, is planet’s sidereal rotation period
        cp – is the planet surface specific heat

        cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

        Here (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – is a dimensionless Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
        σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

        The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.362 W/m².
        With an albedo of a = 0,30 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have Te = 288,36 K or 15°C.
        This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured Tmean.earth = 288 K.

        It is a New Universal Law we are dealing with from now on.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • As Robert pointed out earlier, all you’ve done is introduce a fudge factor, phi, a free parameter you can adjust to get whatever resulting number you need. That’s not physics.

      • David
        Φ = 0,47
        “As Robert pointed out earlier, all you’ve done is introduce a fudge factor, phi, a free parameter you can adjust to get whatever resulting number you need. That’s not physics”.

        David, Φ = 0,47 is not a fudge factor, it is not a free parameter either.

        When a sphere is irradiated by a parallel solar flux the sphere absorbs Φ = 0,47 fraction of the incident. The rest 0,53 is the reflection from the hemisphere.
        The albedo is another thing. Albedo represents the secondary reflection.
        As a result the total absorbed fraction of the solar flux is:

        Jabs = Φ*πr²S (1-a) (W)

        Only in the incomplete effective temperature formula
        Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        it is still in use the replacement of the hemisphere with a disk.
        This way of calculating the absorbed by hemisphere incident solar irradiation should be abandoned.
        Spherical surfaces do not reflect light as a disk.
        It was a mistake the scientists of the remote past did for their convenience.
        And this mistake haunts now the Earth’s science.
        No one checked the assumption of replacing the hemisphere with a disk.
        Now everyone can check this assumption and everyone can see that it is a wrong assumption.
        So the by planet total absorbed fraction of the solar flux is:

        Jabs = Φ*πr²S (1-a) (W)

        As for gaseous planets Φ = 1. Gaseous planets do not have surface to reflect the incident solar flux. They absorb all of it, because the light vanishes in gaseous abyss.

        For gaseous planets Jabs = πr²S (1-a) (W)

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos, the equation is just a zeroth-order, heuristic expression that introduces the idea of energy balance. It’s in Chapter 1 of every climate science textbook, but rarely beyond that. No one takes it seriously as an explanation of planetary temperatures.

      • https://judithcurry.com/2019/11/23/week-in-review-science-edition-113/#comment-903703

        Time to pull the plug on a thread is when comments end up in the wrong place.

        It’s disappointing that skeptics don’t call out pseudo science like Christos’. Actually – it’s disappointing that these labels exist at all. Objectivity suffers.

      • The Lunar sunlit side is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance. Twice the illuminated disk area gives a mean equilibrium temperature for the sunlit side of 331.3K (394 * (0.5^0.25), or 322.7K with 10% albedo. With a dark side mean temperature of around 95K, that gives a global mean of 208.8K. Close to what is observed.

      • Ulric, please make the same calculations for the Mercury and the Mars. You will be surprised.

      • Ulric wrote:
        The Lunar sunlit side is roughly in equilibrium with solar irradiance. Twice the illuminated disk area gives a mean equilibrium temperature for the sunlit side of 331.3K (394 * (0.5^0.25), or 322.7K with 10% albedo. With a dark side mean temperature of around 95K, that gives a global mean of 208.8K. Close to what is observed.

        Exactly. I did the same calculation and was just a little more careful about the geometry, and got an average equatorial temperature of 212 K. (The Diviner mission found 213 K.) Moreover, this gives the right temperature all along the sunlit equator, including the curve of how it varies.

        https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/norfolk-constabulary-made-wrong-charges.html

      • Why it is “Twice the illuminated disk area”.
        Why twice?

      • David, I was referring to the lunar global mean surface temperature not the equatorial mean. With directional solar heating, the sunlit hemisphere temperature profile should be parabolic, but with warmer dawn and dusk temperatures because of the regolith heat capacity.

        Christos, because the surface area of one hemisphere is twice the disk area. Spreading the solar flux over 4 times the disk area, i.e. globally, results in a global black-body temperature 113K higher.

      • Ulric wrote:
        …the sunlit hemisphere temperature profile should be parabolic

        Why parabolic? Ignoring the regolity heat, sunlight along the equator (say) varies as cos(longitude), so T^4 varies the same way. So T varies as the 1/4th power of cos(longitude). Am I missing something?

      • It is an analogy of a parallel beam of light striking a convex parabolic reflector on axis, producing a virtual point source.

  69. “In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.” 4AR s3.4.4.1

    Way back then satellite data was showing warming in SW and cooling in IR. A low cloud signature.

    Missing heat was predicated on an anthropogenic energy imbalance at TOA calculated assuming ocean warming was entirely due to emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s consistent with the IPCC forcing/feedback framework that neglects internal variability. There are however large variation in TOA power flux due to changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation (Loeb et al 2012 – https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1).

    Clement et al 2009 came at it from the perspective of surface observations in the eastern upwelling region of the Pacific Ocean. They identified this area assists the source of the greatest variability in global cloud cover. IPCC ‘equivocal’ evidence was – btw – a few scattered cloud observations over the continental US.

    Both oceans and atmosphere warm during periods of warm surface conditions in the eastern Pacific. Changes in low level marine stratocumulus cloud between warm and cool Pacific regimes warm and cool respectively tropical oceans. It suggests a more complicated picture than simple assumptions around energy imbalances and ocean heat. In which ocean heat content varies on decadal to millennial scales modulating surface temperature.

    Fast forward to more recent times and there are now more precise satellite observations and a better theoretical understanding of this mechanism.

    “We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” Loeb et al 2018

    “Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL. Nevertheless, both states can coexist for a wide range of environmental conditions.” Koren 2017

  70. sellout
    all fossil fuel funded hacks
    are going into overdrive
    to run down greta in attacks
    and keep their fading force alive
    merchants of doubt who ply their lies
    for big tobacco see effsees
    and now for fossil fueled guys
    use every trick to spread unease
    while at their backs behind the scenes
    are scientists who have sold out
    like judith curry whose work means
    a public paralyzed with doubt
    unfit to see the serpent’s threat
    unready for the challenge met

    • Good morning from Greece.
      I just opened my laptop and run to check the new posts in Dr. Judith wonderful blog.
      I am never disappointed. Every day I found new items here, I am learning new for me scientific findings I had to search for months to discover elsewhere.
      It is a very objective and a top level quality democratic and plural scientific informative and free discussion of scientific issues international forum.
      It is very well made and organized.
      I cannot say for all scientific websites, only I would like to say Dr. Judith’s “Climate Etc…” should be considered the best.
      Thank you Dr. Judith Curry.

    • In the history of mankind, there is nothing that has improved the standards of living of people more than the increasing use of fossil fuels.
      This war against fossil fuels is a war against a good standard of living for all of mankind. It is a very misguided, very evil, war against all that is good in our lives.
      More CO2 caused much good that has been measured in how everything green is growing better making more efficient use of water. Anything that reduces emissions of CO2 does more harm than good for all life on earth and should be prosecuted as a major crime.

      • It’s *energy* that made the developed world what it is, regardless of its source. No one is proposing to stop generating energy.

      • As David Appell said; it is energy, regardless of its source.
        I would add ‘and the endeavor for its more efficient use’. Energy, and its availability, everywhere and at any time, is taken for very much for granted. The first hint on how much we have become to depend on it is in a blackout, when the effected country grinds to a halt (unless it is still in the stone-age). A second followup hint is to realise that many have no Plan-B for such an event when extended (or if they have; of its inadequacy).

      • David Appell: It’s *energy* that made the developed world what it is, regardless of its source.

        What other source has provided as much energy as quickly as fossil fuels have?

      • matthew wrote:
        What other source has provided as much energy as quickly as fossil fuels have?

        Fossil fuels, of course. That hardly means we can ONLY generate energy via fossil fuels, now.

  71. Cuomo versus National Grid

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-21/time-is-running-out-in-new-york-s-bitter-natural-gas-showdown

    It’s called attrition, in the Roman Catholic sense of the word. Punishing yourself for your own stupid mistakes.

    Cuomo is relaxed of course about NY apartments without heating in a minus-20 polar vortex. This is the USA. If you’re not a millionaire you’re an untermensch, and your suffering and death are simply entertainment for the elite.

    • attrition?
      perhaps you mean ‘contrition’ in the r c sense?

    • In fifty years, we have had three natural gas problems, on our own property, leaks that were each fixed in a very few hours. For fifty years, we have had gas for heating and cooking 0.99999 percent of the time.
      When electric power is interrupted, natural gas is an extremely reliable backup, it can even power electric generators and I know multiple who have have them set up for backup power for their whole house. The war against fossil fuel is taking this away from millions of people, even billions worldwide.
      This is really an extremely bad idea. Multiple cities and states and countries are taking this option away, or trying to take this option away, at the same time that they are promoting more green energy that is more expensive and less reliable.

    • No. Attrition. See the movie “7” with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman.

    • QR
      Contrition would imply recognition of wrong. No sign of that any time soon.

  72. In any future major war, or even minor wars, green energy is spread over too much open space and cannot be protected.
    The countries that keep their nuclear and fossil power generation running as their base energy source will win all future wars.
    This is China, India and Russia. One initial raid could take out green energy production and storage and transmission for the western countries.

    Think about this!

    • A scattered collection of wind towers and solar facilities are easier to take out than highly centralized coal and nuclear power plants???

    • DA
      I would agree that small dispersed power generation is more resistant to hostile takedown than big centralised generation. That’s the principle that launched the internet. Networked communication resistant to breaking of many nodes due to multiple connections. Academics were already using it in the 70’s but it didn’t catch on until the 90’s and the www.

      But all those cable high voltage connections and all those turbine service visits absorb megabucks, so it’s energy security at a high price.

      BTW in his book “Death Traps” Belton Cooper, an engineer with Patton’s tank forces advancing from Normandy in WW2 was astonished when he reached Germany to find large electricity power stations operating normally without being subject to any attack. While elsewhere cities were being levelled. Taking out these power stations would have crippled German production, yet it was never done. Cooper also found evidence that British businessmen were dealing with German companies in the Rhineland during the thick of WW2.

      • Phil wrote:
        But all those cable high voltage connections and all those turbine service visits absorb megabucks, so it’s energy security at a high price.

        But fossil fuel and nuclear power plants also require high voltage connections and are costly to build.

        Interesting story about Germany. Did a reason ever come out for the Allies’ failure to destroy these plants?

      • David
        There are different opinions on allied lack of bombing of German power plants. One is the accuracy issue, early on the bombers were lucky to hit a town. Also the number argument – apparently there were ~8000 power stations in the country, they must have been small. Others however believe that this was indeed a strategic error and missed opportunity. Maybe there was some consideration of civilian wellbeing? I don’t know.

      • They went after coal transportation, which caused major blackouts. Much easier to take out than 8,200 generation facilities.

        They needed power as they took ground.

        Uncle – infantry battalion commander in WW2.

      • JCH
        Good to have a first hand answer – respect!

  73. A month ago I found in the web the following assumption. It was said the Earth’s without atmosphere surface mean temperature would be Tmean.earth = 220 K, just as the measured by satellites Tmean.moon = 220 K, and even less, because Moon has a lower than earth albedo.
    Instead of the Earth with atmosphere measured by satellites Tmean.earth = 288 K.
    The difference, it was said in the article, 288 K – 220 K = 68 oC was due to the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect.
    They meant the total greenhouse effect the Earth’s atmosphere has developed is 68 oC.
    Unbelievable, Earth’s thin atmosphere to warm earth’s surface +68 oC.

    Have you ever seen a greenhouse, have you ever visited a greenhouse?
    Have you ever measured and compared the inside greenhouse and outside ground temperature?
    Was it +68 oC or even more?
    And how do you suppose the plants may survive in a ground with +68 oC temperature?

    And yet, “The differences in Earth’s respected temperatures have been explained by the greenhouse effect”. Do they been actually explained?

    The Earth’s infrared emission formula is:
    Jinfrared = σΤ⁴
    Let’s compare the Earth’s infrared emission value for

    T = 220 K and for T = 288 K

    J220 K = σ*220⁴ = σ*2.342.560.000

    J288 K = σ*288⁴ = σ*6.879.707.136
    So we shall have:

    J288 K/ J220 K = σ*6.879.707.136/ σ*2.342.560.000 = 2,9368

    Or J288 K/ J220 K =2,9368

    It is physics has spoken. It is the non-linear Stefan-Boltzmann Law has spoken.

    But it is impossible, for a Planet Earth to have 2,9368 times stronger infrared radiation towards the outer space only due to the Earth’s very thin atmosphere’s greenhouse effect.

    It is like having absorbed by Earth’s surface the Sun’s influx, and then emitting to space a 2,9368 times more energy, than Sun’s influx on Earth.

    How can such a thing can be possible?

    To radiate 2,9368 times more energy out of Earth, than sun itself is capable to provide at the top of Earth’s atmosphere?

    The greenhouse effect isn’t a source of energy; it cannot produce a supplementary energy, Earth cannot emit in space more energy than that received from sun.
    To believe in earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect is the 1st law of thermodynamics violation.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Christos, most say Earth’s greenhouse effect is about 33 K. But that’s also just an approximation, because it doesn’t take into effect the ice-albedo feedback that would also occur. So maybe it is something like 68 K.

      A greenhouse contains a lot less CO2 than the atmosphere, even if it’s maintained at elevated values. If I calculated correctly, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at 410 ppm is 6.3 kg/m2, where the mass of *air* in a 3 m high greenhouse is only 3.7 kg/m2.

      • David, it is not the CO2, it is the whole atmosphere greenhouse effect does not warm the surface in any measurable way.

      • Christos, see the energy balance diagram Robert posted. Actually 2/3rds of the energy the surface receives comes down from the atmosphere, and only 1/3rd from the Sun.

        I’m not going to try to convince you about the greenhouse effect — I’ve learned it’s useless. Ciao.

    • Christos wrote:
      But it is impossible, for a Planet Earth to have 2,9368 times stronger infrared radiation towards the outer space only due to the Earth’s very thin atmosphere’s greenhouse effect.

      The *surface* radiates at 288 K, or about 390 W/m2.

      The TOA radiates at the brightness temperature, 240 W/m2 if that temperature is 255 K. That’s also (in equilibrium) what the Earth’s atmosphere receives from the Sun (0.7*1360/4 W/m2).

      Christos, this is very old physics by now. You’re not going to find an elementary error in it.

      • Good morning, David.
        David wrote:
        “The TOA radiates at the brightness temperature, 240 W/m2 if that temperature is 255 K. That’s also (in equilibrium) what the Earth’s atmosphere receives from the Sun (0.7*1360/4 W/m2)”.

        I am trying it for the Moon now. Moon is also in equilibrium, what the Moon receives from the Sun (0,837*1360/4 W/m2). It resulted in 266 K.
        But the Moon radiates at 220 K.
        And there is no atmosphere on the Moon.
        Can you explain it to me?

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos: The Moon is only in local equilibrium, that is, at each surface point instead of planet/moon-wide. The temperature at each point will be different. That eliminates the factor of 4 that’s in the Earth’s equation, and getting the average temperature requires integrating over the Moon’s (sunlight) surface.

      • Davis wrote: “That’s also (in equilibrium) what the Earth’s atmosphere receives from the Sun (0.7*1360/4 W/m2).”

        Only one hemisphere is heated by the Sun at any given time.

      • Ulric wrote:
        Only one hemisphere is heated by the Sun at any given time.

        Of course. But the assumption in the basic energy balance model is of global equilibrium.

        PS: Thanks for explaining the “parabolic” variation on the Moon.

      • David wrote: “But the assumption in the basic energy balance model is of global equilibrium.”

        a) 1366W/m^2 black-body T on one hemisphere (twice the disk area) is 331.31K and zero on the dark side giving a global mean of 165.65K. b) 1366W/m^2 spread over 4 times the disk area globally gives 278.6K, which with 30% albedo gives the familiar ~255K.
        a) gives the right global ballpark figure for the Moon when averaged with the mean lunar dark side temperature. Earth’s sunlit side at any given time is colder than the lunar sunlit side, but Earth can maintain a far higher global mean surface T than the Moon, primarily due to the heat capacity of the oceans keeping the dark side from cooling.

        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/heat-capacity-neglected-from-climate-models-ulric-lyons/

    • The greenhouse effect on the planet’s surface is about 60 degrees C – offset by about half with increased radiant energy and convection.

      Greenhouse gases cause the atmosphere and oceans to warm by reducing mean photon path lengths in the IR bandwidth. Ultimately the atmosphere will warm enough to restore outgoing energy in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. The time this takes is determined by other atmospheric and oceanic processes.

      It is a near certainty that crude and eccentric skeptic theories to the contrary are incorrect.

  74. Well, it is 2:25 in the morning in Greece.
    I have to stop now.
    Till tomorrow then.
    Good night.

  75. David: It is very interesting what you said.

    “The Moon is only in local equilibrium, that is, at each surface point instead of planet/moon-wide. The temperature at each point will be different. That eliminates the factor of 4 that’s in the Earth’s equation, and getting the average temperature requires integrating over the Moon’s (sunlight) surface”.

    Now, does this point of view applied to the slow rotating Mercury as well?
    You mean getting the average planet/moon-wide temperature requires integrating over the Moon’s (sunlight) surface?

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  76. David: “Why parabolic? Ignoring the regolity heat, sunlight along the equator (say) varies as cos(longitude), so T^4 varies the same way. So T varies as the 1/4th power of cos(longitude). Am I missing something?”

    I think because the 1/4th power of cos(longitude) is parabolic. Can you check it?

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  77. Christos Vournas

    Ulric: “It is an analogy of a parallel beam of light striking a convex parabolic reflector on axis, producing a virtual point source”.

    We need a sunlight striking a motionless sphere. No rotation involved.

    • The radial distribution from the virtual point source represents the spherical component, and the parabola represents the temperature profile. Such that a convex parabolic reflector translates on-axis parallel light into radial, and is an analogy of the translation of the power of directional solar irradiance onto a hemispherical surface.
      If this were the Moon and it was tidally locked to the Sun, then its global mean surface temperature would be even lower, as only Earth-shine would warm the dark side for ~half of each lunation.

      • Ulric wrote: “The radial distribution from the virtual point source represents the spherical component, and the parabola represents the temperature profile. Such that a convex parabolic reflector translates on-axis parallel light into radial, and is an analogy of the translation of the power of directional solar irradiance onto a hemispherical surface”.
        Very interesting. I would like to study the theme. Can you paste a schematic picture?

        Ulric wrote: “If this were the Moon and it was tidally locked to the Sun, then its global mean surface temperature would be even lower, as only Earth-shine would warm the dark side for ~half of each lunation”.
        Of course its global mean surface temperature would be even lower. Agreed.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  78. This contributes to why the IPCC got it so pathetically wrong:
    FAQ 8.1 in WG1AR5 states “…the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is controlled mostly by air temperature, rather than by emissions.” This is profoundly ignorant, even stupid. Perhaps this results from a bogus use of the Clausius Clapeyron equation. CC only applies at saturation. For their statement to be true, requires the ridiculous condition that the atmosphere would all have to be saturated. The atmosphere is saturated only in clouds and in the few-molecules-thick boundary layer at the surface of liquid water. The part of the atmosphere that is saturated is a tiny fraction of the total volume of the atmosphere. If you are not in a cloud or the boundary layer, CC does not apply.

    They mention a WV residence time of 10 days in the atmosphere. This is not relevant. What is relevant is the current WV content of the atmosphere and this has been increasing about 1.5% per decade at least as long as it has been accurately measured worldwide (since 1988). In simple terms, WV from the oceans held the planet warm enough for life as we know it to have evolved. Humanity’s contribution via increased WV, nearly all (~96%) from irrigation, has added another 0.5 K or so.

    They also state “Water vapour behaves differently from CO2 in one fundamental way: it can condense and precipitate.” What they don’t appear to realize is this results in a population decline from average about 10,000 ppmv at ground level to about 32 ppmv at the low temperature at the tropopause. Combining the decline due to temperature with the decline due to pressure results in a WV molecule population decline of about 1200 to 1. CO2 ppmv remains constant throughout the atmosphere which means it way outnumbers WV above the tropopause.

    There is much more at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com with even more at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com

  79. Dan, as we’ve discussed before, the Clausius Clapeyron equation only assumes equilibrium, not saturation. Look up its derivation. Even Wikipedia indicates this (“Using the state postulate”….).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation#Derivations

    • From Wiki: “The Clausius–Clapeyron relation characterizes behavior of a closed system during a phase change, during which temperature and pressure are constant by definition.”. The only way that temperature and pressure can be constant with a phase change is at saturation. That is why water (and everything else) boils at a constant temperature. Equilibrium means saturation. Unblock your mind.

      • Equilibrium does not mean saturation. If pressure and temperature *are* constant — which does not mean saturation — the CC equation gives the rate of change dP/dT at the point, i.e. how pressure will change when the temperature changes (infinitesimally).

      • DA, The Wiki definition includes “…dp/dt is the slope of the tangent to the coexistence curve at any point.” If not saturated, the atmosphere is subject to the ideal gas laws. I am puzzled how you (and a lot of others) apparently got so falsely indoctrinated on this.

      • Dan, the fact that you need to continually insult me shows you don’t have any science to offer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s