by Lucas Bergkamp
On the 12th of November, the Hague Court of Appeal ruled in the “climate case of the century” that Milieudefensie (“FoE”) filed against Shell in 2019. FoE demands that Shell reduce emissions throughout the entire chain by at least 45% by 2030. The foundation “Man & Environment” (M&E) joined the case to represent the interests of Dutch citizens.
The Court of Appeal was not impressed by FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric and rejected its claims. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal’s ruling leaves much to be desired and did not eliminate the threat of activist NGOs launching climate cases to effect “system change,” i.e., set aside democracy, subordinate citizens and destroy the economy.
Climate science
Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports, the Court of Appeal uncritically adopted many of FoE’s factual statements about the urgency and seriousness of the climate problem. In doing so, the Court relied on the authority of the IPCC and the alleged “consensus” that would emerge from their reports, in particular the SPMs.
The Court not only took the IPCC reports as irrebuttable proof, but also attributed normative force to them. For example, the Court ruled that climate scientists have determined that the average temperature on earth may not rise by more than 1.5 degrees. In doing so, the Court, like the Dutch Supreme Court, ignored that science cannot set norms and that scientists are not authorized to set social standards. The Dutch judiciary’s scientistic tendency is extremely worrisome and does not bode well for future climate-related judgments.
Dangerous climate change
A case in point, the Court arrives at the alarmist conclusion that “the climate problem is the biggest problem of our time” and that the danger of climate change is great and even “life-threatening”. Based on the non-factual findings of fact and obligatory references to the Paris climate agreement, the Urgenda judgment and the Klimaseniorinnen ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court confirmed a right to protection against “dangerous climate change.”
“Protection against dangerous climate change,” the Court says, “is a human right,” without any caveats or qualifications. Obviously, realizing this human right will be at the expense of all kinds of other human rights and interests, such as the right to (or interest in) reliable and affordable energy. Inevitably, the right to protection against “dangerous climate change” will harm the realization of other “sustainable development goals.” Although M&E had flagged these kinds of trade-offs extensively, the judges did not bother to deal with these implications of climate morality.
Dog whistle
This new human right must be respected not only by states, but also by large corporations, the Court found. In civil liability law, this right translates into a duty of care for companies. According to the Court, the Paris goals require measures to reduce the demand for fossil fuels and to limit the supply of fossil fuels. Oil and gas companies should therefore consider “the negative impact on the energy transition when investing in the production of fossil fuels.”
With this line of reasoning, the judgment suggests that “saving the climate” legitimizes creeping expropriation of oil and gas companies. This dog whistle did not escape the attention of FoE’s lawyer, who has hinted at further legal proceedings to prevent the development, expansion and financing of oil and gas production, referring to forthcoming climate finance case against ING, the largest Dutch bank.
Reduction Percentage
FoE lost the case based on two lucid moments of the judges. FoE had demanded that Shell reduce scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. With regard to scope 1 and 2, the Court of Appeal ruled that Shell had committed itself to this objective and is on track to achieve it, so that claim was rejected.
With regard to scope 3 emissions, the Court of Appeal concluded that neither the law nor climate science sets specific reduction standards for a company such as Shell. The 45% invoked by FoE, the Court found, is only an “average global reduction in all sectors” that does not apply to each country and each business sector individually. Indeed, this point had been well explained in M&E’s submissions to the Court.
In this regard, the judgment serves as a dialogue between the courts and the climate movement. Climate science therefore knows what is expected of it: set reduction standards for the oil and gas sector and the courts (at least, the Dutch courts) will enforce them.
Effectiveness
The Court of Appeal also undermined FoE’s lawsuit by finding that the reduction order sought by FoE would be ineffective. This too had been explained in detail in M&E’s expert opinions. As the Court confirmed, there is no reason to believe that a reduction obligation imposed on a specific company will have any positive effect: if Shell sells less oil and gas, other suppliers will simply take its place and any “climate gain” will be illusory.
Progressive realization
In line with the human rights theory of ‘progressive realization’, the court-made right to protection against ‘dangerous climate change’ is slowly but surely being realized. Two steps forward, one step back: first governments, then companies, then a specific reduction percentage, and then no such percentage.
This week, it was a step back, but the District Court’s verdict in first instance has already had its effect. With that verdict in hand, many other lawsuits have been launched and the climate movement has been able to persuade the European Union to oblige companies to implement a “climate transition plan” in accordance with 1.5 degrees. Judges have learned rapidly how to play the political climate game.
Threat remains
This is the first climate ruling in the Netherlands that is favourable to citizens who are suffering under the ever-rising prices of energy and other products. M&E’s intervention has had its effect, as it demonstrated for the Court that there are other interests affected by these kinds of cases and that other valid perspectives on the issues generate dramatically different conclusions. Moreover, as the main reasons for denying FoE’s claims are rather factual in nature, it will be difficult to find a good angle to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which review only points of law.
A battle has been won, but the climate war will rage on. Activist NGOs will be able to derive new legal bases from the Court’s ruling for further climate cases.
NGOs for the people
To prevent that democracy is set aside and the people are subordinated to climate activists supported by the judiciary, interventions by NGOs that are sympathetic to the interests of citizens will continue to be essential. There is much enthusiasm around this idea, but the financing of the activities continues to be the biggest challenge.
All in all, the ruling of the Hague Court of Appeal is an important first step towards restoring rationality and balance in judicial decision-making in climate cases. The rejection of the case against Shell will have ripple effects on many other climate cases throughout the world, and should cause the EU to rethink the obligation for companies to implement a climate transition plan consistent with 1.5C.
In all things climate, to use a Chinese proverb, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”
The same type of litigation is now happening in Ontario, Canada. The trial court has held that it was impressed and persuaded by the reasoning of the Netherlands court. Although the trial court held that the decision regarding constitutional right to a safe environment could not be made because the plaintiffs, seven children, were seeking a positive right, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected that argument and sent it back to the trial court to determine. The defendant in the case is the Government of Ontario, accused of setting a target for decarbonization that is too low.
IPCC models do not include the known data attributed to re-carbonization of soils and biomes, which stabilizes the small water cycle and mitigates human induced weather pattern disruption . Current United States administration is already discussing this, along with the UPC party in Alberta, Canada who has removed carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and now classified it as an element essential to life.
One small point regarding your post” carbon dioxide should be described as “a molecule essential to life” and not an element.
It rightly could be considered an element of the atmosphere.
Lawsuits and regulatory costs have also hindered the development of nuclear energy.
‘Nuclear power plants are a cost-effective adaptive strategy for either a planet suffering from man-made climate change or a naturally warming world that will eventually run short of fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is the world’s biggest source of non-fossil energy and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. The First World has generally turned away from nuclear power as activist lawsuits have driven up regulatory costs.’ ~Fred Singer, et al. (Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years)
The Green Industrial Complex is losing its influence right in front of our eyes (as they should), Judith. Yay.
It will be interesting to watch what the Trump administration does to CO2 policy for the US. We aren’t going the way of Germany thank goodness. Drill baby!
Thanks, Lucas.
European civilization is ending right before our eyes. Look at economic growth (negligible), fertility (well below replacement and still dropping) and immigration. Decisions like this will only hasten the end.
A planned society can only be had from purpose.
The courts really need to examine what the FoE suggests the climate will be if we return to pre-industrial times. They are in essence claiming a return to the Little Ice Age or the ability for humans to control global temperature at something between now and then! I want to know how this control works and so should the courts.
JGorman:
You wanted to know how humans could control temperatures between now and then
Unfortunately, the current Control Knob for Earth’s temperatures is the amount of dimming Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) aerosols circulating in our atmosphere. Increase them, and it cools down. Decrease them, and it warms up.
Volcanic eruptions do this regularly, temporarily cooling, then warming our climate. We could use it to regulate our temperatures, but it is nasty stuff, although it does appear that injecting it into the stratosphere high over the Pacific Ocean would be safe, if cooling is needed. If warming is needed, SO2 should be capable of being extracted or neutralized.
Research could probably identify a more benign substitute, if necessary.
We could always revert back to above ground nuclear tests, ~550 atmospheric tests were done tell they were banned in the mid 60’s.
Jgorman,
Your request is legitimate and exceptionally out of the norm. If we could address your request, we would have long settled the climate matter. But I can assure that one day there will be an answer. That is when the living photosynthesis is factored in the equations of climate. It is all about photosyntbesis and it’s reverse process of deforestation and fossil fuel consumption.
The labour government (UK) has declared that CO2 emissions
will be reduced 81% by 2035,does anyone realise the implications of doing this-if it was achievable which I don’t
believe it is.China does not need to invade they can just sit
back and watch us self destruct!
It’s not achievable, but how else can the road for a planned society be paved?
It can be done only by causing massive economic damage and impoverishing the country. It;s other policies are also economically destructive. (I suspect that if Badenoch had replaced Johnson, Labor might not be in power. Too late, alas.
Not understanding, e.g., how Germans think it’s a good idea to de industrialize and spend what money they do have on EVs, made in China. Hasn’t there experience proven that wind and solar energy is unreliable?
Perhaps the real objective IS to deindustrialize. To reduce consumption of not just energy but resources, and not just per capita but in total amounts.
If so, the FoE’s et al actions make sense. Legislate such that A/C rtc is outlawed, people generally don’t own cars (too expensive) and don’t travel (insufficient jet fuel/too expensive).
I think the uneconomic forces or legislated inability to produce fossil fuels or use them IS the objective. Also reducing the human biomass, which low birth rates are achieving anyway, allbeit helped by alarmist rhetoric.
I wonder if China will be sued through the UN, or if legal equality throughout the globe will become a rule: if China and India don’t have to reduce co2, is it not discriminatory to force the Netherlands to do so? A DEI subject?
Merkel brought a kinder, gentler version of National Socialism to international politics.
“The World’s Most Powerful Woman”: Merkel’s Maske by Hinrich Rohbohm and Merkel—Eine Kritische Bilanz (A Critical Analysis). The latter is a collection of 22 articles by German intellectuals.”
https://www.takimag.com/article/merkels_great_transformation/
Excerpts
“Merkel was committed to building an international position for herself, which we would call globalist today. Among the like-minded politicians, she found Tony Blair and the Democratic Party junior senator from Chicago, Barack Obama, who soon would gain a prominent profile in U.S. and world affairs. When Obama proclaimed his presidential candidacy, he was supported by Merkel. On June 24, 2008, Obama addressed 200,000 enthusiastic Germans in the Tiergarten, Berlin. The speech was held at the Siegessaule, a monument to German militarism and revanchism, moved to its present location by Albert Speer. Obama’s speech was broadcast in all the German state media, such as ZDF and ARD. German TV and newspapers cheered over Obama as the “Anti–George Bush.” One paper called him the “New Messiah.” No German politician had used the Siegessaule after the war for a public event. The monument was toxic, intended to celebrate Hitler once he had won the war.”
“In Barack Obama, Merkel had found a younger partner sharing her basic views about climate and social values, a man of mostly talk and little substance. Merkel increased the resources for a government-funded network, WBGU (Scientific Council to the Government, for Global Environmental Policy). The goal was set of a global transformation of the capitalist system in the ecological direction [straight out of the National Socialist playbook]. The Germans on the board included Joachim Schellnhuber, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Claus Leggewie, all well-known for being left-wing.”
“In 2009, a conference was held in Essen, ‘The Great Transformation.’ In addition to German ministers, Obama’s chief counselor John Podesta and William Antholis from the Brookings Institution were in attendance. Lord Giddens, one of Tony Blair’s closest ideologists, was a speaker. The conference was about values and lifestyles in a globalized interdependent world—how governments, through “nudging,” could reprogram their people’s brains to make them choose a “sustainable lifestyle.” The conference was summarized thus:
(1) Decarbonization of the whole society, through use of renewable energy.
(2) Implementation of the Öko-Soziale Markwirtschaft (a euphemism for a planned economy)
(3) People should avoid using private cars, travel as little as possible.
(4) A vegetarian lifestyle was proposed, proteins from insects are more sustainable than eating meat.
(5) Organize society more like ant heaps—it’s resilient.
(6) It is doubtful if this vision of the future would be possible to implement in a democratic society. It would be necessary to consider appointing a global expert council who can make important long-term decisions without risking disturbances of short-term populist ideas.”
Fascism can only exist under the philosophical tenets of collectivist ideology. The tactical goal of collectivist ideology is to strip away individualism, by force if necessary.
Sometimes I suspect Merkel was a closet Marxist trained to work as an agent of the East German Stasi. She must have been cut off from Stasi central when the GDR collapsed, but it’s possible she continued working for “the cause” in cooperation with committed communist holdovers who eventually founded “Die Linke”, the stealth communist party which spawned “Rosa Luxemburg stiftung”, whose agents in turn went to NY and gave birth to the “Democratic Socialists of America” (DSA). DSA and Cenk Uygur were the parties which pushed forward and financed Alexandria Ocasio Cortes to have a political career which in turn may make her a presidential candidate. Marx works in wonderful ways, doesn’t he?
What you have described is without question what the elite left have in mind.
I question it. Maybe the elite just want to maintain the livability of the planet for themselves and their progeny. And, just maybe the scientists want to inform everyone about the probable results of inaction, that is what alarmism is about – warning the ignorant that they are in danger. I don’t see it as the pejorative that y’all seem to think it is. However, I do see “willfully ignorant D-word” as a pejorative. Perhaps that is why the D-word is censored here, but not “alarmism” or “alarmist”. Heaven forbid that CE’s censorship might be prejudiced. LOL
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much[,] who positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” C. Darwin
Fact based evidence provided by 22 German intellectuals, including historical provenance, to follow. Post in moderation.
These individuals would without hesitation brush-off brainwashed activism, such as what you present, for what it is–a false flag operation littering the world.
Fact based evidence provided by 22 German intellectuals, including historical provenance, to follow. Post in moderation.
These individuals would without hesitation brush-off brainwashed activism, such as what you present, for what it is–a false flag operation littering the world.
B A Bushaw; quote “Maybe the elite just want to maintain the livability of the planet for themselves and their progeny.”
Reminds of the ending of the film ‘2012’. There the elites sailed into the sunset; but read ‘their extinction’. Perhaps those elites should have read/studied the Ipuwer Lament; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus and go to the section ‘Content’.
The basis of the lament was likely what followed an event, likely the result of 2346 bce, -compounded upheaval.
Equally, alarmed hand-wringing and prayers serve for nothing when the system is collapsing on one’s head. It serves no one.
Quote: “who positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Applies equally to those who assert the problem can be solved by the ‘wrong’ science.
Organised communities have alarms they are all aware of and understand the purpose of.
The climate alarmists tell us the carbon dioxide emissions are harming humans now and by 2050, without mitigation, human life will become what – impossible?
The alarmists cannot and will not explain how this will happen which suggests to me that they haven’t a clue how humans survived much higher levels of carbon dioxide in the past or for what reasons those high levels it happened.
We can have sensible movement towards nuclear energy by 2050 which is not only clean but also reliable but instead we insist upon polluting the planet with wind turbines and PV panels which visibly damage environments and natural life without reducing emission levels in any way at all. That is what consensus appears to have condemned us to.
We do not have proper global leaders anymore (have we forgotten what the real purpose of education is?) although Trump in 2025 could prove to be the much valued turning point we absolutely need. I, for one, do hope so.
Too much knowledge often creates distorted understanding / more ignorance.
Classic example – last month at my 50th high school reunion, one of my classmates became a researcher at major CA university and an infectious disease expert. His comment that had the US not put into place the covid mitigation protocols, (masking, etc) the covid deaths in the US would have topped 2m including 500k children. Swedens approach proved otherwise.
Just an example of an “expert” that know the intricacies of the individual tree cells, but could not see the forest, much less even see the trees.
Douglas Proctor, evidence for your theory:
Merkel brought a kinder, gentler version of National Socialism to international politics.
“The World’s Most Powerful Woman”: Merkel’s Maske by Hinrich Rohbohm and Merkel—Eine Kritische Bilanz (A Critical Analysis). The latter is a collection of 22 articles by German intellectuals.”
https://www.takimag.com/article/merkels_great_transformation/
“Merkel was committed to building an international position for herself, which we would call globalist today. Among the like-minded politicians, she found Tony Blair and the Democratic Party junior senator from Chicago, Barack Obama, who soon would gain a prominent profile in U.S. and world affairs. When Obama proclaimed his presidential candidacy, he was supported by Merkel. On June 24, 2008, Obama addressed 200,000 enthusiastic Germans in the Tiergarten, Berlin. The speech was held at the Siegessaule, a monument to German militarism and revanchism, moved to its present location by Albert Speer. Obama’s speech was broadcast in all the German state media, such as ZDF and ARD. German TV and newspapers cheered over Obama as the “Anti–George Bush.” One paper called him the “New Messiah.” No German politician had used the Siegessaule after the war for a public event. The monument was toxic, intended to celebrate Hitler once he had won the war.”
“In Barack Obama, Merkel had found a younger partner sharing her basic views about climate and social values, a man of mostly talk and little substance. Merkel increased the resources for a government-funded network, WBGU (Scientific Council to the Government, for Global Environmental Policy). The goal was set of a global transformation of the capitalist system in the ecological direction [straight out of the National Socialist playbook]. The Germans on the board included Joachim Schellnhuber, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Ottmar Edenhofer, and Claus Leggewie, all well-known for being left-wing.”
“In 2009, a conference was held in Essen, ‘The Great Transformation.’ In addition to German ministers, Obama’s chief counselor John Podesta and William Antholis from the Brookings Institution were in attendance. Lord Giddens, one of Tony Blair’s closest ideologists, was a speaker. The conference was about values and lifestyles in a globalized interdependent world—how governments, through “nudging,” could reprogram their people’s brains to make them choose a “sustainable lifestyle.” The conference was summarized thus:
(1) Decarbonization of the whole society, through use of renewable energy.
(2) Implementation of the Öko-Soziale Markwirtschaft (a euphemism for a planned economy)
(3) People should avoid using private cars, travel as little as possible.
(4) A vegetarian lifestyle was proposed, proteins from insects are more sustainable than eating meat.
(5) Organize society more like ant heaps—it’s resilient.
(6) It is doubtful if this vision of the future would be possible to implement in a democratic society. It would be necessary to consider appointing a global expert council who can make important long-term decisions without risking disturbances of short-term populist ideas.”
Fascism can only exist under the philosophical tenets of collectivist ideology. The tactical goal of collectivist ideology is to strip away individualism, by force if necessary.
Meanwhile, at COP29, there they want trillions of other peoples money. The US should COP out of COP29!! From the article:
In Baku, that means fighting over a so-called collective and quantified goal for climate finance. That’s the new post-2025 ambition that’s supposed to replace a target set in 2009 for developed countries to provide $100 billion annually by 2020. The earlier goal has proven controversial since it wasn’t met until 2022, and represents just a fraction of the money needed.
Even if the new target were to be set at as much as $1 trillion a year, as some of the most climate-vulnerable states have proposed, that would barely scratch the surface. New research published this week by law firm A&O Shearman details an annual $6 trillion investment gap through 2030 to decarbonize the global economy at a pace required by the Paris climate agreement, to say nothing of the cost of adapting to a warmer, more volatile world.
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-14/where-will-the-cop29-money-come-from
Yep, let’s make everyone, everywhere live a 5th class life instead of simply adapting to whatever the climate may do. Quality of life matters just as much as length of life.
Pingback: The climate case of the century - Climate- Science.press
Carbon dioxide officially became a greenhouse gas (GHG) pollutant in 2009 because the EPA simply declared it to be. Attorney Michael B. Gillett informs us that, the “EPA issued an Endangerment Finding that motor vehicle emissions of GHGs cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare through climate change. 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496 (Dec. 15, 2009).” The EPA’s Finding is nothing more than a political statement with no science behind it whatsoever.
We know where it all began: Western school teachers actively participated in hiding the truth while pushing superstition and ignorance in the classrooms across America. But, nature won’t cooperate with the weather commies. Still, we face the fantasy of a hot apocalypse.
Oil Was Written Off. Now It’s the Most Productive US Industry
Oil and gas extraction has seen the fastest labor productivity gains of any sector in the past decade.
SOURCE:www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-31/why-oil-is-outpacing-tech-as-the-most-productive-us-industry
Did you know that Russia supplies the US with over 20% of our uranium fuel? Biden sanctioned some of their enriched uranium back in May of this year, so this is pay back and a warning that we need to be self-sufficient.
“Russia declared on Friday that it would impose temporary restrictions on the export of enriched uranium to the United States.”
https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/3159235-russia-
halts-uranium-exports-to-us-amid-tensions
So much for self-sufficient nationalism and the nuclear panacea.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264781/countries-with-the-largest-uranium-reserves/
FAPP the US doesn’t have fuel reserves, Canada may be the only quasi-reliable source.
Yep, the Canadian country Camco supplies uranium.
Cameco, that is.
Obama-era Russian Uranium One deal: What to know:
https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/109694/documents/HHRG-116-II06-20190625-SD004.pdf
Robert there is a lot of “partisan ” attacks on the deal and a lot of “partisan ” defense of the deal.
That being said, first impression doesnt look favorable to the Obama adminstration with Hillary or any of the other 8 obama people that had to sign off on the deal.
The clintons were running a pay for play scheme with their foundation at the time.
Its a further point that makes the russian hoax implausible. Why would the russians prefer trump with the obama administration and clinton had been favorable to putin
For yellowcake purchases, Australia is a willing seller with large reserves.
Not to be confused with enriched uranium, which Australia does not sell, despite 50 years of advocacy by colleagues and self, to numerous passing Federal governments here.
Our political process is ignorant and unreliable.
The government should do something about it.
Geoff S
The Earth’s warming is because in the our times the winters are warmer, because at winters Earth is closer to the sun.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The warming is faster now, because there are more free from ice waters at the North, the sea-ice cover is smaller.
Instead of being “consumed” as latent heat, the solar energy rises global temperature.
–
Well, maybe but we should remember that China struggled to deliver a power plant to Russia via the Chukchi and East Siberian seas, despite the company of a neclear powered ice breaker. It would appear the the North Polar ice cap is very much with us? https://gcaptain.com/u-s-sanctions-fail-to-stop-chinese-power-plant-delivery-salvages-next-stage-of-russian-arctic-lng-plant/
Thank you, David.
“…the North Polar ice cap is very much with us?”
Of course, the North Polar ice cap is very much with us.
It is less extended towards the North Atlantic and towards the North Bering sea.
It is a small place up there at the top of the Globe. The higher latitudes the Gulf Stream goes – the less the sea ice areas, because the higher the latitudes the place is smaller and smaller.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
MIT Free Speech Alliance Debate: Is Decarbonization Worth the Cost? (Tonight)
SOURCE:www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtRCyOskzKo&ab_channel=MITFreeSpeechAlliance
Pingback: The Climate Case of the Century – Watts Up With That?
Lucas,
Civil cases are won by a preponderance of the evidence, criminal cases by proof (actually evidence) beyond a reasonable doubt. Unqualified proofs are for math and logic, never for science. IPCC makes a case for both the preponderance of the evidence and that it is beyond a reasonable doubt. Pseudo-science (e.g. economics) can be important, but it can’t disprove real science, because pseudo-sciences are unfalsifiable, and pseudo-scientists can make up anything they want. There are plenty of examples on this blog.
The Left keeps pushing, hoping to get the issue into the court system, which considers “consensus” to be science.
This CO2 nonsense won’t go away until people start addressing the relevant physics, not the alarmist scare tactics and emotionalism.
Now that NATURE, Truth Social, has proven that The Green New Scam is just that, a SCAM, what is YOUR view of GLOBAL WARMING?
Did you invest in crypto prior to Trump’s win.
Yes.
I think it will continue until it reaches a new quasi-equilibrium value. I don’t think it cares what you think nature or truth social have “proven”.
New York CNN —
Laura Helmuth is resigning as editor-in-chief of Scientific American magazine following an expletive-filled rant about Donald Trump voters.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/15/media/scientific-american-editor-resignation/index.html
Please, do not capture CO2 from going into the atmosphere.
There is too little CO2 in the atmosphere. It is the plant’s food the CO2.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law cannot be applied to the EM energy /surface matter interaction process.
Therefore,
The Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not because of the non-linearity of the S-B emission law.
The Planet Rotational Warming is a much more Powerful Phenomenon.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The intensity with which so many people have followed the story [of Michael Mann’s illusory hockey stick], and its continuing relevance via the ongoing Mann v. Steyn lawsuit (as well as others), indicate to me that it is more than just an academic spat about proxy quality and scores. I suspect that the whole episode has wider social significance as an indicator of a rather defective aspect of early 21st century scientific culture.” ~Ross McKitrick (A brief retrospective on the hockey stick, May 23, 2014)
I agree that court arguments focus on proxy quality, etc.; which is why, IMO, caution should be applied to the NGO approach, the closing remarks in this essay.
NGO is a generic term. Non-governmental can be a group sympathtic to authoritative government interests (buttressing tyranny) by a consensus group of private cirizens; or an NGO not sympatheic to government interests, for the people.
The essay implicitly relates to protecting the people from government tyranny using NGOs, helping the judiciary serve as a check on government power–but adequate education and challenges are required. The latter didn’t work in the Mann vs Steyn trial, non-governmental influence played a role in this case, but also government. While scientists are independent, activists explicitly use the IPCC as the quintessential government proxy.
President elect Trump named Chris Wright to be Secretary of Energy in his administration.
Wright has been quoted as saying “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.”
“We have seen no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or floods despite endless fear mongering of the media, politicians and activists,”….. “The only thing resembling a crisis with respect to climate change is the regressive, opportunity-squelching policies justified in the name of climate change.”
Smart guy.
President elect Trump has nominated Chris Wright as Secretary of Energy in his administration.
Wright has said: “There is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.”
“We have seen no increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or floods despite endless fear mongering of the media, politicians and activists….The only thing resembling a crisis with respect to climate change is the regressive, opportunity-squelching policies justified in the name of climate change.”
Smart guy
Hello
President elect Trump announced the nomination of Chris Wright as the Secretary of Energy for his administration.
“Wright has denied that climate change presents a global crisis that needs to be addressed through a transition away from fossil fuels.”
“There is no climate crisis and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either,” Wright said in a video posted on his LinkedIn page last year. “Humans and all complex life on earth is simply impossible without carbon dioxide. Hence the term carbon pollution is outrageous.”
“There is no such thing as clean energy or dirty energy,” Wright said. “All energy sources have impacts on the world both positive and negative.”
Sounds like a smart guy.
” The Climate Change story told by ice cores…”
A short +4 minute video. Interesting.
I have a feeling that the data in ice cores from the deuterium isotope is more accurate, and indicates the variations between meltwater pulse and 2346bce; the Holocene period.
An important point to factor in is the temp anomaly at Gisp2 – and Vostok in other polar region – vary in opposite manner to Kilimanjaro in equatorial region.
Changes are abrupt as is evident in the research of Lonnie Thompson at Quelccaya (abruptly frozen green vegetation) .
Bill – That’s a good video. Here’s another one by Prof. Steffensen:
Pat, in the first few sentences — “…we don’t know why.”, followed by “…that’s what all the models show…”
He should have ended after admitting he doesn’t know why. The “models” are based on the false science that CO2’s 15µ photons can raise 288K surface temperatures. He needs to learn the basic physics/thermodynamics of what “temperature” is, and what is required to raise temperature.
Thanks, Pat.
It seems mine is more a ‘what is’, yours is more a ‘what if’. Yours is more polished, mine a bit gritty, as far as production goes.
For me, domination of the narrative by one side has potential negative societal consequences, particularly when we factor in money/spending. We can also gauge currents of thought by representation throughout the social/cultural milieu. From my observations, The alarmist and denialist currents are weakening, the warmist and adaptationist currents are strengthening. The latter two have overlap, whereas the prior two do not. This is good news, as it indicates that science, while influenced by many things outside of it, still has a functioning core.
In video, go to 0:57 at the beginning. The traces show dynamic instability – the sharp and abrupt changes/reverses in trend. In Control Systems it is a ‘bang-bang’ type of control -or lack of it-.
What is more, it appears worst in the inter-glacials (some), where there are the sharpest peaks. The very onset of the inter-glacial is a major point of instability. Even at 100kyr periods the saw-tooth shape is characteristic of instability.
The last inter-glacial is/was not stable; in fact far from it, because there is historical and archaeological evidence that also confirm it. (for a clear pointer see Plato:’Timaeus’ re periodic declinations of the heavens; plus elsewhere; and that is from direct human experience).
Its not good to be wrong. But equally so to be right for the wrong reason. Or worse for there is no inducement to correct.
ps two earlier post from yesterday >??? One appeared for a time, the other not at all.
melitamegalithic, I wouldn’t characterize the transitions as unstable. I would instead say they’re a nonlinear response to periodic forcing. Here’s the EPICA Dome C temperature reconstruction plotted against a 3-cycle harmonic model. Also shown is the earth’s obliquity and eccentricity.
https://localartist.org/media/EPICA3term.png
I think obliquity plays a role, but I’m still trying to figure out if it’s a major role. A heliocentric model I’m working on may also explain not only the timing and duration of the interglacials, but also the temperature variations during our current interglacial. The issue is that earth’s orbit and solar output are both modulated by Jupiter and other planets, so some similar periodicities.
If my heliocentric model is correct, then your bang-bang controller analogy may not be too far off. Fusion is highly nonlinear.
melitamegalithic, I wouldn’t describe the interglacials as dynamic instability. Instead I would say they’re a nonlinear response to periodic forcing. Here’s a three-cycle harmonic model I developed plotted against the EPICA Dome C temperature reconstruction. I’m also showing earth’s obliquity and eccentricity.
https://localartist.org/media/EPICA3term.png
This is my second attempt at posting today. The first one never showed up, so this one is shorter.
Robert Cutler:
It is dynamic instability (of planet earth as a rotating body), however acting as step input from external (planetary) driver/trigger.
In your link the obliquity curve is wrong (probably taken from formulae ). I have details of change in obliquity – and precession; the gyro effect – for 2346bce (GF Dodwell was right) and the abrupt change to about 25deg from a near 14-14.4deg occurred within 24 hours. There were previous such changes however my data source covers only dates from ~5200bce to 2200bce.
The curve in your link is likely from the Stockwell/Newcomb formulae – which account only for slow secular change. There are other inputs and responses. Not only climate is effected within decades, but also there have been geological/seismic collateral events that were immediate.
melitamegalithic,
The obliquity comes from Laskar (2004). The right edge of the plot is year 10k. I’ve computed it from the formula in his paper, and compared it to the on-line solution: http://vo.imcce.fr/insola/earth/online/earth/online/index.php
I’m not promoting Milankovitch cycles, though they may play a role. And while it’s certainly possible that the solar system may exhibit chaotic tendencies, they’re not the reason for interglacial periods over the last 800k years. That’s why I can get away with using only 3 cycles in the harmonic model.
Robert Cutler
A quick post for the moment.
It is not solar system chaotic tendencies, but the more limited effects on planets by the ‘Kepler Trigon’ planetary orientations (mainly Moon, Venus and Jupiter for the earth).
Milankovitch cycles are something different, though the idea does not factor in the above effects. A change in obliquity effect precession and possibly eccentricity – and from recent papers also the tilt of the ecliptic plane.
“But,” says the newly and securely employed meteorologist, “we need the glamour that shock, horror, the planet is getting hotter and humans are causing global warming, stories to grow our professional importance. We’ve never been so important or busy than the last couple of decades thanks to that Mann …”
Meanwhile nature yawns at some of our shocking naivety.
CO2’s 15µ photons can not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. We know this from an understanding of
1) Temperature, and
2) What is required to raise temperature.
Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of an object. To raise the temperature of an object, the average kinetic energy must be increased. Just adding more energy does not always increase kinetic energy. An ice cube emits energy, but you can NOT boil water with ice cubes, no matter how many ice cubes you have.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/10/12/did-global-warming-make-the-heavy-precipitation-in-mid-europe-in-september-2024-more-likely/#comment-1011860
Radiative physics and thermodynamics are not understood by over 99% of the population. That’s why this CO2 nonsense will not go away.
Yes, it is unfortunate that so few understand the photophysics of molecules; free, or in the presence of other gases, liquids, and solids. It is important to note that photon quantum energy is not the same as photon flux and the associated energy flux.
Thermodynamically, it is mostly a matter of energy fluxes and their rates of change.
If continuous flow of energy from the atmosphere (radiative-including solar, collisional, reabsorption:re-emission, and convection) to the surface, is GREATER than the surface gray-body (emissivity <1) emitted energy that makes it to the TOA and outer space:
Then the gray body will WARM toward a new energy balance (quasi-equilibrium). This applies to all poly-atomic molecules in the atmosphere that actively absorb in the infrared region of the surface thermal emissions (CO2 is one of them). The dominant mechanism of deactivation of CO2’s 15µ absorbed energy in the lower troposphere, where most of the absorption occurs, is collisional deactivation/thermalization, not radiative decay.
It's really quite simple, The sun's predominantly visible radiation heats the surface layer. Atmospheric GHGs intercept some of the outgoing thermal emissions and use it to heat the atmosphere, not the surface.
Q: How can microwave ovens and thermopile detectors possibly work when the photon-energy is less than the local thermal emission peak? A: photon flux is more important than individual photon energies for broad, strong absorbers.
Earth’s surface is not a gray-body. A gray-body is a surface at some uniform temperature…
Dang Bushaw, you’re even better at rambling word salad than Kamala!
But thanks for making my point that most people are clueless about the relevant science. Trying to hide behind microwave ovens just makes you look childishly desperate.
50 shades of gray. It refers to emissivity.
Clint,
So you don’t understand it – no surprise, coming from one of the 99-percenters that thinks some freshman physics puts him in the 1%.
Yes, B A,
“Then the gray body will WARM toward a new energy balance (quasi-equilibrium).”
–
Yes, it will warm, but for a very infinitesimal step of warming (for the doubling of CO2, compared to the predindustrial CO2 content).
Because there is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface. It is a very thin (very not dense) atmosphere we have on Earth.
And, the more up in altitude you go – the less dense the atmosphere becomes.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
“Infinitesimal,” based on an incorrect and unpublished hypothesis, is not a rebuttal.
“An Assessment of Earth’s Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence” (Sherwood, Reviews of Geophysics, 2020)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019RG000678
“Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models” (Femke, Earth System dynamics, 2020) https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/11/737/2020/
Thank you, B A.
““Infinitesimal,” based on an incorrect and unpublished hypothesis, is not a rebuttal.”
–
The sea-water salt content is 3,5 %. Still solar light penetrates in sea-waters for many meters in.
The atmospheric 0,04 % CO2 content is an almost non-existent component. But let’s consider it infinitesimal…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Sorry, we have been talking about infrared emission and molecular CO2 absorption. Not the transmission of visible light through seawater.
Here is a paper all about the “infinitesimal” (about 140 moles/m^2 in the atmospheric column) and it’s interaction withIR radiation.
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
Thank you, B A.
“ABSTRACT: The radiative forcing from carbon dioxide is approximately logarithmic in its concentration, producing
about 4 W m-2 of global-mean forcing for each doubling. ”
–
For the sake of dispute, let’s say “…producing
about 4 W m-2 of global-mean forcing for each doubling.”
This theoretical consideration “rises” global temperature by ~0,2 C.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Your calculator must be broken. Closer to 3 C for ECS
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/carbon-dioxide-global-temperature-visualization/
Click on the link at the bottom of the figure, for a video with more information.
Then, read, particularly section 7.5:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/
Doesn’t matter if you agree or not. You need to be aware of, and understand it. 2nd step in the scientific method is background research.
Thank you, B A.
“Doesn’t matter if you agree or not. You need to be aware of, and understand it. 2nd step in the scientific method is background research.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Why, my calculator isn’t broken.
Earth’s current global temperature is Tmean = 288 K.
The solar flux is So = 1362 W/m²
For the sake of dispute, let’s say “…producing
about 4 W m-2 of global-mean forcing for each doubling.”
So, the new forcing should be
1362 W/m² + 4 W/m² = 1366 W/m²
Let’s calculatte:
[ (288 K ⁴ )*1366/1362 ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 288,2 K
288,2 K – 288 K = 0,2 C
So, the above theoretical consideration “rises” global temperature by ~0,2 C.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Skeptics need to be careful to not accept any part of the CO2 nonsense. CO2’s 15µ photons can not raise the temperature of a 288K surface. (Learn what “temperature” is.). Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not create new energy. (Violation of 1LoT). And the bogus “33C” comes from comparing Earth to an imaginary sphere. (Heat capacity can not be ignored.)
Science trumps nonsense every time.
Christos,
You have to know what forcing is before you can discuss it.
Read chapter 7 of IPCC AR6 WG1, link already given. The relevant equation relating forcing and temperature change is
Δ𝑇_𝑠 = 𝜆Δ𝐹
That is, change in surface temperature equals climate sensitivity (feedback) parameter times change in forcing.
Δ𝑇_𝑠 = 3.2 – 4.8 K
Thank you, B A.
“That is, change in surface temperature equals climate sensitivity (feedback) parameter times change in forcing.
Δ𝑇_𝑠 = 3.2 – 4.8 K”
Does that mean Te = 255K + 4.8K = 259.8 K then?
Clint: “Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not create new energy.”
That is correct. It just keeps some of the existing energy from escaping to free space.
As for a body in temperature equilibrium (e.g. 288 K) with its surroundings: absorbing a stream of 15 um photons (or photons of any other wavelength) will raise its temperature until a new equilibrium temperature is established.
Christos, no, it doesn’t mean that. It deals in changes, not absolutes (read the equation). The range of values means the feedback parameter 𝜆 ranges from 0.8 – 1.2 depending on the particular circumstances, and our (assumed) effective radiative forcing of 4 W/m^2 (see IPCC AR6 WG1,table 7.2).
Thank you, BA.
Where does the radiative forcing of 4 W/m² rise the temperature by 3,5 C?
Sorry Bushaw, but you’re still confused.
You agree that adding CO2 does not create energy, but then you claim it causes a “forcing”. A radiative forcing involves new energy to a system. Your claim that CO2 is some kind of insulation is as wrong as it is funny. CO2 emits energy to space, as do all radiative gases. The insulation is due to non-radiative gases, like oxygen and nitrogen. Earth’s atmosphere is like a blanket, and CO2 molecules are holes in the blanket.
Everything you’ve learned about CO2 appears to be wrong. That’s why you keep trying to avoid reality. And trying to avoid reality is just being a child.
Christos,
Where in space-time? Earth average, when CO2 is a bit past 2x preindustrial concentration and new equilibrium is approached (several hundred years). Do your IPCC reading (all of chpt 7 would be best). Here is extra credit on the same subject:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058118
Clint,
LAMO, With respect to climate, anything that changes the energy balance at the TOA is a radiative forcing. You, too, should read and understand IPCC AR6 WG1 chapter 7. Thanks for the entertainment.
Thank you, BA.
“[3] To appreciate the problem, consider Earth’s energy balance in response to a doubling of CO2,
ΔR = F +λΔT (1)
where F is the radiative forcing due to the CO2 doubling and ΔR the resulting imbalance in the top-of-atmosphere radiation. λΔT describes the radiative response of the climate system and is written as the product of the temperature change ΔTwith respect to a base state and the system’s total feedback, λ. It is common practice to decompose λ into contributions from temperature (λT), water vapor (λW), clouds (λC), and surface albedo (λA). While λ itself has to be negative to yield a stable climate, its individual contributions can be positive (e.g., λW) or negative (e.g., λT). Within this framework, the temperature change after the climate system has reached equilibrium again (ΔR=0) defines the value of ECS =−F/λ. Consequently, an increase in ECS can arise from either an enhanced forcing, a positive change in the feedback, or both.”
–
I do not see any mention of the Earth’s average surface temperature. Also there is absent the Earth’s radiative balance estimation…
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry BA, but you can’t learn.
The IPCC has corrupted your mind. First Principles proves you wrong. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does NOT increase radiative flux. Your nonsense would mean that CO2 adds to solar flux!
You don’t understand any of this.
” I do not see any mention of the Earth’s average surface temperature. Also there is absent the Earth’s radiative balance estimation…”
Then you have not read or understood the paper.
The given equation “estimates” the radiative imbalance. The temperature dependence is contained in λ_T (see table 1).
The Earth’s average temperature: They do not use it, they only talk about CHANGES with respect to a preindustrial base climate state (~287 K).
clint,
“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere does NOT increase radiative flux. Your nonsense would mean that CO2 adds to solar flux!”
No, it means that CO2 stops some of the outgoing IR flux, causing an energy imbalance. And yes, the down-welling energy flux from the excited CO2 does add to the solar flux. Yours is the only nonsense.
“You don’t understand any of this.”
You do have a penchant for projecting your knowledge, thanks for that.
You don’t understand basic physics, BA. So, let’s see if you can handle some “common-sense” — If all infrared could raise temperatures, and since ice emits infrared, then ice cubes could boil water. Without any knowledge of First Principles, responsible adults know that is wrong. But, your “climate science” would result in ice cubes boiling water.
Clint.
Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate you making yourself so apparent.
In three days, a stationary upper-level low (500 hPa) and a deep low in the lower troposphere will set up at the border of Canada and the US. Winter in the US is coming.
https://i.ibb.co/488FzGh/gfs-cape-usa72.png
1 trillion US dollars ($) per year?
The number of days with geomagnetic storms per year has dropped significantly since 2008.
https://i.ibb.co/Zhbcvrs/liczba-dni-z-burz-geomag.png
Ireneusz:
Could you publish the current CDAs Nino 4 Index chart since Oct 24? Something unusual going on.
A travel article on Italian Parma ham reads, “A warming climate and the spread of viruses affecting the pigs are causing big problems for Italian pork. The end result is that Parma ham as we know it is increasingly hard to find on international dinner plates.”
It may or may not be a fact that part of the problem may be that climate change is a contributing factor but, to say, ‘manmade’ is holy gratuitous when the article later goes on to say, “But lately, threats like manmade climate change and diseases like African swine fever have challenged the ham industry.”
Larding up an article with the author’s misconceptions is something that could only appeal to other fatheads.
A simple fact of the matter is, “H1N1 swine viruses have been known to circulate among pig populations since at least 1930. H3N2 influenza viruses did not begin circulating among pigs in the United States until about 1998. The H3N2 viruses initially were introduced into the pig population from humans.” ~CDC (Mar 22, 2024)
Accordingly, the problem in Italy and the subsequent problem that perhaps is now affecting the pig industry and the manufacture of Parma ham may not be climate change at all. It may be that humans are now infecting pigs!
A thought provoking piece …
How to Accelerate Science
Overcoming the tyranny of the scientific method through epistemic anarchy
Byrne Hobart, Tobias Huber
https://www.city-journal.org/article/how-to-accelerate-science
Outstanding.
“The latest survey, from 2018, reports that the average amount of time researchers spend on bureaucratic compliance has increased to 44.3 percent. How many more discoveries or breakthroughs would have been made if researchers hadn’t allocated half of their time to administration?”
I wonder how many medical doctors feel like they have become overburdened by the bureaucracy, and not just by the government but by their own employer’s processes.
Anarchy, and then some. A key focus for the Department of Government Efficiency will be the regulatory state, its use of the judiciary to enforce agency regulations, bypassing congress.
NOAA’s environmental enforcement over SpaceX is good for a laugh, then a cry:
https://news-pravda.com/usa/2024/10/20/798365.html
They don’t appear to have a problem with windmills killing whales, but the potential of a falling rocket part hitting a whale, or the poor unsuspecting shark needs serious study.
The irrefutable truth central to any litigation should be that the official temperature record underlying the global warming alarmism science of the Left is the knowingly and purposefully corrupted by a systemic warming bias.
Thank you, B A.
“… with respect to a preindustrial base climate state (~287 K).”
?
How, how do they know? Or maybe they do not know, and they just refer to some unknown average surface temperature – the preindustrial one.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/98/9/bams-d-16-0007.1.xml
And yes it is a global average, we are talking about global climate, not the weather.
The goad goes on forever, and the handbag fight never ends.
Indeed. If someone keeps poking you over and over again with the same dirty sticks, would you defend yourself, if only to deflect the dirty-stick jabs, or would you just slink away?
PS ~ my handbag is loaded with physical science texts and papers. I like the weight of it.
The Sky Dragons are so obviously wrong that, to me anyways, it’s best just to ignore them. Would you fight with a 4 year old who vigorously insists Santa Clause exists?
JIm2, You are probably right except
1) I don’t care about the Sky Dragons – they are hopelessly and willfully ignorant. I care about people who might believe.
2) Every time I develop/present a new line of evidence against the same old repeated huffs of dragon breath, I learn more about climatology.
The phrase “sky dragon” does not come from science. It is a phrase used by blog children playing on their keyboards.
Pingback: Science notes in passing - Climate Discussion Nexus
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results. The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
Planet….Te…..Te.correct…..Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury..440 K….364 K…….325,83 K…340 K
Earth……….255 K….210 K…….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…..270,4 K….224 K…….223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……..210 K…..174 K…….213,11 K…210 K
2). The 288 K – 255 K = 33°C difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses. The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K.
****
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Do you realize the two times the standard deviation (95% c.l.) of (calculated by Christos vs satellites) is +/- 17.2 K. So your result for earth would be properly expressed as 288 +/- 17K (95% c.l.).
This is way too large an uncertainty to say the CO2 has no significant effect.
This makes me ask: Did you fit your beta for Earth alone (the match is quite amazing – considering the uncertainty, above, the 0.26 C difference is more what you might expect from round-off errors in recalculation) and then calculate for the others using that value of beta? If so, What are beta values derived for the different planets, and what is the uncertainty for the group?
Christos, if you can’t do statistics, you’re probably not ready to “play” science.
2 sigma = 2* sqrt(sum(ΔT^2)/n-1)
where ΔT are the individual differences between measurement and hypothesis calculation, and n is the number of cases studied. Do you need a screenshot of the spreadsheet I used for the calculations?
Now, please answer my question other question. Did you determine/estimate beta such that it would nearly exactly reproduce earth’s measured average surface temperature?
So third world countries, may of which are run by dictators, gangs, or simply a corrupt government; want trillions in money (and not loans, grants) to “fight” climate change. I don’t want one red cent of my money going to those criminals!
The standoff is deepening over the marquee negotiating track: how to boost an expiring $100 billion annual climate finance commitment. Neither side is willing to concede yet, and feathers are starting to get ruffled.
…
By contrast, developing countries have planted their numbers — plenty of them, surpassing $1 trillion a year — but they are pushing for grant-like finance that won’t lock in already unsustainable debt burdens for generations.
Thank you, B A.
“Do you realize the two times the standard deviation (95% c.l.) of (calculated by Christos vs satellites) is +/- 17.2 K. So your result for earth would be properly expressed as 288 +/- 17K (95% c.l.).”
–
B A, I don’t understand. Please, I don’t understand, explain to me what is this “288 +/- 17K (95% c.l.)”?
Christos.
Thank you, B A.
“Christos, if you can’t do statistics, you’re probably not ready to “play” science.
2 sigma = 2* sqrt(sum(ΔT^2)/n-1)
where ΔT are the individual differences between measurement and hypothesis calculation, and n is the number of cases studied. Do you need a screenshot of the spreadsheet I used for the calculations?
Now, please answer my question other question. Did you determine/estimate beta such that it would nearly exactly reproduce earth’s measured average surface temperature?”
–
Yes, I can’t do statistics. And yes, I need your help to “play” science.
Please provide me with the screenshot of the spreadsheet you used for the calculations. You may, if there are difficulties, send it to me via contact page in my site. I am very much interested to study it, so for me to realize what you mean.
–
No, I didn’t.
Christos.
Here is the screenshot
https://mega.nz/file/V2kmiDYR#FnEQYXn_7qlTPGPV9ChtdDBcpBoGD1wsw7ibbUT5V0s
here is a quick review of important statistical functions and their equations:
https://www.isobudgets.com/introduction-statistics-uncertainty-analysis/#standard-deviation
If you would like further help, the next step is to describe, in detail, how β was derived; “empirically” is not a sufficient description.
Thank you B A.
I am back and starting to study.
“If you would like further help, the next step is to describe, in detail, how β was derived; “empirically” is not a sufficient description.”
Yes, I know what you mean, but I should study first, maybe I could explain then.
Christos.
BA, your calculated value for sigma is incorrect. The correct value is 14.89.
See if you can find your mistake by yourself. It would be a good learning experience….
Should be “2sigma”, as in “2sigma = 14.89”.
Thank you, B A.
From the screenshot you provided, I know how the +/- 17.2 K is calculated.
The statistical functions and their equations is an interesting and an important science, which requires time, so I prefer to rely on yours expertise on that.
There are more planets and moons measured and calculated.
Also, planet Mercury is not very much good, because it was measured at some position of his orbit, but Mercury’s orbit is more eccentric, so the measurement is not representative of the Mercury’s yearly average temperature.
The β was not derived by a statistical scientific method. Some years ago in this blog a commenter said there are too little samples for the statistic uncertainty analysis.
Christos.
Clint,
You, too, can learn from your mistakes. You used N, instead of N-1 which is used for Sample Standard Deviation (only a sampling of data for planetary objects). My mistake was to call it sigma instead of “s”. But you miss the point (what a surprise), whether it is an uncertainty for a complete or a partial set of data (15 or 17 K) doesn’t really matter. The point is, without further details, Christos’ hypothesis with proper statistics should read.
Tmean = 288 +/- 17K (95% c.l.), not 287.74
From that, I concluded, “This is way too large an uncertainty to say the CO2 has no significant effect.”
Thanks for the smoke-screen – always entertaining but a waste of time.
Sorry BA, but YOU are the one with the smoke screen.
You got caught faking a knowledge of statistics, just as you’ve been caught faking a knowledge of physics.
Clint,
No, I explained why you were wrong, and had already given reverences. All you can do is behave like a belligerent child that projects his lack of knowledge, and combines it with rather obviously false insults, as a defense mechanism.
Ciao, child.
All wrong BA.
You were unable to demonstrate how CO2 15µ photons can raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature. And, you used the incorrect formula for 2sigma.
You have an aversion to truth and reality.
Clint is still projecting.
Wrong #1: If a surface is at 288 K and radiative equilibrium (energy in = energy out, it stays the same temperature), and a flux of photons of 15 um (or any other wavelength) is absorbed, (which is a different process than thermal emission), it increases the energy content and hence the temperature rises until a new energy equilibrium reached. I know addition can be difficult. I didn’t hide behind the “why does a microwave oven work?” question – I thought it might be something simple enough for you to understand – perhaps you did, and that’s why you deflected with yet another insult.
Wrong #2: N-1 is correct for limited data sets, and as usual you were wrong.
Do you take pride in being a contrarian, even if you make a fool of yourself? The Firesign Theater had you pegged 50 years ago: “Everything You Know (say) is Wrong,” and you have demonstrated that amply.
nlm
Temperature is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone, BA. It MUST be the right kind of energy. Adding ice to a cup of coffee does NOT increase the temperature, even though energy was added.
You don’t understand basic physics. So, let’s see if you can handle some “common-sense” — If all infrared could raise temperatures, and since ice emits infrared, then ice cubes could boil water. Even without any knowledge of First Principles, responsible adults know that is wrong. But, your beliefs would result in ice cubes being able to boil water.
You have false beliefs.
Hi, B A.
How much do you think the Earth’s atmosphere average surface greenhouse effect is?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Clint, your incorrect (and silly) analogy is adding matter & heat capacity to the system, as well as creating a large dis-equilibrium which will obey the second law. It is not the same as adding photons. Put on your pointy hat and go sit in the corner.
nlm
Sorry BA, but you’re wrong again.
Ice emits photons. So when you add ice, you add photons. But those photons can not raise the temperature of hot coffee. Just like CO2 15µ photons can not raise Earth’s 288K surface.
This is all WAY over your head.
Clint,
So, how does a microwave oven work?
nlm
Mr. R. is saying a material can absorb energy, but that energy won’t raise the temperature of the material. It. Is. Like. MAGIC.
Well, a PV cell can absorb a photon and create electricity, but even then, some will be converted to heat.
Wrong jim2, you’re misrepresenting my words. Here’s what I said: Temperature is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone, BA. It MUST be the right kind of energy. Adding ice to a cup of coffee does NOT increase the temperature, even though energy was added.
I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you. You would need some competence, maturity, and knowledge.
Clint, repeating the same things multiple times, or in boldface, does not make them true. And, ignoring the reasons why you are wrong doesn’t make you smarter.
Your turn. Once again, please explain why microwave ovens don’t work – that would be a result of your hypothesis.
Repetition and boldface just makes it harder for you to avoid reality, BA.
Microwave ovens have NOTHING to do with the issue. You’re just throwing crap against the wall, hoping something will stick.
You’ve been exposed.
Of course, it has something to do with the issue. Low energy photons can heat objects in thermal equilibrium. I await your disproof.
You BELIEVE all photons are absorbed, and you believe all photons can raise temperature. You MUST believe that nonsense to believe CO2’s 15µ photons can raise Earth’s surface temperature.
But, beliefs ain’t science.
Once again: Temperature is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone, BA. It MUST be the right kind of energy. Adding ice to a cup of coffee does NOT increase the temperature, even though energy was added.
Clit,
Again, you are wrong. (1) It is not temperature, it is change in temperature, and that change in temperature is caused by a change in energy content. The only thing that depends on other factors, such as heat capacity and conductivity, is the AMOUNT of energy and temperature CHANGE.
I must have missed your disproof (if you even know what that entails) of my, and climatology’s “beliefs”. Still waiting
Let’s see how many times you will avoid reality, BA. As well as verifying your ignorance of basic physics:
Temperature is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone. It MUST be the right kind of energy. Adding ice to a cup of coffee does NOT increase the temperature, even though energy was added.
You must be one of those people that believes repeating the exact same lie over and over again, magically makes it come true. Must say though, you are a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger mixed with illusory superiority. Sicko, and too dumb to know it.
Still waiting for the disproof. Otherwise, not interested in reading you verbatim repeated irrelevancies.
Let’s see how many times you will avoid reality, BA. Every time you deny this statement, you confirm you don’t understand the basic science of temperature:
Temperature is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone. It MUST be the right kind of energy. Adding ice to a cup of coffee does NOT increase the temperature, even though energy was added.
Yeah, I’ll deny it again.
Temperature is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone
Sure, I’ll deny it again – it’s still wrong on a number of counts. You can consider that a permanent denial. At least until you explain your hypothesis, which implies microwave ovens can’t work.
No, I don’t believe all photons are absorbed – where did you get that crazy idea? The amount (fraction) of photons absorbed depends on the absorption cross-section and the path length.
“You don’t understand basic physics”
Must be a projection, thinking if you say it first, I can’t say it about you. That’s wrong: You don’t understand much of anything scientific.
BA continues to deny reality. Every time he denies this statement, he confirms he doesn’t understand the basic science of temperature:
Temperature increase is NOT caused by an increase in energy alone. It MUST be the right kind of energy. Adding ice to a cup of coffee does NOT increase the temperature, even though energy was added.
Will he continue to deny reality?
A very credible discussion of future energy prices.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/briefing/2024/11/14/the-energy-transition-will-be-much-cheaper-than-you-think
That’s a pay-walled article. From the scant info I can get about it , it assumes electricity demand will be less than anticipated. Sergey Brin was on Bloomberg this morning talking about how we would run short of energy beginning in 2028. For now, I have to assume the Economist article is deception.
If I was selling solar systems, I would show this to potential customers.
https://www.einnews.com/pr_news/760009248/report-ai-data-centers-could-drive-up-consumer-electricity-prices-70-by-2029
November 20, 2024 /EINPresswire.com/ — American consumers and small businesses could face up to 70% higher electricity bills in the next five years due to rapidly growing energy demand from AI data centers, according to a new report by scholars at the Jack Kemp Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington, DC.
“As data center expansion accelerates, consumers and small businesses are likely to bear the brunt of the consequences through higher electricity costs and brownouts and blackouts across the country,” said Ike Brannon, co-author of the study and a senior fellow at the Jack Kemp Foundation. “The average American household could pay over a thousand dollars more each year for electricity by the end of the decade if we don’t take urgent steps to resolve these energy shortages.”
More on data centers & energy demand from Washington Post 11/21/2024 (Free link) https://wapo.st/494Z6dF
“In Texas, the largest power market in the U.S., power grid operator ERCOT earlier this year revised its projections for energy demand sharply upward, driven in large part by data center development. ERCOT now predicts its energy demand will nearly double by 2030, with the state needing to add 67 gigawatts of electricity, the equivalent of what would be needed to power more than 60 million homes. The U.S. Energy Information Agency highlighted data centers and cryptocurrency mining in Texas as driving the growth.”
…
With the Biden administration power plant rules facing repeal, said Travis Fisher, who was a senior Energy Department adviser during the last Trump administration, “it will be up to the companies driving new demand — namely Big Tech — to decide just how green they want to be.”
“My sense is that when net-zero goals collide with the bottom line, it’s the bottom line that wins,” he said.
It’s a pity the Economist article is paywalled; here is an excerpt:
“People who want to do more to fight climate change and those who want to do less tend to have one thing in common. Both sides agree that decarbonising the world economy will be dauntingly expensive …
Yet this one point of agreement between climate activists and carbon addicts is, in fact, wrong. Greening the world economy will be much cheaper than the two groups imagine. The Economist has looked at estimates of the global cost of an “energy transition” to a zero-emissions world from a range of economists, consultants and other researchers—the sort of estimates that routinely form the basis for policymaking. They range from around $3trn a year to almost $12trn a year, which is indeed a lot. But these figures are overblown in four important ways.
First, the scenarios being costed tend to involve absurdly speedy (and therefore expensive) emissions cuts. Second, they assume that the population and economy of the world, and especially of developing countries, will grow implausibly rapidly, spurring pell-mell energy consumption. Third, such models also have a record of severely underestimating how quickly the cost of crucial low-carbon technologies such as solar power will fall. Fourth and finally, the estimates disgorged by such modelling tend not to account for the fact that, no matter what, the world will need to invest heavily to expand energy production, be it clean or sooty. Thus the capital expenditure needed to meet the main goal set by the Paris agreement—to keep global warming “well below” 2°C—should not be considered in isolation, but compared with alternative scenarios in which rising demand for energy is met by dirtier fuels.”
Much more detail follows in the article.
“…one point of agreement between climate activists and carbon addicts is, in fact, wrong. Greening the world economy will be much cheaper than the two groups imagine.”
Wrong? Tell this to German citzens living the reality, referrred to by some Western nations as living the dream of alternatives.
“…they assume that the population and economy of the world, and especially of developing countries, will grow implausibly rapidly, spurring pell-mell energy consumption.”
Not a relevant sensibility considering the rapid energy demands of AI tech.
“Thus the capital expenditure needed to meet the main goal..”
Resolved as: invest more in NG, and nuclear.
Time is on the reasonable “all the above” approach. The exponential growth of tech moves faster than climate, it will overcome the percieved short sighted climate “risk” by ideologues.
Jack – the price of oil (WTI) is around 70, down from the highs. If Trump gets his way, deregulates and opens up more leases, we will see it go even lower. Nat gas for all!
jim2,
I doubt it. At the end of the Obama 2nd. term they repealed the law that prevented the US from selling domestic oil on the world market. Do you know what the actual breakeven cost is on a barrel of crude oil? I think Trump will wave royalties, environmental laws and leasing fees so the oil companies can expand their margins. If the rest of the world’s oil producers cut back to maintain prices I can’t blame Exxon if they export all they can.
https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2022/0104
Jack, I highly doubt any of those things will be waived, other than maybe the new methane emissions regs.
Economically, it seems pretty similar to gearing up for a war with a new enemy that requires new “weapons”. I may be wrong, but I think history shows that is good for the economy, as well as for developing/refining new technologies.
Quite simply, fossil fuels are a dirty, temporary solution. Renewables are not nearly as dirty, and the fuel is free and won’t run out. A lot of technology development/investment and a major economic sector are devoted to storage solutions and their implementation.
As for higher costs with an unrealistically fast ramp up: It is well-known that mitigation is most effective when front loaded. Maybe consider the (projected) time-integrated cost vs. mitigation achieved. End loading the transition (leaving it to our progeny) is unlikely to work.
It’s not the case of the century. Climate extremism is a spent ideology of the Eurocommies. Hardly the case of the century, it’s about like bringing a similar case in a California Court but at least in that situation the plaintiffs would have standing. And, who would bring such a case there? The climate wackos have just taken a big hit in the last election. This, is how a hoax dies!
Only a case against a member country can be brought before the the Hague Court. You could call it novel that a case was brought against a company instead of a country in that venue but, it’s certainly not surprising that the case was brought by environmental wacko groups simply because Shell as a major fossil fuel company and for that reason alone you’re supposed to assume it has a responsibility to the rest of the world to reduce its carbon emissions and that the future of the world hangs in the balance according to on a conjecture by Western academia based on phony mathematical modeling of combat climate change due increases in atmospheric CO2. The case is nothing more than a symbolic and meaningless gesture on par with he proclamation by the Vatican all must become Catholic to avoid eternal damnation.
Drill baby drill!!
This case is nothing more than a repugnant weaponization of a judiciary.
Just as awarding a Nobel to Barack Obama for stopping the seas from rising was an example of the politicization of the Nobel prize– the penultimate banality of our times…
Christos,
“How much do you think the Earth’s atmosphere average surface greenhouse effect is?”
We have discussed this hypothetical previously, so just a short review.
Remove all polyatomic molecules from the atmosphere (no optically active vibrations), all else remains the same (which it doesn’t), then probably about 28 K.
Realistically, as the ocean surface freezes (completely, if without GHGs), so that albedo would go from about 0.3 to ~0,9, the solar radiation absorbed goes from 70% to 10%. This changes the simple disk/sphere – SB model from 255 K to 156.7 K (considerably cooler than the moon because of higher albedo of a frozen earth. So if one considers feedbacks including earth system sensitivities, my rough estimate of the ESS-GHE is.
288 – 157 = 131 K
Taking into consideration, of course, a frozen Earth would condense all the carbon dioxide in the air to form clouds that would prevent the Earth from ever defrosting. (Kasting, 1992)
Thank you, B A.
“This changes the simple disk/sphere – SB model from 255 K to 156.7 K (considerably cooler than the moon because of higher albedo of a frozen earth.”
–
I will argue that, because Earth is a planet, and the solar EM energy hits not a flat disk, but the solar EM energy hits a sphere. An almost perfectly smooth spherical surface does not reflect as defined by Lambert’s cosine law. There is also a strong specular reflection present.
Also, the S-B emission law is not the EM energy absorption law.
Actually the S-B emission law says nothing about the EM energy absorption.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, the solar energy hits a hemisphere and the energy hitting it is determined by the occluded disk.
Show me a picture of the earth where you can see a specular reflection of the sun. Even if you were correct about the reflections. That would further reduce the incident light intensity and the ESS-GHE would be even larger.
“Also, the S-B emission law is not the EM energy absorption law.”
For this problem, fractional absorption is already defined by one minus albedo.
Thank you, B A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_(physics)
” Light waves incident on a material induce small oscillations of polarisation in the individual atoms (or oscillation of electrons, in metals), causing each particle to radiate a small secondary wave in all directions, like a dipole antenna. All these waves add up to give specular reflection and refraction, according to the Huygens–Fresnel principle.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A, the black body definition says nothing about blackbody warming. It says a black body absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation – it doesn’t say a black body gets warmed by the incident electromagnetic radiation…
Please, what is not mentioned in the black body definition, should not be deduced afterwards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. The radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium with its environment is called black-body radiation. The name “black body” is given because it absorbs all colors of light. In contrast, a white body is one with a “rough surface that reflects all incident rays completely and uniformly in all directions.”[1]
A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body’s shape or composition.
An ideal black body in thermal equilibrium has two main properties:[2]
It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.
It is a diffuse emitter: measured per unit area perpendicular to the direction, the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.”
–
Link to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenobenon:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
If you want to see specular reflection, take a look at Venus. Then compare the way Venus looks to how Earth looks from Space.
Jim2, Venus is diffuse scattering (clouds), not specular reflection.
You are correct, Mr. B.
Jim2,
“If you want to see specular reflection, take a look at Venus. Then compare the way Venus looks to how Earth looks from Space.”
Brilliant !!! It is a brilliant… thank you Jim2 !!!
“kind of like” is not “the same as” and no, the Earth without atmosphere but nothing else changed, is not even close to other atmosphere-free rocky planets.
As for statistics – statistics and probabilities are an essential part of scientific analysis. If you can’t or won’t do statistics, you can’t do science. But that’s OK, after working through your web site, I had already come to that conclusion.
Christos,
“Please, what is not mentioned in the black body definition, should not be deduced afterwards.”
That’s silly, it is mostly what science does, refines old definitions.
It is perfectly obvious that a black-body in thermal equilibrium must absorb as much energy as it emits.
Thank you, B A.
“It is perfectly obvious that a black-body in thermal equilibrium must absorb as much energy as it emits.”
A black-body is a theoretical idealization. There is not a black-body warming theory.
It is only about emission intensity at a given uniform temperature.
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence.”
It is said so to underline that the black-body’s outgoing radiation doesn’t consist any kind of reflected radiation – it is purely the black-body’s emission from its own thermal energy transformation.
It doesn’t meant saying a black-body may somehow interact/get warmed by the incident radiation.
B A, by refining the black-body definition ( by inserting the incident EM energy absorption warming) by refining the definition they destroy the Plank’s law.
–
Link to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenobenon:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The name is Planck. And yes, a black-body is a theoretical concept that helps us understand the physical universe – kind of like the theoretical concept of an earth without an atmosphere but everything else the same.
I find it obvious that ANY object in thermal equilibrium must absorb as much energy as it emits, and if it absorbs more (or less) energy than it emits, it gets warmer (colder) until the emitted energy flux matches the new absorbed energy flux, and a new thermal equilibrium is established.
Let me know when you have finished your statistical analysis for all the planets and moons you have examined. I have already done that, but won’t tell you the value I obtained. I want to see yours first and determine if you have the ability to lean something, or if I’m just wasting my time.
Thank you, B A.
“a black-body is a theoretical concept that helps us understand the physical universe – kind of like the theoretical concept of an earth without an atmosphere but everything else the same.”
No, it is not like the Earth without an atmosphere. The Earth without an atmosphere is like any planet without an atmosphere.
“I find it obvious that ANY object in thermal equilibrium must absorb as much energy as it emits, and if it absorbs more (or less) energy than it emits, it gets warmer (colder) until the emitted energy flux matches the new absorbed energy flux, and a new thermal equilibrium is established.”
Of course, there is no argue about that. The argue is that the EM energy interacts with matter. The not reflected EM energy is not absorbed as heat. Only a part of the not reflected portion of the incident EM energy degrades into heat – and that is the EM energy which is conserved as heat.
“Let me know when you have finished your statistical analysis for all the planets and moons you have examined. I have already done that, but won’t tell you the value I obtained. I want to see yours first and determine if you have the ability to lean something, or if I’m just wasting my time.”
Please, B A, don’t waste any more time, because if I am right, it is very much important you inform people.
I don’t do statistical analysis. What I do is planets temperatures comparison.
If you have already obtained a value, please tell!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A, If you have already obtained a value, please tell!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The premise that the climate can be micromanaged is hogwash!
What is goingon is the same processes as in the past. The amount of energy and resources in capturing carbon is a big scam. Any excess carbon dioxide s eventually removed by plants. The fact is these climate “experts” don’t really know what the levels were in the past.
Stanley:
No, apart from the effect of VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions, our climate CAN be micromanaged. The control knob for our temperatures is simply the amount of industrial SO2 aerosols in the troposphere. Increase them, and it cools down. Decrease them, and it warms up.
CO2 has no climatic effect, apart from albedo changes due to its greening of our planet.
See: Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause warming.
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
So, let’s go back to my favorite climate event, the cool-down from 1945 to 1975. According to your statement somehow there was a serious turn-up of industrial activity right at the end of the war, since the temperature change was rather abrupt. Then, with similar drastic changes the SO2 emissions around 1975 were turned down low in all or most industrial countries and temperature increased steadily. Wow!
POTSNIRON:
Between 1945 and 1975, annual Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution levels rose from 45 million tons to 130 million tons, so no surprise that temperatures decreased over that period!
Potsniron,
Trouble is, temperature for 1945 to 1975 rose slightly
https://mega.nz/file/RzNVkaoD#WE2NMseirWVZnP7VO_ySLwVRkBp-k-y1QPFDybyHRtI
and the differential dT/d[A-SO2] is positive, while after 1980, that differential is highly negative. Conclusion, something else, not SO2, is causing the majority of temperature change.
BA:
You are either lying, or incompetent. Temperatures FELL during that period, raising fears of a new Ice Age
Burl, can’t read graphs or do statistics?
BA:
No, you are the one who has problems with graphs, not recognizing one that has been cherry-picked
For your information, HadCRUT5.0 temperatures in 1945 were (+) 0.043 Deg. C. 26 years later, in 1976, they were (-) 0.216 Deg. C, a decrease of (-) 0.259 Deg. C.
(And along the way, in 1964, they were (-) 0.306 Deg. C.).
No warming that I can see.
Burl, “You are either lying, or incompetent.”
You are projecting, and your hypothesis has been disproven, no matter how much you squirm.
The average global temperature rose about 0.1 K over 1945-1975.
BA
Surely, you jest!
0.1 Kelvin = (-) 273 Deg. C
burl,
“No warming that I can see.”
That is because you see what you want to see, and can’t/won’t pay any attention to scientific and mathematical analyses that disprove your hypothesis. I find it hard to believe that you really don’t understand the disproof. I understand why you can’t admit it.
“BA
Surely, you jest!
0.1 Kelvin = (-) 273 Deg. C”
Really, is that the best silly deflection you have?
No, I don’t jest. I said a “rise of 0.1 K”, I said nothing about absolute temperature. If it is not clear to you:
If ΔT = 0.1 K, then ΔT = 0.1 ºC
The temperature rose during the period in question, as I’ve shown by climatic-time-scale analysis. It has much better statistics than your cherry-picked single-years and end-point (lowest in the vicinity). It only shows that you are perfectly willing to cheat to make lame excuses for a failed hypothesis. You are still disproven.
As for “You are either lying, or incompetent.”
You shouldn’t make your projections so obvious.
BA:
“No warming that I can see” I was just looking at the DATA which showed negative temperatures in the interval in which you claim temperatures increased.
Between 1950 and 1980, the global levels of industrial SO2 aerosols, which are reflective and cool the Earth’s lower atmosphere and its surface, continuously increased by 58 MILLION tons, causing enough cooling in the 1970’s to cause fears of a return to another Ice Age.
What is YOUR explanation for the low temperatures experienced at that time?
Burl,
“No, you are the one who has problems with graphs, not recognizing one that has been cherry-picked”
No Burl, I made that graph myself, I understand it perfectly and there is no cherry-picking. It contains the full HADcrut 5.0.2.0 data set that was available at the time, a few months ago. The only thing I did to that data was to apply a 31-point centered running average to see the climatic trend.
Like I said, you don’t understand the graph, perhaps willful ignorance won’t let you. Nonetheless, there was small temperature *increase* over the period, and your hypothesis remains disproven.
BA
So, you can’t explain the cause of the cold temperatures during the 1970’s that led to fears of a new Ice Age!
Warming did not occur until “Clean Air” legislation started reducing the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the troposphere, circa 1980
Burl,
I can explain it, it’s caused by SO2 emissions,
but despite rapid increases, it was the not enough to overcome the rapid (CO2) warming observable 1965-1980, before the SO2 emissions even started to decline. It’s pretty dang simple, SO2 decline causes a warming that is about 10% of that of the GHG warming.
Since you apparently don’t do literature research or make references to said literature, you probably aren’t even aware of that. Bottom line: your hypothesis that A-SO2 explains all recent warming is false, and has been disproven.
BA:
Your comment doesn’t make any sense!
You say “I can explain , it’s caused by SO2 emissions”
Then you say that “despite rapid increases, it was not enough to overcome the rapid (CO2) warming observable 1965-1980, before the SO2 emissions even started to decline”.
In other words, the CO2 warming was so large that it overcame the increasing SO2 cooling, making it impossible for SO2 to have been responsible for the cooling prior to 1980.
So, what caused it?
Regarding CO2 “warming” here is a fact from Stastica.com which you should consider. During the 2019-2020 COVID period, because of reduced industrial activity, the global amount of CO2 emissions fell by 1.7 Billion metric tons, which, according to the CO2 warming hypothesis, should have caused temperatures to decrease. Instead, they rose by .032 Deg. C.
So, If carbon capture were to be attempted, well OVER 1.7 billion metric tons would have to be removed to cause any cooling.
On the other hand, it tells me that warming due to rising CO2 levels is a HOAX, as I have already maintained in several articles.
Burl,
“So, what caused it?”
What is “it”? Do you mean the rapid warming that overtook the slower cooling from A-SO2. If so, it is caused by the unfortunately named, GHE, which physicists have understood for about 200 years, as well as the associated feedbacks that have been generally understood for about 50 years. (too bad you missed the boat on that – it’s quite famous and deeply vetted).
A better name would be the “absorption and re-thermalization of earth’s thermal emissions in the lower troposphere by polyatomic molecules,” AR-TELTPM, maybe non quite as spiffy as GHE.
After an initial question (Are A-SO2 emissions responsible for all recent warming ?), the next step in the scientific method is to do background research; you would have developed a fairly definitive answer if you had done a decent literature search, and you don’t even reference any of the prior results. Another step in the SM is attempting self falsification – If nothing else, it can prevent a lot of embarrassment.
I’m not interested in a continuing a never-ending battle over an already falsified and pseudoscience hypothesis. If anybody cares (which I doubt at this point), feel free to read Burl’s paper and form your own opinion. I already have mine, and it’s not going to change.
Bye bye, Burl
BA:
What is “IT”.
We were speaking of the cause of the cold temperatures of the 1970’s which you said were due to SO2, but then said that the warming due to CO2 overwhelmed the SO2 warming.
So it must have been something else, and I asked what that might be.
And, as usual, you ignored the question.
You also failed to respond to my very telling data about the lack of cooling between 2019 and 2020 when CO2 levels fell by millions of metric tons.
Anther question ignored, because you are incapable of answering it.
I did not ignore your question, I asked you to clarify it. You didn’t. But it became clear – you were asking: “Something was causing the warming to surpass the A-SO2 slow cooling, but Burt doesn’t believe it can be CO2 because he thinks it is a “hoax”, So Burt wants a different explanation for “it”, some other cause of that fast warming.
Here is the detailed answer to “it”. All the known human climate forcings:
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
“It” is dominated by GHG’s doing their GHE thing (top 3 rows)
As said, I am not interested in your farcical denials and personal insults. Go away and hide – read chapter 7 of IPCC ARG WG1, as many times as necessary, until you understand it.
Post the link to your paper as many times as you can, I want people to understand the quality of your work. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem anyone (except me and maybe Dieter) was/is interested in your obviously false single-cause hypothesis.
You hypothesis is still disproven, and your various deflections will not change that.
I very much DISLIKE the change to the blog format.
I dislike it very much too. Hope it is not a permanent change.
Hi, B A!
What is the uncertainty value you have obtained?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
There is not any +33C atmospheric greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface. The currently observed Global Warming is caused by millenials long ORBITALLY FORCED phenomenon.
Christos
5.2% for 2x relative sample standard deviation, for approximately 95% confidence limit.
example: for Earth, you calculated 287.74
287.74 *5.2/100 = 14.96 K,
formatting to 1 digit past uncertainty, including explanatory notation:
Te(calc) = 288 ± 15K (95% c.l.)
Thank you, B A.
“Te(calc) = 288 ± 15K (95% c.l.)”
What is the greenhouse effect then? Is it between 0 and 30 degrees then? Or maybe it is less than 15 degrees?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I already answered that, about 28 K for an unchanged earth except for no atmosphere.
The uncertainty I gave above is a statistical minimum. It does not include systematic errors and mistakes. Considering the various deficiencies and approximations in your hypothesis, the real uncertainty is probably much larger. How much larger, I don’t know. Your calculations are not good enough to say any anything meaningful about “how large is the GHE?”.
Thank you, B A.
There is also Titan with atmosphere.
Titan calculated Tmean = 93,10 K
Titan satellite measured Tsat = 93,7 K
What can be the Titan’s atmospheric greenhouse effect then?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, It says your calculated value without atmosphere is way too high, since Titan has 1.5 times as much atmosphere (“thickness”) as earth, and 5.5% of it is methane. Just like your atmosphere-free calculation for Earth is way too high. As well as having the prior stated statistical uncertainty.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110023012/downloads/20110023012.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20020005863
Thank you, B A.
The New theoretical equation also calculates very much close to the measured the average temperatures of planets and moons which defenitely do not have atmospheres.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No they don’t. I remove earth and titan, and the statistics get worse.
Learn to do your own statistics. But first, would you like statistics on T.sat/Te.corr.
Also, what happened to the data for Ceres and Triton? They are on your graph.
We’ll have to take up Φ again pretty soon – it is bogus and needs to be removed from your hypothesis.
English science hint. “vs” is for teams – use “:” or “/” for a ratio.
Also, please make a table of T.stat and Te.corr, their ratio is not sufficient
Thank you, B A.
Table 1. Comparison of Predicted vs. Measured Temperature for All Planets
°K °K °K
Te.correct Tmean Tsat
Mercury 364,0 325,83 340
Earth 210 287,74 288
Moon 224 223,35 220
Mars 174 213,11 210
Ceres 162,9 236 –
Io 95,16 111,5 110
Europa 78,83 99,56 102
Ganymede 88,59 107,14 110
Calisto 114,66 131,52 134±11
Enceladus 55,97 75,06 75
Tethys 66,55 87,48 86 ± 1
Titan 84,52 93,10 93,7
Pluto 37 41,6 44
Charon 41,90 51,04 53
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A,
“Also, what happened to the data for Ceres and Triton? They are on your graph.”
There are no Tsat measurement for Ceres. I have it on graph on the Tmean calculation.
Triton is on graph approximately, because for Triton it is not possible to define the surface Φ -factor. Because it is not close to margins of Φ =0,47 or Φ =1 , but the value of Φ for Triton is somewhere in between.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Next, repeat the calculation using Φ = 1.0000 for all planets and moons, including Triton and Ceres, i.e., leave it out, it is nonsense.
Include a T(calc) value for Ceres, even if you don’t have T(meas)
(1) The difference between rough and smooth for photons is a few times the wavelength of the light involved. Find a wall painted with flat white paint – can you see an image of yourself? Look at the wall from an acute angle: do you see a specular reflection (image) where you would expect one?
(2) Propagation of electromagnetic radiation fields is not described by viscous fluid dynamics around solid bodies.
(3) Even if this “magic” acceptance factor, based on surface roughness, were real, it would be a continuous function, not a binary choice between endpoints. Unless you know that continuous function, you’d be adding as much as 50% uncertainty to the albedo term.
(4) You quoted a Wiki article “Reflection”: please read the section on “Diffuse Reflection”. There is very little specular reflection in nature, sometimes calm lakes, sometimes mirages over a hot road. Earth’s ocean has enough surface waves of various sizes and turbulence that it is effectively a diffuse reflector, particularly over large areas. You have yet to show me a picture of Earth or any other moon or planet that has an observable specular reflection.
(5) The reduction in intensity is already covered by the albedo term.
(6) Maybe worst, It looks very much like an unjustified ad hoc addition to reduce scatter in your results.
Also, please report as two columns of data: T-calculated and T-measured. And as a favor, since we are writing in English, could you use English notation for numbers: “.” for the decimal point and “,” for the thousands separators. It would be helpful if I didn’t have to do that to all your numbers before I am able to use them.
Thank you, B A.
An English “.” for decimel !
Table 1. Comparison of Predicted vs. Measured Temperature for All Planets
°K °K
Tmean (calc) Tsat (measured)
Mercury 325.83 340.0
Earth 287.74 288.0
Moon 223.35 220.0
Mars 213.11 210.0
Ceres 236.0 –
Io 111.5 110.0
Europa 99.56 102.0
Ganymede 107.14 110.0
Calisto 131.52 134±11
Enceladus 75.06 75.0
Tethys 87.48 86 ± 1
Titan 93.10 93.7
Pluto 41.6 44.0
Charon 51.04 53.0
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Maybe the columns look better this time?
Table 1. Comparison of Predicted vs. Measured Temperature for All Planets
°K °K
Tmean (calc) Tsat (measured)
Mercury 325.83 340.0
Earth 287.74 288.0
Moon 223.35 220.0
Mars 213.11 210.0
Ceres 236.0 –
Io 111.5 110.0
Europa 99.56 102.0
Ganymede 107.14 110.0
Calisto 131.52 134±11
Enceladus 75.06 75.0
Tethys 87.48 86 ± 1
Titan 93.10 93.7
Pluto 41.6 44.0
Charon 51.04 53.0
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Burl,
You’ve already been disproven. If you don’t understand that, its you problem. And now your evidence is a 50-year-old hypothesis that turned out to be wrong, and was never accepted at the time. Other than internal variability, temperature has been steadily increasing since the middle of the 1960s. You are free to continue to tell your lies about 1950-1980. That is what small people do when proven wrong, instead of admitting their mistake. I might suggest keeping quiet – I am perfectly happy to confront the lies, and false personal opinions, as long as you continue to make them.
Mr. Bushaw,
you took a lot of liberty with the running average in your chart. Mine eyes can see with a shorter, like five-year, averaging a clear drop of around 0.1 degree in the 30-year time span. The annual temperature chart itself is confirmed by other sources.https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/surface-temperature-graphics/.
This still does not address the matter of rapid onset and reversal around1945 and 1975. The clean air act of the 70s applies only to the US, but the charts reference global trends.
Looks like the multiple greenhouse influencers of various kinds, the feedbacks and cross-actions, some chaotic types, like clouds and ocean currents, muddy things even more. CO2, water vapor, SO2 and other aerosols, long term cycles, etc. together defy modeling attempts and opinions based on singular attributors.
Mr. Hoecht:
Although the Clean Air Act applies only to the U.S, at the same time various protocols were established in Europe to track and reduce industrial SO2 aerosol emissions (they eventually became so low that they stopped tracking them). Thus. the charts correctly apply to global trends.
Apart from volcanic effects, and seasonal changes, I have NEVER found a global temperature change that was not caused by an increase or decrease in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the troposphere.
You can see whatever you want, I took no liberties. I used a simple 31-year centered running average so that it represents default global climatic periods. It is standard, and generally updated every decade, when referencing recent anomalies.
I’d be glad to do it again with, say, 10 year, averaging. But I won’t pay much attention to what eyeballs see on the timescale of annual internal variability. If I feel like it, I’ll (re)do 10 and 30 with monthly data to minimize inter-annual “illusions”. Also, direct (not running) averages by decade would be interesting.
.
“This still does not address the matter of rapid onset and reversal around1945 and 1975”
It has been addressed, it is post-war-industrialization aerosol increases, which post 1965 (your linked graph), could not keep up with the warming, even though SO2 emissions were increasing until at least 1980. There may be other contributors, e.g. less, and less reliable, measurements during the war years, change over from buckets to cooling intakes for SST measurements. And if the (cherry-picked) 1945 peak is even real, what caused the rising side
Yes, it is certainly a very complex and difficult problem, as you have described. And, I agree, single-cause hypotheses can be viewed as extremely implausible from the get-go.
I would also point out that I did not use 1945 – 1975, that was as a cherry-picked interval from somebody else that was presumably chosen to find (near) local maximum/minimum at the start/end of the period. I used 1950 -1980 because it is climatic period symmetric with 1980-2010, either side of the A-SO2 emissions peak.
Nonetheless, Burl’s hypothesis has been falsified with, as they say, multiple lines of evidence.
BA:
As you know, a WoodForTrees.com graph of average anomalous global temperatures, and your graph, shows many temporary temperature increases and decreases.
Using a printout of HadCRUt5.0 temperatures, I deleted all of the temporary changes due to El Ninos, La Ninas, and American business recessions, and recorded the remaining temperatures for the years 1950-2023
For the period 1954-1976, ALL temperatures were negative, and after 1976 ALL
temperatures were positive.
Thus, your claim that temperatures rose while SO2 aerosols were increasing between 1950 and 1980 is shown to be FALSE, and my “hypothesis” has NOT been refuted.
BA:
“Burl’s hypothesis has been falsified by multiple lines of evidence”
As I have pointed out before, my”hypothesis” is simply that If the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere is reduced, warming naturally occurs, because the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increases.
This is a simple fact that CANNOT be falsified, and you lie when you say that it has been falsified by multiple lines of evidence.
And it has been proven hundreds of times. One of the most direct proofs is that there have been 33 American business recessions between 1857 and 2007. During a recession many foundries, factories, etc. are shut down, with the result that there is less industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere. In EACH instance, average anomalous global temperatures have temporarily risen, some of them causing enough warming to rise to the level of an El Nino.
Dietrich, the sun plays a larger role than the homocentric climate models allow, and you can’t get much simpler than my model.
https://github.com/bobf34/GlobalWarming/blob/main/hybridmodel.md
The model outputs have been shifted to account for earth’s delayed response. All of the predictions are causal without the shift. The core model, a 99-year moving average, predicts about 13 years into the future. We entered a slight cooling phase in 2016 that I expect to continue based on historical sunspot data.
Predictions prior to 1900 are less accurate for several reasons including: less accurate sunspot data prior to 1800, and less accurate temperature data prior to 1900. Otherwise, the model has done a good job of predicting global temperature for over 120 years.
I’ve also made a spreadsheet version for those that don’t want to look at Python code.
http://localartist.org/media/SunspotPredictionExcel.xlsx
Robert, I was about to say: “Seems the sunshine boys have stayed out of this fiasco of collection of single-cause hypotheses.”
I admit it, I was wrong about that.
Burl,
Yes, “everyone” knows A-SO2 reductions cause less cooling (apparent warming). Almost everyone also knows it is a smaller effect than CO2 (< 20%).
I will remind you of your title:
“Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
and conclusion:
“Analysis of the role of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere has shown that their reduction is responsible for all of the warming that has occurred since 1980, and that CO2 can have no climatic effect.”
I have no problem with aerosol cooling (and you are deflecting); I do have a problem with your analysis, cherry-picking, focalism, and claims like those made above. At least we have them memorialized in “print” with a DOI number.
Your most recent description of your hypothesis:
“As I have pointed out before, my”hypothesis” is simply that If the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere is reduced, warming naturally occurs, because the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface increases.”
Seems like an out-out lie, considering what you just published (above). I guess, I’ll take that as burl’s way of admitting that he was wrong.
BA:
“Almost everyone knows that it is a smaller effect than CO2 (<20%)"
No, its effect FAR surpasses that of CO2. The IPCC diagram of radiative forcings shows no positive forcing for the warming caused by the decrease of polluting aerosols in the atmosphere, instead attributing it to CO2, which has no climatic effect. The attribution for CO2 is actually for SO2!
And I do not understand what you are talking about. My comments above are exactly what is published in my DOI, just a shorter version.
Burl,[misplaced response]
https://judithcurry.com/2024/11/13/the-climate-case-of-the-century/#comment-1012725
In my country – Greece – we are blessed, mostly in summers, with plenty of sun and with plenty of wind.
And, it happens in summers, because of the hot and humid climate, there is the most electricity demand. The high electricity demand meets the peak of electricity production.
So everyone is happy then.
When the electricity demand in Greece lowers – at autumn and winter time, there also is less the solar and wind electricity production.
Yet, in winter there are times there is very little solar energy available, and wind is much weaker, especially in colder nights.
No problem, says the IPCC – you will have your storage batteries to support your electricity needs. The storage batteries will supply the necessary electric energy for houses heating, for the transportation, and for the factories etc…
Very-well, the problem is solved then!
But, there is always something I need to clear up. How those electricity storage batteries are going to be charged?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You are right, this looks like a half-baked idea.
Thank you, George.
Because at the times they are needed to be charged, at those times there is by renewables electric energy production (solar and wind) a great deficiency.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Maybe Saudi will build solar and wind arrays, and sell you electricity.
Mr. Bushaw,
with the pick of a 31-year running average you smoothed out the graph to the point it makes your point irrelevant. It might make sense if you try to present something over several centuries, since 30 years is a generally recognized significant climate related span, rather than one obscured by weather events. Smoothing is supposed to give a trend picture without the peaky ripples. You just wiped out a cooling period for whatever reason by picking 31 years. I submit that using ten years is still obfuscating.
I submit that you confuse internal variations with climatic trends. Thanks anyway.
It will be interesting to observe the inevitable societal impacts and the consequential political and economic impacts and outcomes In the Western World of the EU being first and last to fall down and climb out of down the global warming alarmist rabbit hole compared to the US being the last to adopt the pseudo science of the climate change hoax and first to appreciate anew the benefits of modernity made possible by abundant energy and the power of free enterprise capitalism.
The fix for Western academia’s catastrophic greenhouse effect conjecture that the Western World should abandon industrialization, forsake modernity and prevent the developing nations from modernizing while at the same time taking in an unlimited number of unskilled Illegal immigrants from around the world has been a bullet to the head.
Thank you, Christos [thread restart]
Triton is still missing, use Φ =1, for reasons already explained.
“(Tsat.planet.1) /(Tsat.planet.2) =
[ (N1*cp1) /(N2*cp2) ]^ 1/16”
Is this the equation you used for calculating the various Tsat or for determining or β?
————
Test: use “backslash-t” to align columns
adf;jh\tsadp\t;jkrwt
123.45\t249.7\t0.0021
adf;jh\tsadp\t;jkrwt
123.45\t249.7\t0.0021
adf;jh/tsadp/t;jkrwt
123.45\t249.7\t0.0021
adfjh 	 sadp jkrwt
,/pre/
Sorry for the above, just unsuccessfully trying to figure out tab alignment, if available, here.
Thank you, B A.
Let’s take it step by step.
“(1) The difference between rough and smooth for photons is a few times the wavelength of the light involved. Find a wall painted with flat white paint – can you see an image of yourself? Look at the wall from an acute angle: do you see a specular reflection (image) where you would expect one?”
No, you do not see your image on a wall. Also, when you see your image in a mirror outdoors in a sunny day, you do not see the reflection of sun.
The mirror should be oriented such so the angle looks at the sun, and then the mirror is blinding.
The same with the not perfectly smooth surfaces, like painted flat surfaces etc.
The light is scattered more from those surfaces, but there is always a strong directional constituent, because the light from sun js a diffuse light ( but because of the source’s tremendous distance appears as a directional incidence to the viewers point ).
Thus, the reflection, no matter how much it is scattered, the reflection is also directional.
This directional constituent is much-much stronger from the smooth surface planets and moons, and it is not measured in planetary Albedo, because it is not seen by the satellite’s sensors.
Thus, for the smooth surface planets and moons the measured planetary Albedo cannot be concidered as the Bond Albedo.
(2) Propagation of electromagnetic radiation fields is not described by viscous fluid dynamics around solid bodies.
No, it is not described.
(3) Even if this “magic” acceptance factor, based on surface roughness, were real, it would be a continuous function, not a binary choice between endpoints. Unless you know that continuous function, you’d be adding as much as 50% uncertainty to the albedo term.
Yes,
******
In the billions of years of their existence, planets and moons surfaces were subjected to natural influences (which were different for every planet and moon). Those continuous influences had developed either the smooth surface pattern, or the heavy cratered (rough surface) pattern.
There is not a 100% smooth surface planet or a 100% smooth surface moon.
And when we say a 100% smooth surface, what we mean by that is that the incident EM energy flux interacts with matter in a single one-touch strike.
When, for theoretical reasons, we consider a 100% smooth surface planet or a 100% smooth surface moon, then we (only theoretically), then we are dealing with the EM energy one-touch strike on the matter.
And when one-touch striking the matter, part of the incoming EM energy gets (“absorbed”), and part gets specularly reflected.
The reflection’s outcome is a directional EM energy flux, but it has weakened, compared to the incoming incident solar EM energy flux, because some of the incident EM energy being (“absorbed”).
When solar flux strikes a real planetary surface, it is not a one-touch interaction with matter process.
The directional (because of the large distance) EM energy flux from the sun, when interacting with planetary surface matter is subjected to multiple tiny specular reflections, as the EM energy first gets scattered upon the surface’s matter.
And the macroscopic outcome is the outgoing diffuse reflection, “in which light is scattered away from the surface in a range of directions.”
What we observe, when solar flux interacts with planetary surface’s matter, what we observe as the macroscopic outcome is the surface’s the diffuse reflection – it is what we see from some distance when looking at that surface. And that diffuse reflection is measured and determined as Planetary Albedo.
But, for smooth surface planets and moons (not 100% smooth), for those planets and moons there is also a strong directional constituent, because it originates from the incoming solar flux’s EM energy, which enters from the opposite direction.
Thus,
for planets and moons with smooth surface, the surface’s specular reflection is not negligible.
The smooth surface planets and moons have a very strong the surface’s specular reflection.
The specular reflection is not included in albedo.
So we had (for those planets and moons with smooth surface, and, therefore, with surface’s strong specular reflection), we had to correct their respective the planet effective temperature Te.
Thus, for Earth, the Te =255K, when corrected, became Te.correct =210K.
********
It is a continuous function, yes. But we do a binary choice between endpoints. And yes, about ” you’d be adding as much as 50% uncertainty to the albedo term”.
But we also have the Rotational Warming Plenomenon, which helps to confirm the correctnes of every choice.
(4) You quoted a Wiki article “Reflection”: please read the section on “Diffuse Reflection”. There is very little specular reflection in nature, sometimes calm lakes, sometimes mirages over a hot road. Earth’s ocean has enough surface waves of various sizes and turbulence that it is effectively a diffuse reflector, particularly over large areas. You have yet to show me a picture of Earth or any other moon or planet that has an observable specular reflection.
Yes, “You have yet to show me a picture of Earth or any other moon or planet that has an observable specular reflection.”
I have some photos in my site of a very much strong specular reflections from the sea.
In Greece the traditional villages are situated at the Southern sides of hills in front of the open sea areas, or in front of open plein land areas.
When at winter the sun moves lower in the sky, the reflection comes at the convinient angle, and it is an additional warming source. Those villages are warmer in winter. Also, as the reflection comes from beneath, it gets under the shelters and through the windows to the ceilings.
(5) The reduction in intensity is already covered by the albedo term.
Energy in = Φ(1 – a)S
The smooth surface planets and moons have Φ very close to the
Φ =0,47
And the rough surface planets and moons have Φ very close to
Φ =1
(6) Maybe worst, It looks very much like an unjustified ad hoc addition to reduce scatter in your results.
Maybe it looks like, but it isn’t, is it?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Lambert’s cosine law is not all that directional, with a FWHM of 60 degrees.
When those so-called microscopic specular reflections go in all different directions, they are diffuse.
In my opinion, with the given explanations: you’re wrong, but you can’t accept it. So I guess we stop here. Good luck.
B A, please explain this:
” For example, if the moon were a Lambertian scatterer, one would expect to see its scattered brightness appreciably diminish towards the terminator due to the increased angle at which sunlight hit the surface. The fact that it does not diminish illustrates that the moon is not a Lambertian scatterer, and in fact tends to scatter more light into the oblique angles than a Lambertian scatterer.”
(emphasis added)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert%27s_cosine_law
Simple, it is false. Did you bother to search for pictures of the moon’s terminator?
https://cdn.britannica.com/23/76823-050-68A62995/pole-images-mosaic-spacecraft-Moon-Galileo-north-December-7-1992.jpg
Here is a parting gift:
“Estimation of the sunglint radiance field from optical satellite imagery over open ocean: Multidirectional approach and polarization aspects” JGR Oceans,
24 January 2013 https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JC008221
Guess you must have missed this in all your background literature searches.
B A, it is a good picture of moon’s terminator. Please look at the terminator.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I already did. It shows a diffuse decay from light into darkness, Not, the so-called “fact” that the transition is abrupt. – that is visibly false. And no, no specular reflection.
I tire of your deflections, your formulation for phi is incorrect. You wanted my help, but you won’t fix anything. learn to do your own literature research and calculations. I’m no longer interested. Have fun with your ideas.
Bruce
Hi, B A!
“I already did. It shows a diffuse decay from light into darkness, Not, the so-called “fact” that the transition is abrupt. – that is visibly false. And no, no specular reflection.”
–
No, there is not a diffuse decay from light into darkness.
Here it is another – a better picture – of the Moon. The picture confirms “that the moon is not a Lambertian scatterer”.
Link:
https://britastro.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/styles/astrophoto_panel_large/public/member_images/MoonFinal.jpg
Christos,
Yes, it, like the higher resolution picture I presented, shows the same decay to darkness that we see every sunset or sunrise, it’s called twilight.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-moon-planet-terminator-line-twilight-zone/
See the second picture.
There is still no specular reflection, and you are deflecting. If you are so willfully ignorant that it affects your eyes as well as thought processes, it’s your problem. At this point I realize it, like your hypothesis, is unfixable, and I no longer care to answer all your desperate deflections.
Thank you, B A.
“There is still no specular reflection, ”
The 100 % pure specular reflection happens at infinitasimal scale the EM energy /matter interaction proces.
The diffuse reflection is the macroscopic result we see, and the diffuse reflection is not a 100 % isotropic.
For smooth surface planets and moons there always is a strong directional constituent reflecting in the opposite angle of incident on the surface light.
That reflection constituent cannot be seen by the satellite’s sensor, thus it is not measured as reflected SW EM energy, and therefore the planetary radiative balance is estimated as to be much-much higher.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“…how different is the Left from religious fundamentalists who invade, tear down, deface and destroy the heritage and historical artifacts of a culture to erase and rewrite the past?”
Consider adding: “who are largely antisemitic”.
It’s not different, you’re describing the tactics of anti-capitalist, anti-democratic, pro-collectivist cult brand.
The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, much of the EU is nodding. Does this suggest Chairman Xi is next on ICC’s list for his persecution of Chinese Uyghurs—concentration camps, human organ harvesting, etc.? No, because collectivism is globally simpatico—protective of the fundamental ideology.
Which of these hypotheses is correct?
All recent warming can be explained by a single (predominant) cause, which is:
[1] Changes in SO2 emissions
[2] Inverse Milankovitch cycles
[3] Human additions to the water cycle
[4] Changes in the sun’s output power
[5] none of the above
https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/15/letter-to-the-dragon-slayers/
After 13 years, I expect most of those left are of the 2nd persuasion.
With reference to Earth, the Sun… it rose just a few hours ago.
The best evidence is the full-moon observation. When at full-moon, we see Moon as a homogenous disk, and not as a spherical object, because the moon is not a Lambertian scatterer.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wags, I guess that must be part of the “Etc.” Thanks!
Christos, That is, as usual, backwards and silly, the full moon is the one place you can’t see the terminator. Everywhere else, particularly in high resolution photographs, the shading from light-to-dark or dark-to-light. E.g., the quarter moon:
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/Mn8EAPUzF9k8NQfXdC35N6-650-80.jpg.webp
Additionally, It is clear that the surface is not “smooth” on a macroscopic scale (I like the many craters with focused “splash-back” mountains or volcanoes at the center), or microscopically; no specular reflection, not even at low incidence:
https://freenaturestock.com/wp-content/uploads/freenaturestock-1963.jpg
Your illusion of equal brightness is well understood, but I guess you didn’t bother to do the background research, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert%27s_cosine_law
and look for the subsection “Details of equal brightness effect”.
Wags, The sun doesn’t rise, the constantly illuminated Earth rotates.
Clint, Can you enumerate those “first principles” that you have used to reach your conclusion?
Well BA, the first one deals with temperature, which I tried to explain to you a few days ago. But, you couldn’t understand the basics. You got frustrated and started slinging nonsense and false accusations.
Science just isn’t for some people.
Thank you, B A.
“Your illusion of equal brightness is well understood, but I guess you didn’t bother to do the background research, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert%27s_cosine_law
and look for the subsection “Details of equal brightness effect”.”
Of course, I am looking, because it is a very important issue.
What I see is that it refers to a flat surface area, which is observed from different angles.
That flat surface area is illuminated by the same amount of solar energy – for any number of observers it is the same amount.
Also, the observer is close enough to the surface, so it is, and it appears as a flat surface.
Now, an observer from a large distance (Earth – Moon), the observer from Earth looks at different areas of the illuminated lunar surface and sees an equal brightness phenomenon.
From the same source:
“if the moon were a Lambertian scatterer, one would expect to see its scattered brightness appreciably diminish towards the terminator due to the increased angle at which sunlight hit the surface. The fact that it does not diminish illustrates that the moon is not a Lambertian scatterer, and in fact tends to scatter more light into the oblique angles than a Lambertian scatterer.”
(emphasis added)
The pictures you provided are wonderfull. But they are exactly the high resolution – they are close-up pictures.
What we see in those pictures is the exact illumination they have. They appear as almost flat illuminated areas, like the one on the subsection “Details of equal brightness effect”.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
The FACT is that the terminator DOES show a gradual decline in scattered intensity (look at the effing pictures), in accordance with spherical geometric expectations. It is not a fact that the terminator makes an abrupt change, and logically, if an opening statement is false, what ever else follows (your bold) doesn’t matter. Also, the “fact” that you “see” approximately equal intensity across the full moon’s “disk” is actually confirmation of the Lambertian scattering by the moon.
And no, high-resolution has nothing to do with how close you are to an object – ya know, telescopes – it has to do with how much detail you can see. I understand why you wish to dismiss detailed pictures, but you failed, once again.
Clint, Just as I thought, you can’t name them. Thanks anyway.
Sorry BA, but I have learned not to waste time with your ilk.
Here’s just one example of your immaturity: “You must be one of those people that believes repeating the exact same lie over and over again, magically makes it come true. Must say though, you are a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger mixed with illusory superiority. Sicko, and too dumb to know it.”
I’ll be glad to teach you when, if, you grow up.
Mr. R.,
Thanks for continuing to make it clear that you don’t know any first principles. And, that you suffer from illusory superiority (and Dunning-Kruger still holds). You haven’t explained anything yet, and I really doubt that you’ll be able to do so in the future. “Hey dude, it’s “first principles”, but if you don’t know which ones I mean, I can’t help, because I don’t know which ones I mean either.” Thanks for that.
BA, the reason you feel compelled to insult and falsely accuse is because you have NO science. You’re unable to show how CO2’s 15µ photons can raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature, yet you BELIEVE that can happen. You have swallowed falsehoods from charlatans like Mann, Gore, and Greta. Now, realizing that you’ve been tricked, you get mad at me!
Grow up, and learn some science.
There is no viable hypothesis for a “single cause” for “all recent warming”. Even the HTE is transitory.
But we know from First Principles of physics that CO2’s 15µ photons can not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
Of course not.
Sorry, Christos,
That is not what you say elsewhere. You have said that reversed Milankovitch cycles must be responsible, because the results of your inadequate and incorrect hypothesis (which you will not correct) does not have “room” for a significant GHE. LMAO
Rejection of FoE’s “go green or go extinct” rhetoric is a start. Blaming the burning of fossil fuels for average global temperature increase is a mistake. Paleo data shows that CO2 has no significant net effect on climate. In the bulk atmosphere, water vapor molecules have been increasing more than 3 times faster than CO2 molecules; more than 5 times faster at the surface. Since before 1988 WV has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just average global temperature increase. The human contribution to the ‘extra’ WV is about 90 % from increasing irrigation. The WV increase can account for all of the human contribution since before 1900. Supporting analyses are at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and documents referenced therin.
Sure Dan. What is the percentage of water vapor increase compared to CO2 increase. What is the effective warming capacity of an H20 molecule compared to a CO2 molecule? (more than 20 times lower). What is the difference between a forcing and a feedback? Your claims are bunk misrepresentations of known science.
Bushaw: You should be able to understand that CHANGE depends on what is being added now, not the % increase of the totals.
Your assertion that effectiveness of a CO2 molecule is 20 times higher than a WV molecule is not relevant in the atmosphere, even if true. WV can radiate to space from an altitude as low as about 2 km while CO2 does not radiate to space until the tropopause and above. See Fig 1.5 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com , Fig 12 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and the calculation of average global temperature change as explained at Sect 17 thru 19 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
The human contribution to warming can be explained by water vapor increase, the rate of which increased substantially around 1960 (Fig 6 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com ) as did human population. WV increase has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. It has averaged about 1.4 % per decade and is explained about 90 % by irrigation increase which caused an increase in residence time (Sect 12).
I wonder how long it will be until you understand this stuff well enough that you won’t feel the need for acceptance of an analysis by others (peer review) before you will seriously examine it.
Here is what CO2 radiation can do:
jim2, did you know there are people that believe a CO2 laser is “proof” that atmospheric CO2 can “heat the planet”?
That’s why this is so much fun.
Not proof, evidence. He who knows so much about how science works. LOL
The sun rose and it got hotter, ceteris paribus…
Interestingly, the surface of a sphere, like the Earth, that is heated by an external source, like the Sun, gets hotter if the surface of the sphere, the Earth, rotates faster. Over the last 50 years, Earth has been rotating faster–scientists say, e g., these are the shortest days since 1960. Those milliseconds bound up!
Thank you, B A.
” That gleam is caused by sunglint, an optical phenomenon that occurs when sunlight reflects off the surface of water at the same angle that a satellite sensor views it. The result is a mirror-like specular reflection of sunlight off the water and back at the satellite sensor or astronaut.”
(emphasis added)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84333/the-science-of-sunglint
at the same angle that a satellite sensor views it
Φ – is for angles that satellite sensor doesn’t view it !!
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Also,
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/84000/84333/crete_amo_2014184_lrg.jpg
So what. That is wavelet sunglitter – it is diffuse coming from a rather small spot on the earth and only occurs at a specific angle and when the wind is blowing. I already gave you a detailed reference for the effect. Read! Understand it!
Let me make myself clear, I am no longer interested in your continual whataboutism deflections. If you make a serious effort to fix your hypothesis, maybe I’ll pay attention. If you demonstrate that you can do your own statistics, maybe I’ll pay attention. When you understand the nature of light-matter interactions, maybe I’ll pay attention. When you can provide a plausible physical causality for your hypothesis, maybe I’ll pay attention. If you can do these things, if I still play on CE and look at your comments, maybe I’ll pay attention.
Yes, the entire climate science community, thousands of scientists, are making this simple basic error.
They are making this simple basic error.
What they actually do is to consider for all the planets and moons (for the rough surface ones, and for the smooth surface ones) the average surface Albedo as a Bond Albedo.
We have the NASA satellite measured for planets and moons their respective, the precisely measured, the average surface temperatures (Tsat) and the average surface Albedo (a).
Also we use as a method, the planet temperatures comparison.
Lets see:
For Mercury a =0,068 Te =440K Te.correct =364K Tsat =340K.
The Mercury’s very small Albedo doesn’t explain the
Te – Tsat = 440K -340K = 100C very large difference.
For Moon a =0,11 Te =270,4K Te,correct =223K Tsat =220K.
The Moon’s very small Albedo, also, doesn’t explain the
Te – Tsat = 270,4K -220K = 50,4C very large difference.
For Mars a =0,250 Te =209,4 Te.correct =174K Tsat =210K.
For Mars, the Albedo a =0,250 doesn’t explain the
Te – Tsat = 209,4 -210K = -0,6K very small difference.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos:
“Yes, the entire climate science community, thousands of scientists, are making this simple basic error.
They are making this simple basic error.
What they actually do is to consider for all the planets and moons (for the rough surface ones, and for the smooth surface ones) the average surface Albedo as a Bond Albedo”.
LMAO – you are the one making the simple basic error:
The Bond albedo is correct. It includes all light reflected back to space, both diffuse and specular.
https://www.britannica.com/science/albedo
“The Bond albedo is a value strictly between 0 and 1, as it includes all possible scattered light (but not radiation from the body itself).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
“Albedo” alone usually refers to measured Bond albedo. If you have some other idea of albedo, e.g. geometric, it has to be specified.
Again, your rationalization for Φ, fails.
If you can’t get past it, you won’t get anywhere.
Thank you B A.
“LMAO – you are the one making the simple basic error:
The Bond albedo is correct. It includes all light reflected back to space, both diffuse and specular.
The Bond Albedo is the fraction of power in the total electromagnetic radiation incident on an astronomical body that is scattered back out into space.”
–
Because the Bond albedo accounts for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles, it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs.
This, in turn, is crucial for determining the equilibrium temperature of a body.
The planetary Bond Albedo is measured by satellites.
There are two types of reflection – the diffuse reflection and the specular reflection.
The specular reflection part in Bond Albedo is commonly considered so much insignificant, that the definition of Bond Albedo is limited to the diffusely reflected ratio.
Thus, for planets and moons with smooth surface, their STRONG SPECULAR REFLECTION is being neglected.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Albedo is measured using albedometers, which consist of two back-to-back mounted pyranometers. The upper sensor measures the incoming global solar radiation and the lower one measures the solar radiation reflected from the surface(s) below. Dividing the obtained value from lower sensor by that from the upper one obtains the value of the albedo at a certain location and time [6].
Albedo is measured using albedometers, which consist of two back-to-back mounted pyranometers.
Christos – in your formula “albedo” only occurs once. My understanding is that it acts the same during daytime and nighttime. Why can you measure it only at daytime?
Albedo
“Albedo (/ælˈbiːdoʊ/; from Latin albedo ‘whiteness’) is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body. It is measured on a scale from 0 (corresponding to a black body that absorbs all incident radiation) to 1 (corresponding to a body that reflects all incident radiation).”
–
“is the fraction of sunlight that is diffusely reflected by a body.”
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Christos:
“The specular reflection part in Bond Albedo is commonly considered so much insignificant, that the definition of Bond Albedo is limited to the diffusely reflected ratio.”
_____
No, the definition of Bond albedo does not change according to your desires. Sorry, I can tell from the grammar and the lack of quantitation, that you made that up all by yourself. Perhaps you are a common thinker, but NASA isn’t (you know, the people that actually make the albedo measurement). Their definition is the Bond definition.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/glossary/albedo.html
I repeat, your rationalization for Φ, fails.
If you can’t get past it, you won’t get anywhere. (see, you’re still stuck).
Try to refute this one too: None of the planets or moons are smooth. Your definition is apparently tied to your personal perception, not the perception of the incident photons.
Christos:
your reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
read beyond the first sentence.
go to the list of Bond albedos.
You claim the NASA values are missing something that is included. And you’re getting pretty desperate about it.
I repeat, your rationalization for Φ, fails.
“Because light specularly reflected from water does not usually reach the viewer, water is usually considered to have a very low albedo in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.”
(emphasis added)
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
Here it is the key point:
“… in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.
(early morning, late afternoon, and near the poles)
Sun shines on the Globe all the time. At every given moment there is only one point on the Globe where the angle of incidence is zero.
And, at every given moment there are always the high angles of incident light on the Globe.
So, every given moment the most of the Globe’s surface area is at high angles of incident light.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Please, also visit the “Φ =0,47 and FRESNEL” page in my site.
Link: Φ = 0,47 and FRESNEL | cristos-vournas.com
The Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819/448587170
Can we measure albedo at night by the outgoing IR radiation?
The corruption of the official thermometers due to the urban heat island effect (UHI) oftentimes points to locations of official devices, including such perfidious disasters as placement next to A/C ducts or blacktop parking lots. The simple fact of the matter is, there’s so many additional surfaces in an urban environment that are heated compared to natural landscape that comprises more than 99% of the rest of the non-urbanized world. Facing facts, it is simply impossible to rationally correct for having located official thermometers at airports in France, for example, dangling in the exhaust of jets idling on snow swept asphalt and concrete runways, surrounded by a countryside covered in snow. And what good are supposed corrections even if earnestly undertaken for obvious good cause when the revisions always end up changing the original official record upward or losing it altogether when it does not support the official narrative of a Hot World global warming disaster in the offing?
“The inconvenient truth remains,” according to Philip Stott, that “climate is the most complex, coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system known.”
Wagathon:
You quoted Philip Stott, who said “climate is the most complex, coupled, nonlinear chaotic system known”
No, its control knob is simply the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, from either volcanic eruptions or human activity. Increase their levels, and it cools down. Decrease them, and it warms up. Complete correlation!
causing… cooling?
Wagathon:
“causing…cooling?
Yes, whenever their level in the atmosphere increases, as after a a volcanic eruption, or increased industrial activity.
Burl, “complete correlation” – LOL – show us your calculations that show R^2 =1.000000. More meaningless and unquantified hand waving. Go get ’em Burl – I bet everyone believes you – LOL.
Just to make things clear, here are the correlation coefficients for the most important global temperature forcings:
CO₂: R² = 0.90
CH₄: R² = 0.78
SO₂: R² = 0.27
Each of these is found by assuming that its forcing is the only cause of temperature change (the focalist contrarian’s so-called “control knob”), as Burl does for SO₂, and then simply calculating the correlation with temperature change. It’s not that difficult. I did this over the period 1900-2022, not Burl’s cherry-picked range of 1980, where global SO2 emission start declining, and temperature is going up: With that cherry-picked region, it is very easy to mistake the 5-10% change from decreasing SO2 for the warming from CO2 (actually CO2e).
As we all (should) know, correlation does not mean causation; however, a low correlation shows that the proposed causation is not correct or not correctly described. Again, Burl, your hypothesis has been disproven by somebody who actually knows how to do statistical analysis of real world physical data. Get over it – you don’t know what you are doing; not formulating a hypothesis, not testing it adequately, and certainly not writing it up properly.
A little advice for mechanical and electrical engineers trying to become post-retirement hobby climate scientists: Don’t! You’ll most likely make a fool of yourself – maybe try fishing or golf.
BA:
My “cherry -picked ” range of 1980 to the present was selected for analysis because the idea of climate change due “greenhouse gas” warming did not happen until after Dr. James Hansen’s presentation to Congress on June 23, 1988.
SO2 aerosol levels began declining about 8 years earlier, and temperatures began rising as the air became cleaner, having risen from 0.196 Deg. C. in 1980, to 0.282 Deg. C., in 1988.
However, Dr. Hansen attributed the warming to the “greenhouse effect” (without any proof), and thereafter everyone accepted that our warming was due to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Warming due to decreasing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere is INEVITABLE, but this FACT is totally ignored, and the warming is instead wrongly attributed to rising CO2 levels.
And because of this wrong attribution, Western Nations, and Australia/NZ are destroying their economies because of the HOAX!
BA:
You continually fault me for Cherry-picking the climate record by selecting the period from 1980 and on.
This is intentional, since temperatures began to rise at that time, and it has been blamed on both rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, and falling levels of SO2 aerosol pollution of the troposphere.
With respect to rising CO2 levels, they were not blamed for any warming until after 1988.
Because temperatures began increasing after 1980, on July 23 of 1988, Dr. James Hansen made a presentation to Congress where he attributed the warming to the “greenhouse effect” (but with no proof), saying that temperatures now were higher than at any other time in the history of the 100 year instrumental temperature record (0.282 Deg. C).
As a result, warming due to rising levels CO2 in the atmosphere became widely accepted as being true, largely because CO2 levels, as measured at the Mauna Loa observatory, were rising at essentially the same rate that temperatures were rising (although, as is well known, correlation is not necessarily causation).
However, at the same time, annual levels of Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution continued to decrease, dropping from 135 million tons in 1988 to 73 million tons in 2022, a decrease of 62 million tons.
Warming due to decreased levels of atmospheric aerosol pollution is INEVITABLE, but this warming is completely ignored by everyone, and instead is attributed to rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In reality, CO2 has NO climatic effect, apart from some albedo decrease because of its greening of our planet.
Because of the wrong attribution, the Western nations and Australia/NZ are destroying their economies because of this HOAX!
And continued decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution will guarantee even more temperature increases, and even wilder weather!
Curiosity not consensus is what opens up myriad possibilities. It is skepticism that gives value to science and is what separates true seekers of truth from government-funded science authoritarian climate change fearmongers.
More failed predictions:
Christos, the ocean’s surface isn’t smooth. NASA and their data use Bond Albedo. Get over it. Your Φ is nonsense, and making it a binary choice between a “smooth” and a “rough” objects, that vary by more than a factor of 2, turns it into total garbage. Not to mention, that despite your denial, it is clearly an ad hoc attempt to make your data fit better (and it’s still not very good).
So many learned and earnest comments this way and that. Leaving me bewildered.
Tell me: has anyone/anyside won the argument? Made the point?
In which what was it? What is the result?
. Is the planet warming?
. Is there anything humans can to to affect the planet’s temperature, up or down?
Up has been easy. We’ll have to see about down, up isn’t even slowing (yet).
Arthur, you’re hitting on some of the problems.
Your last two questions are easily answered:
. Is the planet warming? –All sides agree there is warming since about 1970. Some believe the warming is due to CO2, while others believe the warming is natural.
. Is there anything humans can do to affect the planet’s temperature, up or down? –There are probably some things that would have a temporary effect, but not CO2.
As to who “won the argument”, this issue should be about science, and only about science. But unfortunately, it is not. The issue is about political agenda. Too many people are ignorant of the relevant science. Most people don’t even understand what “temperature” is, let alone what it takes to raise temperature.
“Some believe the warming is due to CO2, while others believe the warming is natural”.
Trouble is, those that think the warming is natural are in complete disagreement about the cause, and are just throwing spaghetti at the wall.
For those interested to know: The way temperature is raised is:
ΔT = Q/(m*c_p)
(Change in temperature = energy added to the system, divided by the product of the system mass and specific heat capacity).
It ain’t that difficult
Thanks for quoting me correctly, BA.
But you forgot to include: “Too many people are ignorant of the relevant science.”
However, you were quick to prove me right. You do not understand the relevant science. You do not understand that the “Q” in that equation is “heat”. So, if Q is zero, as in no heat transfer, then ΔT is also zero.
For example, If you add two glasses of water together, both at 40º, you just have the same temperature, 40º. Your “climate science” implies you would get 80º, since you have “added energy”. You don’t understand thermodynamics.
That’s why CO2’s 15µ photons can not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature.
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
Heat is an energy flux. When the flux stops, there has been an increase of energy within the flux receiver.
“You do not understand that the “Q” in that equation is “heat”. So, if Q is zero, as in no heat transfer, then ΔT is also zero.”
You do not understand that Q is energy delivered by an energy flux and converted to internal kinetic energy
More exactly, Q = U – W: If work is done, only the remaining energy causes a temperature change.
If Q increases by 0.083 eV (one 15 micron photon) then ΔT also
“For example, If you add two glasses of water together, both at 40º, you just have the same temperature, 40º. Your “climate science” implies you would get 80º, since you have “added energy”. You don’t understand thermodynamics.”
Are you really that dense? In the temperature equation, you have doubled the heat content and doubled the mass, the temperature remains the same – in agreement with common sense.
I understand thermodynamics better than you ever will (PhD in physics – how about you?). The temperature equation is pretty dang simple, but you obviously are not able to interpret it correctly.
I do appreciate all your demonstrations of ignorance – thanks for that, Richard.
A lot of rambling there BA. But, you’re missing the point, which proves me right.
“Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from a “hot” to a “cold”. All energy is not “heat”. Once again, you don’t understand thermodynamics. You’re trying to claim adding energy always results in a higher temperature. But, the simple analogy of adding two glasses of water proves you wrong.
Keep proving me right. I don’t mind.
“A lot of rambling there BA. But, you’re missing the point, which proves me right.”
“Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from a “hot” to a “cold”. All energy is not “heat”. Once again, you don’t understand thermodynamics. You’re trying to claim adding energy always results in a higher temperature. But, the simple analogy of adding two glasses of water proves you wrong.
Keep proving me right. I don’t mind.”
CR: “A lot of rambling there BA. But, you’re missing the point, which proves me right.”
There is no proof in science, there is only evidence; and what little you provide is incorrect.
“Keep proving me right. I don’t mind.”
I mind, you keep repeating the same old HS, and are a waste of time.
A lot of rambling there BA. But, you’re missing the point, which proves me right.
“Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from a “hot” to a “cold”. All energy is not “heat”. Once again, you don’t understand thermodynamics. You’re trying to claim adding energy always results in a higher temperature. But, the simple analogy of adding two glasses of water proves you wrong.
Keep proving me right. I don’t mind.
““Heat” is the transfer of thermal energy from a “hot” to a “cold”.”
That’s why it is called a thermal flux and it is covered by the second law of TD.
All energy is not “heat”.
That is correct, but all energy can be converted to heat, e.g., nuclear or absorbed photons. Photons have no mass and thus no thermodynamic temperature, but their energy can certainly east things.
“You’re trying to claim adding energy always results in a higher temperature. But, the simple analogy of adding two glasses of water proves you wrong”.
I already explained it to you: 2Q/2m = Q/m, the temperature stays.
You don’t get to say what I’m claiming, particularly when you are falsely assigning Thermodynamic Law violations to me, when you are the one making them. I’m claiming that adding energy, without adding mass, i.e., photons, to a body will increase its energy. It’s all down hill from there – sorry that you don’t get it. Along those lines, your education is becoming apparent the more you expose your self: working from a list of talking points, often false, and associated silly anecdotes, that you don’t quite understand and are not able to defend the physics thereof.
Bye, Mr. R
Poor BA seems to have lost his way.
No, Mr. R, It seems I have you pegged, and finally you have nothing left to show but your ignorance.
Arthur Brogard:
First, you need to know that the Control Knob for Earth’s temperatures is imply the amount of Sulfur Dioxide aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, from either volcanic eruptions, or industrial activity.
SO2 aerosols are a fine mist of Sulfuric Acid droplets that reflect away a portion of the incoming solar radiation, cooling the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface. When they are increased, as after a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption that injects them into the stratosphere, temperatures temporarily decrease. They eventually settle out, after some 2 to 3 years, and temperatures rise to pre-eruption levels, and normally, somewhat higher, enough to form an El Nino.
Post-war Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions began rising after about 1955, and peaked at 141 million tons in 1979, causing enough cooling at that time to give rise to fears of a new Ice Age.
Their continued rise was halted by American and European “Clean Air” legislation in the 1970’s to reduce the amount of Industrial SO2 aerosol pollution in the troposphere and by 1980, temperatures began falling because the less polluted air increased the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface.
By 2022, they had fallen to 73 million tons, a decrease of 68 million tons, and anomalous global temperatures have risen from 0.01 Deg. C in 1979, to 1.14 deg. C. in July of 2024, due to continued “Clean Air” , Net-Zero, and mandated low-sulfur fuel for all maritime shipping, all of which have removed more SO2 aerosol pollution from our atmosphere.
“Is the planet warming? Yes, and it will continue to do so, as the air becomes cleaner and cleaner’ unless a VEI4 volcanic eruption temporarily cools things down by injecting SO2 into the stratosphere.
“Is there anything we can do to affect the planet’s temperature, up or down?
To increase its temperature, just keep decreasing SO2 aerosol emissions.
To decrease temperatures, geo-engineering to re-introduce SO2 aerosols, or some other dimming substance into the troposphere WILL be required, unless more frequent volcanic activity resumes.
Also see: “Scientific proof that CO2 does NOT cause global warming”
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2024-0884.pdf
Pathetic Burl, you are wrong and can’t admit it, can’t do math, can’t do science, and just keep flapping your wings (waving hands) in the same place over and you. You are wrong, and you were silly enough to demonstrate your abilities in a paper that jumps directly from introduction to conclusions (no body to the paper containing scientific evidence or analysis – LOL).
Arthur, please read Burl’s paper. The disproof is here:
https://mega.nz/file/4qc1ACyT#57PNs8KfMebGtKRfUJ3OVw4fGzn8-4mDmrw9NvguO5g
Additionally, the analysis of the disproof allow quantitative calculation of warming by CO2 and cooling by SO2 since the preindustrial period, for any year 1900–2022, as long as the SO2 emissions and CO2 concentration are known: They are!
Burl, as long as you keep repeating your falsehoods, I’ll keep refuting them. In fact, I’ll copy the above and save it for reposting, so I don’t waste so much time on someone who obviously can’t do real science.
Nope- The biggest clue is to see how many of the conjectures and supposed findings of a proponent party for one thing or another are shot down and shown to be baseless and put gorth with a motive that oftentimes is politically motivated. That is what we see with the AGW global warming hypothesis. It’s sociopolitical science not natural science and the scientific method.
AI says– In natural science and the scientific method, a “null hypothesis” is a statement that assumes there is no significant difference or relationship between variables being studied, essentially proposing that any observed effect is due to chance, not a real phenomenon; it acts as a baseline assumption that researchers try to disprove through experimentation to prove a real effect exists.
The AGW conjecture fails the null hypothesis test because nothing is happening now that hasn’t happened before and mostly long before modernity had any impact on the atmospheric CO2 content.
How do we know this is true? Simple– to believe otherwise you must believe in a perpetuum mobile of the third kind. Climatists will believe anything if they will believe AGW (a belief that humanity is heating the globe). AGW is a feeling about reality with no proof whatsoever and despite all evidence to the contrary throughout the geophysical record of the Earth, moon, planets, the Sun and stars, the galaxy, universe and everything.
“Climatists will believe anything if they will believe AGW (a belief that humanity is heating the globe). AGW is a feeling about reality with no proof whatsoever”
Does temperature lead CO2, or does CO2 lead temperature?
There’s no absolute weighted evidence for either of the before. Therefore, a definitive conclusion for AGW must be defined as ideological, by default.
Anecdotal evidence is allowed. Prior peak interglacials have witnessed higher temps than today, even near term, the RWP and MWP. While factual “peaks” for these periods can’t be accurately measured they’re rounded via noise; yet even within ascribed error bars temperature leans higher than contemporary heat. Further anecdotal evidence; recent El Nino’s are on the extreme end.
Wagathon:
“The AGW conjecture fails the null hypothesis test because nothing is happening now that hasn’t happened before and mostly long before modernity had any impact on the atmospheric CO2 content”
No, the null hypothesis says nothing is happening. Despite that, the current increase in CO2, caused by humans, nor its rapidity, have not happened before.
“AGW is a feeling about reality with no proof whatsoever”
That’s right, no proof in science, just overwhelming evidence – that’s one of the many parts of science you don’t understand, and your”evidence” (personal opinions) are underwhelming. Related, unsupported opinions have no value in science.
PS, the correlation between change in ln([CO2]/CO2, ref]) and change in temperature is R² ≈ 0.9. Your null hypothesis is hereby disproven.
Trunks,
“There’s no absolute weighted evidence for either of the before. Therefore, a definitive conclusion for AGW must be defined as ideological, by default.”
That is because both exist and the relative weights change with the situation.
Just more circulation as you tun on your perch, Polly.
Jungletrunks: “Anecdotal evidence is allowed. Prior peak interglacials have witnessed higher temps than today, even near term, the RWP and MWP. While factual “peaks” for these periods can’t be accurately measured they’re rounded via noise; yet even within ascribed error bars temperature leans higher than contemporary heat. Further anecdotal evidence; recent El Nino’s are on the extreme end.”
Sure, Diapers – who told you about the last interglacial? What you are really saying is, “I have no evidence, but somebody told me something I want to repeat.”
” … periods can’t be accurately measured they’re rounded via noise”
Thus, the 30-year default period for “climate”.
” recent El Nino’s are on the extreme end”
Sure, bud: How big are the global temperature changes for recent El Niños compared to the average warming of the last 50 years? El Niño and La Niña are internal variations, two sides of the same coin (sloshing of the tropical pacific “bucket”), that nearly cancel each other on climatic time scales.
Spinning on your perch is merely light weight acrobats, Polly.
Describe for denizens your knowledge of relevant El Niño’s during the RWM and the MWP, Polly.
You first, diapers, I’m not the one making unsupported claims from a cloak of anonymity.
“I’m not the one making unsupported claims”
Yet you do, anonymity has not relevance in science, your knowledge either works, or it doesn’t.
AI couldn’t help you with the RWP, or the MWP periods, Polly, no surprise—you’re left spattering about in your bird bath.
Jungle, are you done making a fool of yourself?
I’m sure I don’t provide evidence for some obvious things, but that is irrelevant to this thread. You are the only one making claims here – you never support them. Yes science can be done from anonimity
The problem is trying to do science when you don’t know how.
El Niño’s are hardly described before the late 19th century; though there’s sketchy data reaching back 400 years. Polly argues definitive AGW using a couple of 30-year climate data points.
To complicate the warming picture, the before discussion about trending El Niño’s doesn’t suggest warming is because of EL Niño’s, even though recently El Ninõ’s have been more severe. Obviously El Nino’s to you are worsened by humans, yet the science trail eludes you.
You’re allowed to provide evidence for your conclusions, Polly.
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/el-nino-weakens-impacts-continue
Trunks,
Thanks for your reference – it is about the most recent/current El Niño and has nothing to do with the MCP. Fail on your first try. Nothing is known about El Niño during the MCP – thanks for the red herring.
My conclusion is that you don’t know much of anything. Your writings are the evidence, somehow you think the insults cover for your ignorance and lack of supporting evidence, e.g., the difference between forcings, like solar intensity and volcanic activity (MCP), and internal variability (stochastic oscillations).
This is the usual waste of time, I’m not really interested in further. You have nothing to offer but a weird mixture of ignorance and anger. I’ll call it over, after you come up with another of your self-perceived clever, but empty responses.
The MWP, and certainly the RWP at minimum equal contemporary warming, but okay, forget El Niño relevancy. You radically project having little explanation for the past—as expected.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VEGEQCaaMhU/UIIGhRvWIMI/AAAAAAAA8K4/1JFR6ViO0j0/s1600/121019-global-warming-is-bs.jpg
Trunks,
Ask and ye shall receive:
“El Niños were persistently weak between 800 and 1250 A.D. (late medieval period).”
“El Niño variability off Peru during the last 20,000 years”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004PA001099
See section 5.6 and the paragraph immediately preceding.
Then why was there dramatic warming during the RWP, and MWP?
Polly, do you know what an IPCC assessor is? Can you describe their relevance?
Separation of the atmospheric heating / cooling effects of SO2 and CO2 by dual linear regression.
https://mega.nz/file/4qc1ACyT#57PNs8KfMebGtKRfUJ3OVw4fGzn8-4mDmrw9NvguO5g
BA:
Your graph proves nothing relative to my “hypothesis”.
Industrial SO2 aerosol levels rose from about 1955 until 1979, causing reduced temperatures along the way.
They began falling after 1980, because of “Clean Air” reductions, causing temperatures to increase.
None of this correlation is shown on your graph.
Could you be honest for a change, and provide a graph showing reality?
Burl,
“No, its effect FAR surpasses that of CO2. The IPCC diagram of radiative forcings shows no positive forcing for the warming caused by the decrease of polluting aerosols in the atmosphere, instead attributing it to CO2, which has no climatic effect. The attribution for CO2 is actually for SO2!”
Of course, they include aerosol cooling (warming) see the blue bar near the bottom. I know it is difficult to understand, but the negative forcing of aerosols multiplied by a negative concentration change results in positive warming. It’s just not all that large.
https://mega.nz/file/o3cTjYSZ#49UAykMhLTzQXN_Vwx-V58vqdj8uisFYGfrg1WfR3cA
“And I do not understand what you are talking about.”
Of course, not – it’s science.
“My comments above are exactly what is published in my DOI, just a shorter version”
If you think the third bold section represents the statements from your DOI, you are delusional.
Here is a formal disproof, I don’t expect you to understand it:
https://mega.nz/file/4qc1ACyT#57PNs8KfMebGtKRfUJ3OVw4fGzn8-4mDmrw9NvguO5g
BA
Your link does not work
Burl,
They work for me, and other people. The denial is getting desperate.
Here is the analysis, the graphic part is just to help you understand,
but the quality of the fit is indicated by R and R²
ΔT = m₁*[SO₂] + m₂*(ln[CO₂]/[CO₂, ref]) + b
m₁ = -0.00067 ± 0.00039 K/ megaton (SO2)
m₂ = 3.75 ± 0.14 K (CO2)
b = 0.141 ± 0.026 K
R² = 0.895, R = +0.946
Example: SO₂,CO₂ (2000) = 97.58 mT, 369.71 ppmv
SO ₂ CO₂ offset
ΔT (y2k) = -0.065 + 0.989 – 0.141 = 0.782 K
Thank you, B A.
“Christos, the ocean’s surface isn’t smooth. NASA and their data use Bond Albedo. Get over it. Your Φ is nonsense, and making it a binary choice between a “smooth” and a “rough” objects, that vary by more than a factor of 2, turns it into total garbage. Not to mention, that despite your denial, it is clearly an ad hoc attempt to make your data fit better (and it’s still not very good).”
(emphasis added)
–
Yes, Your Φ is nonsense, and making it a binary choice between a “smooth” and a “rough” objects, that vary by more than a factor of 2, turns it into total garbage.
The “objects” actually are the solar system planets and moons the NASA SATELLITES precisely measured average surface temperatures.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/fact_notes.html
Scroll down to geometric albedo and Bond albedo for definitions, then
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html
Compares NASA facts for earth and moon, including:
Moon Earth Ratio
Bond albedo 0.11 0.294 0.37
Geometric albedo 0.12 0.434 0.28
You and Burl must be having some sort of willful ignorance contest.
Thank you, B A.
What I said is that Earth’s albedo a =0.306 is not Earth’s Bond Albedo.
Evidence I observe on an every-day basis from our appartment windows.
We have a magnificent view on the solar-sea-glare, which is always blinding.
Now, because of the Earth’s rotation, this solar-sea-glare isn’t getting in our appartment windows all the hours of the day.
But we know, that sun is always shining on the Globe.
Thus there are always the high angles reflection from the Earth’s surface.
Also, a glance on a sphere is convicing – the high angles reflection areas on the planet surface are the vastly larger areas, when compared to the low angles reflection areas.
That is why, the Φ =0,47 is the correct the solar irradiation accepting factor value.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“That is why, the Φ =0,47 is the correct the solar irradiation accepting factor value”.
No it isn’t, Bond albedo includes specular reflection and Φ is not needed, and is in fact an incorrect modification, not to mention the BS of modeling your “accepting factor” according to viscous fluid flow dynamics, and then only allowing values of 1 or 0.47. LMAO
Forget it, you are hopeless. If you are unable/unwilling to modify your hypotheses, you shouldn’t be trying to do science.
Your Bond albedo of 0.306 is out of date. It is down to 0.294 because of decreased snow and ice coverage (that is a temperature mediated feedback). NASA says specifically that it is a Bond albedo, while you say it is not, presumably because it would force you to redo your hypothesis and calculations (and they would come out worse than they already are). Well, I referenced NASA’s descriptions and values – guess what I believe: NASA publications or Christos’ frantic daydreams?
You are wrong, get over it. Fix it or don’t; I no longer care.
PS, I imagine that reading (and understanding) technical scientific papers in English is difficult for you – well, buckle-up buttercup and start reading; I have given you a lot of references, which you have clearly not yet read or understood.
B A,
I have given you a lot of references, which you have clearly not yet read or understood.
Please, try to understand, it is very clearly explained.
“Because light specularly reflected from water does not usually reach the viewer, water is usually considered to have a very low albedo in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.”
(emphasis added)
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
“water is usually considered to have a very low albedo in spite of its high reflectivity at high angles of incident light.”
Gee, thanks, an unreferenced falsehood (one of the “high”s needs to be a “low”.):
Let me rearrange and fix so you might understand
Despite its high reflectivity at low angles of incident light on smooth water, The oceans are measured to have an albedo of about 9%.”
Low angles will only occur near the terminator and be over only a small fraction of the illuminated globe. Also, with incident intensity reduced by the incidence angle and absorption in the long passage though the atmosphere – only redder light gets through at low angles (sunrise, sunset)
Big Picture: It does’t matter, what little wave glitter there is, it is included in Bond albedos.
B A,
“Any albedo in visible light falls within a range of about 0.9 for fresh snow to about 0.04 for charcoal, one of the darkest substances. Deeply shadowed cavities can achieve an effective albedo approaching the zero of a black body. When seen from a distance, the ocean surface has a low albedo, as do most forests, whereas desert areas have some of the highest albedos among landforms. Most land areas are in an albedo range of 0.1 to 0.4.[14] The average albedo of Earth is about 0.3.[15] This is far higher than for the ocean primarily because of the contribution of clouds.”
(emphasis added)
Sample albedos
Surface Typical
albedo
Fresh asphalt 0.04[6]
Open ocean 0.06[7] *********0.06
Worn asphalt 0.12[6]
Conifer forest,
summer 0.08,[8] 0.09 to 0.15[9]
Deciduous forest 0.15 to 0.18[9]
Bare soil 0.17[10]
Green grass 0.25[10]
Desert sand 0.40[11]
New concrete 0.55[10]
Ocean ice 0.50 to 0.70[10]
Fresh snow 0.80[10]
Aluminium 0.85[12][13]
Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
B A,
“Low angles will only occur near the terminator and be over only a small fraction of the illuminated globe. Also, with incident intensity reduced by the incidence angle and absorption in the long passage though the atmosphere – only redder light gets through at low angles (sunrise, sunset)”.
Not lower angles of incidence, but higher angles of incidence. The angle of incidence is measured at the base of the normal to the surface at the point. It is the sun is lower at the horizont.
“…will only occur near the terminator…”
They do not occur, because they are always present – regardless of rotation, there always is a solar illuminated Hemisphere.
The solar irradiation intensity starts weakening from the very first degree away from the zenith point. The further away from that point of zenith, the weaker the intensity.
The intensity starts lowering dramatically from the 45 degree and further.
The areas of globe with the higher angles of incidence (the highest reflectivity) are the vastly larger areas of the illuminated Hemisphere.
When averaged over the entire illuminated Hemisphere, the solar irradiation accepting factor Φ = 0.47
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, Christos:
“Open ocean [albedo]….0.06[7] ”
Thank you for clarifying that you have been talking about normal incidence, not grazing incidence.
Thanks for disproving yourself. The is no Φ, there is no “solar irradiation accepting factor”. There IS Bond albedo which covers it all. In multiplying the Bond albedo by Φ, you do not correct it, you make it, and your hypothesis, false.
The fact that you still can’t accept that, indicates you are suffering from extreme willful ignorance (as well as simple factual ignorance), possibly bordering on self-deception. Seems to be a common problem among the last of the Dragon Slayers.
As for you Christos, you don’t have the background, or the willingness to learn new information, to ever become an astrophysicist or a climatologist.
Good Luck.
Christos:
“Yes, Your [Christos’] Φ is nonsense, and making it a binary choice between a “smooth” and a “rough” objects, that vary by more than a factor of 2, turns it into total garbage.”
I’m glad you finally agree. Get rid of Φ and redo your calculations.
Thank you, Arkady.
Albedo is measured using albedometers, which consist of two back-to-back mounted pyranometers. The upper sensor measures the incoming global solar radiation and the lower one measures the solar radiation reflected from the surface(s) below. Dividing the obtained value from lower sensor by that from the upper one obtains the value of the albedo at a certain location and time.
–
You would base your assessment of the Earth’s entire 510 trillion square meter albedo only on what you see from your ~1 square meter albedometer window. That’s called cherry picking.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Science advances while those obsessed with AGW are left in the dust.
“Oceans do so much more than we thought to regulate our climate,” said Dr. Wohl. “Now, we can represent these processes more accurately in climate models and use this knowledge to guide future action.”
https://knowridge.com/2024/11/oceans-cool-the-planet-more-than-we-thought-study-finds/#google_vignette
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adq2465
Maybe it’s not just the warming oceans but what’s in the water is more important? The oceans over time have produced about 1/2 the oxygen in the atmosphere. What seems to be happening are that ocean dead zones are expanding.
https://www.earth.com/news/earths-oceans-are-rapidly-changing-colors-matching-climate-predictions/
“Why does ocean color matter?
So, what’s the big deal about the ocean turning a bit greener? It suggests that the types of phytoplankton communities are changing.
Different phytoplankton have varying abilities to capture carbon and support marine life. Changes in these communities can affect the entire food web, from tiny marine organisms all the way up to fish and whales.
Dutkiewicz emphasizes that these shifts will impact all creatures that rely on plankton for food.
“Different types of plankton influence how much carbon the ocean can absorb,” she notes, highlighting the broader implications for climate regulation.”
Someone should fix that…
-Jack
B A,
“In multiplying the Bond albedo by Φ, you do not correct it, you make it, and your hypothesis, false.”
I have multiplied the Φ with the (1 -a)*S ,
so it is Φ*(1- a)*S W/m^2
Where
Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)
a – is the satellite measured Albedo (dimensionless)
S – is solar flux at the planet’s or moon’s distance from the sun (W/m^2)
The Φ*(1- a)*S W/m^2 is the not reflected portion of the incident on planet or moon surface solar SW EM energy.
The equation is true for all planets and moons ib solar system
Φ = 0,47 is for the smooth surface planets and moons without-atmosphere or with a thin atmosphere, Earth included:
( Mercury, Moon, Earth, Mars, Europa, Ganymede )
those planets and moons have a distinguishly directional reflective constituent, which cannot be “seen” and measured by satellites’ sensors.
Φ = 1 for the rest planets and moons – the rough surface planets and moons, which do not have a distingutshly directional reflective constituent.
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, you keep saying that. It is crap, as I have explained many times now. Your statements are unsupportable, and I am no longer interested – apparently no one else is either. How did your discussions go with Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH)? I would guess about the same as they are going with me.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
****
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The negative statement “NO +33” is meaningless. While probably correct, it does not preclude any other numbers.
What you have to do is not say what something “is not”, but rather what it “is”.
If I remember correctly, your prediction is that, if the atmosphere were removed from the earth, its new equilibrium temperature would be 0.26°C cooler than the “present”. I think you made mistakes somewhere.
Thank you, B A.
“If I remember correctly, your prediction is that, if the atmosphere were removed from the earth, its new equilibrium temperature would be 0.26°C cooler than the “present”.
–
Please, B A, visit the page in my site “The Planets with Atmosphere”.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446393385/446364348?t=1732915971705
No, thanks.
You’ve lost my interest. Get someone else to look at your daydreams.
The GHE effect on Earth is not less than 1°C, even though you have claimed that to be so. Your theoretical uncertainty is at least ±15°C, and that is just the statistical error (remember the analysis I did for you); it does not address additional uncertainty from false assumptions about albedo, specific heat capacity, and “smoothness” of the Earth’s surface.
You didn’t answer my question; How did your conversation with Dr. Spencer go??? I can guess
Above in answer to Christos
B A,
“You didn’t answer my question; How did your conversation with Dr. Spencer go??? I can guess.”
B A, you are definitely a new commenter in the Dr. Curry’s Climate Etc…
Otherwise you wouldn’t pose that question.
Christos
You still didn’t answer my question. That’s ok – I’ll go with my guess “not very well”. How long I’ve been here (a little over a year), is an irrelevant deflection from your problems. I’m no longer interested – you needn’t continue to try to convince me of the validity of your hypothesis – you won’t, and it is a waste of time for both of us.
Trunks,
“You radically project having little explanation for the past—as expected.”
You never get it, do you? You don’t get to define what I do. I radically project that I, you, nor anyone else, has data on El Niños during the MCP or RWP, and that it is a stupid red herring, and that you aren’t worth talking to. As for you linked “picture” it’s not a reference – put it in context. Fail #2
I do get to define what you do:) Why do I care if you don’t like it? You’re an arrogant, cowardly poser stuffing your pathetic boastful beak under the thread.
In 2013, a study from three US universities was published in Science magazine and showed that the water temperature in the Pacific Ocean was 0.9 °C (1.6 °F) warmer during the MWP than during the LIA and 0.65 °C (1.2 °F) warmer than the decades before the study.
El Niño Corals in the tropical Pacific Ocean suggest that relatively cool and dry conditions may have persisted early in the millennium, which is consistent with a La Niña-like configuration of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation patterns.
El Niña seems to only matter historically, too bad data is sketchy—though El Niño’s are apparently irrelevant to ideologues relative to AGW. But again, my point wasn’t necessarily about El Niño’s, just saying.
Trunks,
No, you get to form your own uniformed opinion of what I do, and your opinion means nothing to me. =)
“You’re an arrogant, cowardly poser stuffing your pathetic boastful beak under the thread.”
I don’t know about that – your opinions, and willingness to say them, probably reflects more on you than me, but I don’t mind if the science makes you uncomfortable, it should.
“In 2013, a study from three US universities was published in Science magazine and showed …”
That’s not a reference, either. Fail #3.
However, I don’t doubt a drop of 0.9 C over some 800 years. That is pretty much what I’d expected from slowly declining orbital forcing. What is your explanation for the warming of the last 50 years, which is occurring about 20x as fast? Are you going to say thanks for the reference on 20k years of El Niño? Nah, I know you probably find it offensive, just like me.
“What is your explanation for the warming of the last 50 years”.
Rapid temperature rises aren’t extraordinary in the paleo record, including more recently during the RWP/MWP, each period saw rapid temperature rises. The last 5o years has seen about 100 ppm rise in CO2, representing .04% of the atmosphere. Within this period there’s been a dramatic decrease in air pollutants (aerosols), changing precipitation patterns, increasing water vapor in the atmosphere (rarely described as a contributing factor to recent warming). https://theconversation.com/how-rising-water-vapour-in-the-atmosphere-is-amplifying-warming-and-making-extreme-weather-worse-213347 My view is that some amount of warming is due to AGW.
It defies credulity that the Earth’s chaotic climate system is severely affected by 100ppm extra CO2, which has greened the planet by at least 14 percent. Ideology utilizing spurious models extrapolates unfounded conclusions, they’re weak on actual evidence. CO2 is overweighted to define Earth’s complex climate system—its focalism—confirmation bias built into a rickety house of cards science industry—all buttressed by global politics and money. That only the West is forced to pay for “causation” defines the false flag urgency. All Western nations could force high tariffs, or boycott Chinese and Indian goods to force them into net zero compliance—if it were that important, it isn’t.
But my original point was: does temperature lead CO2, or does CO2 lead temperature? If one can’t answer this question with solid evidence, you certainly can’t, then it sets into motion a cascade of complex questions; for example, science doesn’t have an answer for the severity of El Niño’s over the last 40 years”.
“El Niño has been recorded to change its properties since the 1980s, characterized by more common extreme El Niño and Central Pacific (CP) El Niño events. However, it is still unclear whether such change is externally forced or part of the natural variability. Here, we find that the frequency of the extreme and CP El Niño events also increased during the period 1875–1905, when the anthropogenic CO2 concentration was relatively lower, but with a positive phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Models and paleoclimate proxies reveal that a positive AMO enhances the zonal sea surface temperature gradient in the CP, which strengthens zonal advective feedback, favoring extreme and CP El Niño development. Moreover, we estimate that internal variability contributed to ~65% of the increasingly extreme and CP El Niño events, while anthropogenic forcing has made our globe experience ~1 more extreme and ~2 more CP events over the past four decades”. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9873625/
Bushaw: You should be able to understand that CHANGE depends on what is being added now, not the % increase of the totals.
Your assertion that effectiveness of a CO2 molecule is 20 times higher than a WV molecule is not relevant in the atmosphere, even if true. WV can radiate to space from an altitude as low as about 2 km while CO2 does not radiate to space until the tropopause and above. See Fig 1.5 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com , Fig 12 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and the calculation of average global temperature change as explained at Sect 17 thru 19 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
The human contribution to warming (including the recent rapid warming) can be explained by water vapor increase, the rate of which increased substantially around 1960 (Fig 6 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com ) as did human population. WV increase has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. It has averaged about 1.4 % per decade and is explained about 90 % by irrigation increase which caused an increase in residence time (Sect 12).
I wonder how long it will be until you understand this stuff well enough that you won’t feel the need for acceptance of an analysis by others (peer review) before you will seriously examine it.
Pangburn: you should realize that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere with a concentration increase lifetime of at least a several hundred years, and water vapor does not. And, that for a given period of time the total temperature anomaly change is proportional to ln([CO2]/[CO2, ref]). While you are a little more polished than the other dragon slayers, your hypothesis is silly, and you apparently still don’t know the difference between a forcing and a feedback. Please keep responding, I appreciate the ad hoc comments and false contrarian talking points that show how much you really know about the subject.
BAB: The idea that atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is hundreds of years is foolish. The observation that Co2 is increasing is of no consequence to climate because the predominance of evidence is that CO2, in spite of being IR active, has no significant net effect on climate. Some of the evidence is listed at Sect 2 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Apparently, you are not aware that water vapor has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback from planet warming. WV has been accurately measured since Jan, 1988 using satellite-based instrumentation. The WV increase has averaged about 1.4 % per decade. They report month-average anomaly data annually. Average global TPW anomaly measurements thru Dec 2023 are at https://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r02_198801_202312.time_series.txt
The comparatively brief correlation of temperature with ln(CO2/CO2,ref) is a meaningless curve fit.
I am in relentless pursuit of the truth. Saying that my ‘hypothesis’ is silly is a cop out. I consider your assertion that I don’t know the difference between forcing and feedback an insult unworthy of response.
I wonder if you have ever done your own research on climate instead of depending on the beliefs and claims of others.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” (German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)
“I wonder how long it will be until you understand this stuff well enough that you won’t feel the need for acceptance of an analysis by others (peer review) before you will seriously examine it.”
I wonder how long it will be until you understand that you won’t get acceptance if you can’t write and publish a (largely) impartial manuscript that makes sense scientifically. I also wonder how long you will continue your presumptuous insults when you are confronted with the deficiencies of your hypothesis.
As for me, No time at all, I already know enough to do my own analysis, but I am not a climate expert (my expertise is in chemistry and physics), and, I will wait for the relevant experts to review it. And yes, the work of a contrarian retired mechanical engineer trying to present a new hypothesis outside his field, needs to be peer-reviewed by experts before I’ll waste time on what looks like garbage according to my knowledge base. There are plenty of blogs out there that can’t make a good or correct enough argument to get published: Yours is just another that I’m not going to waste a lot of time on.
If it is any help, I stopped reading your blog when I found it to be full of false/ misrepresentative, unsupported, and debunked contrarian talking points. Not to mention all the false physical (mis)representations and non-quantitations; some of which I have already pointed out. My guess is that you are smart enough to know that you wouldn’t pass the low bar of peer review.
You make the mistake of thinking that I am seeking ‘acceptance’. No, I am in relentless pursuit of the truth which will be verified (or refuted) in the future with measurements. I show all my work and data sources. Everyone is invited to challenge it or even refine it. If you can’t follow it or can point out a significant mistake, let me know with exact quote from my work and I will fix it or try to explain it. You take my observation as an insult. I am sorry about that but you (and a whole lot of other people) have been egregiously misled. Consider the multitude of failed predictions by ‘Climate Scientists’.
BAB: “I will wait for the relevant experts to review it.” Richard Feynman famously wrote “Science is the Belief in the Ignorance of the Experts”. He meant, and explained that “science – a.k.a. research – is in the making, belongs to the (unknown, yet to be discovered) future, while expertise is based on the past, with in-built obsolescence “
BAB: “I already know enough to do my own analysis”. Oh? You don’t know what you don’t know. How much have you looked at the measured increase in water vapor or humanity’s contribution to WV increase? A rough assessment is at Sect 6 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com with further analysis at Sect 12.
You exhibit contempt for Mechanical Engineers. Did you forget that we take the same basic physics as physics majors? A difference is that if engineers screw up, people might die. Besides the advanced degree, I got licensed. I have been, with an open mind, researching climate for about 18 years.
BAB: “…looks like garbage according to my knowledge base.” Your knowledge base appears to be incomplete.
BAB: “[DP analyses] …full of false/ misrepresentative, unsupported, and debunked contrarian talking points. Not to mention all the false physical (mis)representations and non-quantitations;” General comments like this are worthless opinion. Quote specifically what you are referring to. I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you.
“Any fool can know. The point is to understand” A. Einstein.
I am aware that papers that disagree with the common dogma don’t even get to peer review. Biased peer review is de facto censorship.
Above in answers to B A.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you, B A.
I am very well, and very warmly received at both, the Roy Spencer’s and the Judith Curry’s.
I always enjoy there a welcoming and a very friendly atmosphere.
And, it is always a great pleasure for me communicating with you, no matter what you thing about my work, because every time I find something to learn from you.
Sometimes it is a small bit of information, but it is always usefull.
B A, with your comments, you have become a mind opener – there are vast fields of scientific knowledge to yet be explored.
Christos
The satellite measured Albedo is very preciselly measured. It is not the Bond Albedo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_albedo
“Because the Bond albedo accounts for all of the light scattered from a body at all wavelengths and all phase angles, it is a necessary quantity for determining how much energy a body absorbs. This, in turn, is crucial for determining the equilibrium temperature of a body.”
What is the method of measuring the Bond Albedo then?
See also:
“Retrieval of surface albedo from space”
University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
1680 East-West Rd., POST-815C
Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
December, 2002
Link: https://www2.hawaii.edu/~jmaurer/albedo/
I think what is measured as Albedo by satellites, it is a preciselly measured the planet or moon the diffuse reflection ratio.
So when planet or moon has very little specular constituent in its reflection, then theΦ =1 and (1 – a)S is all-right.
But when there is a strong specular reflection constituent, then
the Φ =0,47 and it is all-right the Φ(1 – a)S = 0,47(1 – a)S.
–
For more information, please visit my site:
Link:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Even if it were a correct speculation, it would be a continuous function ranging from maybe 0.8 to 1.0. You’d be a lot better spending your time trying to fix your incorrect assumptions, instead of trying to defend the indefensible.
Thabk you, B A.
“Even if it were a correct speculation, it would be a continuous function ranging from maybe 0.8 to 1.0.”
Φ is a continuous function ranging
from 0.47 to 1.0
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’ll try to help one last time. Read this very carefully and try to understand it.
“Measuring the Earth’s albedo with simple instruments
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/abe8e4
The Earthshine measured on the moon is the diffusely reflected from Earth solar energy, which falls directionally (because of the great distance) on Moon’s surface, and then, from Moon’s surface it gets diffusely reflected back towars Earth, and again, it falls on Earth’s surface directionally (because of the great distance) and then it gets measured on Earth as Earthshine.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, it includes all reflections. Read the paper. Understand it.
Thank yoou, B A.
There is the cookies problem – the paper doesn’t open for reading!
How convenient for you. It opens for me.
Thank you, B A.
It opens for you, because you have accepted their cookies!
B A, here it is an example of the planet or moon surface temperatures comparison:
Io and Europa are at the same distance from the sun. Both have the same satellite measured Albedo.
Io (Jupiter’s satellite), Albedo a =0,63
Flux _ 50,37 ( W/m² ) Te = 95,16 K
Te.correct = 95,16 K, Φ = 1
Warming Factor (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 1,8647
Tsat = 110 K
Europa (Jupiter’s satellite), Albedo a =0,63
Flux _ 50,37 ( W/m² ) Te = 95,16 K
Te.correct = 78,83 K, Φ = 0,47
Warming Factor (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ = 2,5494
Tsat = 102 K
110K /102K = 1,0784
[ (1*1,8647 ) /(0,47*2,5494) ]¹∕ ⁴ = 1,1169
1,1169 /1,0784 = 1,0357 or 3,57 %
–
For more, please visit my site.
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
…notice the fudge factor capital-phi.
It’s always been there. It’s unscientific.
Surely where it hurts most- to the ignomini of Western academia in their support of the Climate Alarm Globalists is that, after all of these years when it comes to weather, there’s nothing outstanding!
Thank goodness the old format is back
Thanks, Judith. I felt seasick with that green. ;-)
Love the new look!
It became clear to me a long ago that the Climate Alarmist movement was led by dishonest people on a mission to attack humanity, and that CO2 was chosen as the stalking horse for that attack on humanity. Our climate is changing imperceptibly so they use scare words and have the ability to just make stuff up.
Example: Lusha Tronstad, lead invertebrate zoologist with University of Wyoming’s Department of Zoology, studied ice levels around Yellowstone Lake and found that freezing patterns had not changed much since 1950. Stunned, she said ah, but they will. Just watch. She is surely living on grant money that demands that she find evidence of climate change, and not finding it, merely punts. They have that luxury in that crowd, no burden of proof, ability to assert anything without evidence.
I refer to CO2 as a harmless fertilizer. That’s fingernails on chalkboard to the alarmist crowd.
Mark Tokarski wrote:
Our climate is changing imperceptibly
If it’s imperceptible, how do you conclude it’s changing?
Although M&M had offered strong rebuttals with expert reports
Peer reviewed journal papers?
Or blog posts? (LOL)
!!!!!!!!!!I guess NATURE has spoken!!!!!!!!!!
1970SHELBY