by Nic Lewis
The determination of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—the long-term warming response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations—remains one of the most crucial yet challenging problems in climate science. Recent exchanges in the literature have highlighted both the complexity of this endeavor and the importance of maintaining rigorous methodological standards in the pursuit of reliable estimates.
Background and Context
In 2020, Steven Sherwood and twenty four co-authors published a comprehensive assessment of Earth’s climate sensitivity (S20) that claimed to substantially narrow the ‘likely’ (66% probability) uncertainty range to 2.6–3.9°C, with a best estimate of 3.1°C. Their assessment was undertaken under the auspices of the World Climate Research Programme’s Grand Science Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity, following a 2015 workshop that I participated in at Ringberg Castle in Germany.
S20 has been an exceptionally influential study. Its observationally-driven ECS approach and range was approximately adopted in the 2021 IPCC sixth assessment report (AR6). This represented a significant departure from the broader ranges that had persisted in IPCC assessments since the late 1970s: previous IPCC best estimates had usually been 3°C, but their uncertainty ranges had remained much wider, almost always spanning 1.5°C to 4.5°C. Moreover, AR6 gave a 90% probability (‘very likely’) range for the first time, of 2.0–5.0°C, widened slightly from the S20 estimate of 2.3–4.7°C.
In 2022, I published a detailed peer-reviewed examination (Lewis22) of S20’s methodology, identifying what I believed to be several significant issues with their analysis. My revised assessment, using their basic framework but with corrected and improved methodologies and carefully justified updatings and other revisions to some of their input data, suggested a substantially lower and narrower likely range for ECS of 1.75–2.7°C, with a median estimate of 2.16°C, and a 90% probability range of 1.55–3.2°C .
As in S20, ECS estimation in Lewis22 was based on combining historical period evidence with that from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP) paleoclimate periods, and from process understanding (estimates of individual climate feedbacks). Like S20, Lewis22 actually estimated S, the usual proxy for ECS in GCMs, which is generally slightly lower than their estimated true ECS. The two terms are only distinguished here when discussing their relationship.
In 2024, Sherwood, together with another scientist, Chris Forest,[1] published an opinion piece in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal (ACP) questioning whether climate sensitivity uncertainty had really been narrowed since S20, and specifically challenging several aspects of my 2022 analysis. I considered that their article contained fundamental mischaracterizations of my work that warranted clarification, along with broader methodological concerns that merited discussion. My endeavor to do so has now been published in ACP as ‘Comment on “Opinion: Can uncertainty in climate sensitivity be narrowed further?” by Sherwood and Forest (2024)‘.
Methodological Errors and Inconsistencies in the original Sherwood et al. study
My 2022 study identified several methodological problems in the S20 analysis, some of which significantly affected their results. Sherwood and Forest claimed, incorrectly, that these merely represented “differences in opinion on methodological choices and priors”, not errors, and that “they moreover were acknowledged to have little effect on the outcome”.
The most fundamental error involved was the use in S20 of an invalid likelihood estimation methodology. The likelihood function—which quantifies how well different values of the parameter being estimated match observational evidence—is fundamental to Bayesian estimation, indeed to all statistical estimation of uncertain parameters. Lewis22 used three quite different likelihood estimation methods,[2] which all produced the same results. Moreover, S20 used an uncertainty estimate that was a factor of ten lower than stated for Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) CO2 forcing, due to a coding error[3].
The resulting errors in S20’s likelihood estimates are shown in Figure 1.The estimates of historical and PETM evidence likelihoods at high climate sensitivity values were particularly affected. Although S20 did not use PETM evidence for its main results, and the underestimation of historical likelihood at high ECS values had only a small effect on the combined-evidence likelihood, unsound derivation of likelihoods is a very serious statistical error. Sherwood has admitted, in a detailed comment (here: CC1) during the peer review process prior to my Comment on their 2024 opinion piece being accepted, that the sampling method S20 used to derive its likelihoods was “probably not optimal”, but has not published any related correction to S20.
Fig. 1 Reproduced from Lewis22 Fig.2. Likelihoods for S based on S20’s data-variable assumptions as derived in Lewis22 (solid lines) and, for comparison, those shown in S20 (dotted lines). (a) Likelihoods from evidence for the three paleoclimate periods. (b) Likelihoods from Process evidence and from combining Paleoclimate evidence for the LGM and mPWP. (c) Likelihoods from Historical evidence for both S and Shist(S without an adjustment for the historical pattern effect). (d) Likelihoods from combined Process, Paleoclimate (LGM plus mPWP), and Historical evidence.
Additionally, Lewis22 identified a mathematically incorrect treatment in S20 of CO2 forcing estimates used to estimate ECS process and historical evidence. When deriving ECS from climate feedback estimates, they used an effective radiative forcing (ERF) value for a doubling of CO2 concentration (F2×CO2) based on fixed sea surface temperature (SST) simulations, while they should have used regression-based forcing estimates, which are lower. This unjustifiable choice biased S20’s process and historical evidence-derived estimates upward by approximately 16%. This issue is illustrated in Figure 2, using data for a typical GCM.
Fig. 2. Reproduced from Lewis22 Supporting Information Fig.S1.1. Illustration of the need to reduce the fixed-SST simulation based estimate of the actual F2×CO2 to a linear regression based estimate to avoid overestimation of S. The grey dots show annual mean values over 150 years after CO2 concentration is abruptly quadrupled in a representative GCM, MRI-ESM2-0, scaled to a doubling of CO2. The black line shows the regression fit and, at its x-axis intercept (the definition of S), the resulting correct S estimate of 3.08 K (3.08°C). The slope of the black line is λ, the climate feedback value that both S20 and Lewis22 estimate. The black line’s y-axis intercept is the regression-based estimate of F2×CO2. This is lower than the more accurate fixed SST simulation based value shown by the magenta cross, due to the actual relationship between the x-axis variable (global warming) and the y-axis variable (the top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance) being non-linear, with–as in almost all GCMs–a steeper initial slope than that after a decade or two. The red line and its x-axis intercept show the overestimation of S resulting from dividing λ into the fixed SST estimate of F2×CO2, which is what S20 did. For process evidence this is obvious, since λ was estimated so as to be consistent with λ in CO2 quadrupling GCM simulations. For historical evidence, the steeper blue line corresponds to estimation of Shist; to estimate S its slope was adjusted to correspond to λ, again resulting in estimation corresponding to the red line and an excessive S estimate. In both cases use of a regression-based F2×CO2 value is required for correct estimation of S, despite that F2×CO2 value being an underestimate of the true value.
Also, S20 converted their paleoclimate based estimates of true equilibrium climate sensitivity to estimates of S using an ECS to S ratio (1+ζ) estimated by comparing ECS derived from long GCM CO2 doubling simulations, with S derived from 150 year CO2 quadrupling simulations by the same eight GCMs. They scaled the CO2 quadrupling simulation based estimates down by a factor of two, rather than by the true ratio of ERF from a quadrupling of CO2 (F4×CO2) to F2×CO2 of about 2.1. This resulted in an inconsistency between S20’s paleoclimate estimates of S and those from its process and historical evidence (which were based on estimates of F2×CO2, not of F4×CO2/2). Lewis22 avoided this inconsistency by basing its estimates of the ECS to S ratio on comparison of estimated true ECS with S estimated from regression over the first 150 years, separately within each of sixteen long CO2 doubling or CO2 quadrupling GCM simulations, avoiding the need for any F4×CO2 to F2×CO2 scaling factor[4].
These issues represent more than methodological preferences—they constitute conceptual errors and inconsistencies that materially affected the final results. When I corrected these problems while retaining all other aspects of S20 analysis, the climate sensitivity estimates shifted substantially downward.
Clarifying Misrepresentations
Sherwood and Forest’s article contains several significant mischaracterizations of my work. Most importantly, they claim that by rejecting the possibility of a large historical ‘pattern effect’ and downwardly revising estimated historical aerosol cooling, Lewis22 had concluded that “the historical record rules out a high ECS level.” This characterization is entirely incorrect.
My analysis of historical evidence alone yielded a 90% uncertainty range of 1.2–7.6°C, which clearly does not rule out high sensitivity values. Even with the addition of a reasonable prior constraint (0 < ECS < 20 °C), based on the Earth not having experienced runaway warming or cooling, the range was 1.15–6.1°C. Both ranges substantially exceed the 4.7°C upper (95%) bound from S20’s combined-evidence estimate.
The narrowing in my final estimates resulted from combining multiple independent lines of evidence—process understanding, historical observations, paleoclimate reconstructions—using appropriate statistical methods, with a prior distribution designed to have minimal influence on the results. This is precisely how one expects Bayesian analysis should work when evidence is combined: no single line of evidence may rule out particular values, but their combination may provide strong constraints.
The Challenge of Aerosol Forcing Uncertainty
One reason historical evidence alone cannot definitively constrain high ECS values lies in the substantial uncertainty surrounding historical aerosol forcing. Aerosols from fossil fuel burning and other anthropogenic sources have provided uncertain amounts of cooling that have partially masked greenhouse gas warming, creating a fundamental difficulty in interpreting the historical temperature record.
In Lewis 2022 I revised the aerosol forcing distribution used in the original S20 analysis, reducing the probability assigned to very strong cooling, based on observational constraints. However, this revision followed evidence from other researchers against very strong aerosol cooling, and importantly, had minimal impact on my final combined-evidence ECS estimates. When I reverted to S20’s original aerosol assumptions while maintaining all other revisions, the median Lewis22 ECS estimate changed by less than 0.05°C. Lewis22 did not test using the AR6 aerosol distribution, however its median value is almost identical to that of S20’s aerosol distribution.
This demonstrates that my study’s lower ECS estimates were not driven by its revision to aerosol assumptions, contrary to the assertions in Sherwood and Forest’s critique of Lewis22.
Reassessing the Pattern Effect
The “pattern effect”—how the geographical distribution of SST warming affects climate feedbacks—represents another area where Sherwood and Forest’s 2024 opinion piece challenged my analysis. While I had adopted a smaller estimate based on my evaluation of the available evidence, they argued that recent studies strongly support a large historical pattern effect. Sherwood doubled down on this in his comment (CC1) on my 2025 manuscript, writing that Lewis22 argued in particular that “the aerosol forcing and historical pattern effect were each smaller and better known than in either S20 or AR6”.
In fact, more recent work by Modak and Mauritsen (2023) supports smaller pattern effect estimates, obtaining a slightly lower estimate than per Lewis22 when averaged across multiple SST datasets. Notably, they found that the most commonly used, AMIPII, SST dataset, which produces the largest pattern effect estimates, appears to be an outlier among available datasets.
Moreover, upon examining the three studies Sherwood and Forest cited, I found that two of them focused on recent decades (post-1980 and post-2000) rather than the full historical period relevant to climate sensitivity estimation in S20 and Lewis22. The third study, when its data from an alternative SST dataset to AMIPII is analyzed using approaches that minimize bias from interannual variability and account for model structural similarities, yields an estimate closely in line with my adopted value.
As regards how well the historical pattern effect is known, in L22 I adopted the same large estimate of the degree of uncertainty involved as Sherwood et al. used in S20 and the IPCC assessed in AR6.
Statistical methodology and Prior selection
Beyond specific technical disputes lies a more fundamental disagreement about statistical methodology. For scientific inference to be reliable, the statistical methods employed must be calibrated to produce uncertainty ranges that approximate true confidence intervals. Where the data are weak, this requires either objective Bayesian methods with noninformative priors or frequentist approaches—both of which are designed with this goal in mind.
The original Sherwood et al. study employed what statisticians term a “subjective Bayesian” approach, incorporating a prior distribution for the parameter being estimated based on expert judgment. Such an approach may produce very ill-calibrated uncertainty ranges, although in S20’s case the chosen prior (a uniform prior in λ) was close enough to a noninformative one that the mis-calibration was minor.
In Lewis22, I adopted an “objective Bayesian” methodology using a computed Jeffreys’ prior for the combined evidence, designed to minimize the influence of the prior on the resulting estimate. Note that this is different from using an objective (noninformative) prior for one line of evidence and using the resulting posterior pdf as the prior for estimation from the likelihood from the next line of evidence analyzed, and so on. Although such ‘Bayesian updating’ is standard statistical practice, contrary to general belief it is not soundly based mathematically and it may not result in well-calibrated estimation. See here.
The distinction between subjective and objective Bayesian estimation matters significantly when dealing with highly uncertain parameters like ECS. Subjective Bayesian methods are not designed to produce well-calibrated confidence intervals, and their uncertainty ranges can be severely biased when data are insufficient to dominate prior assumptions—a common situation in climate sensitivity estimation.
I demonstrated this problem in my Comment article by showing that a seemingly reasonable uniform prior in ECS (spanning 0–20°C), as used in the IPCC AR4 report, produced unreasonable results when applied to S20’s historical evidence alone, yielding a median estimate of 8.5°C with a 95% bound of 18.6°C, compared to a median estimate of 4.2°C with a 95% bound of 13.7°C when using a noninformative computed prior. The mathematical properties of a uniform prior in ECS makes it highly informative rather than neutral in this case, concentrating probability at extremely high values.
Steven Sherwood claimed in his comment (CC1) that “The main impact of L22’s objective prior is to narrow the pdf—i.e., claim ECS to be known more confidently.” The truth is the opposite. Adopting L22’s objective prior in place of S20’s prior actually widened and slightly raised S20’s ECS range. I provided a full response (AC2) to all the points in Sherwood’s comment.
Structural Model Uncertainties
Both Sherwood and Forest and I agree that structural uncertainties in the models used may affect ECS estimates. They focused on assumptions in ‘forward’ models used to predict what would be observed given a particular ECS, however these typically include assumptions based on GCM behavior.
The most significant structural uncertainty may concern tropical warming patterns. Climate models consistently predict that greenhouse warming should weaken the east-west temperature gradient across the tropical Pacific, with the eastern regions warming faster than the western regions, contrary to what appears to have happened during most of the historical period warming. This predicted pattern change underlies the weakening of climate feedbacks over time in GCM simulations, which contributes to their higher ECS estimates and underlies the pattern effect based upwards adjustment to climate sensitivity estimates based directly on historical warming and forcing (Shist).
However, several recent studies suggest that this predicted pattern change may be unrealistic, with western Pacific sea surface temperatures actually being more sensitive to greenhouse gas forcing than eastern Pacific temperatures, contrary to model predictions. If correct, this would imply that the feedback weakening simulated by models over 150-year timescales following abrupt CO2 increases is also unrealistic.
This structural uncertainty affects not only historical ECS estimates but also those based on process understanding and emergent constraints, since these typically rely on model behavior that incorporates the potentially erroneous tropical warming patterns. If the GCM-predicted weakening of the tropical Pacific east-west temperature gradient is not realistic, all these types of ECS estimates would likely be biased toward overestimating ECS. Even if the Pacific east-west temperature gradient does eventually weaken to the extent simulated by GCMs, a multidecadal-to-centennial delay in that weakening could imply a significantly lower warming this century than implied by GCM behavior.
Summary
My 2022 analysis systematically addressed multiple aspects of the original Sherwood et al. study, correcting erroneous likelihood computation, replacing unsatisfactory methodological choices that resulted in biased and/or inconsistent estimation with more appropriate ones, and revising certain input data assumptions–mainly updating them based on more recent evidence. The resulting ECS estimates were lower and more tightly constrained.
My published Comment includes a detailed sensitivity analysis that I conducted, which shows how different classes of revisions contributed to the differences between the S20 results (after correcting S20’s likelihood errors and adopting computed Jeffreys’ priors, which slightly raised the S20 ECS estimate) and the final Lewis22 results. The largest contribution (55% of the total reduction in median ECS) came from remedying the F2×CO2 and the ECS-to-S ratio estimation to avoid bias and inconsistencies, and updating the S20 estimates of non-aerosol forcing and of the ratio of ocean surface air temperature to SST warming, using IPCC AR6 values. These changes should be uncontroversial. Most of the remaining reduction came for reappraising LGM cooling and forcing estimates, and using more recent and appropriate estimates for two mPWP-specific ratios. The justification for each of these revisions is discussed in my published Comment on Sherwood and Forest’s article. In the light of conflicting evidence and resulting large uncertainty concerning cloud feedback and aerosol forcing, the Lewis22 revisions to those items, and possibly also to pattern effect estimates, are more uncertain. However, even without adopting any changes to the S20 estimates of those three items, over 80% of the reduction in median ECS in Lewis22 is retained.
Implications for Climate Science
The exchange with Sherwood and Forest highlights several important issues for the climate sensitivity estimation field.
First, the reluctance to abandon statistical methods that can produce systematically biased results is concerning. The continued use of subjective Bayesian approaches for ECS estimation, despite their known limitations when data are weak, compromises the reliability of ECS estimation.
Second, the possibility that fundamental aspects of climate model behavior—particularly tropical warming patterns—may be incorrect has broad implications. If models systematically overestimate the weakening of climate feedbacks over time, this could affect not only ECS estimates but also projections of near-term warming rates and regional climate changes. Resolving this issue should be a key objective.
Third, careful methodological scrutiny is important. Climate sensitivity estimates inform policy decisions with enormous economic and social consequences. Ensuring that these estimates are based on rigorous and unbiased analysis is essential for maintaining public trust in climate science.
Moving Forward
My intention in my published Comment and this article has been to contribute to a more accurate understanding of climate sensitivity estimation, in particular by correcting misunderstandings of the causes of the differences between estimates in S20 and in Lewis22. The poor understanding displayed in Sherwood and Forest’s article of the effects of the revisions made to historical aerosol forcing and pattern effect estimates, and by their claim that as a result in Lewis22 the historical record rules out a high ECS level, are worrying. It is clear from L22’s results tables that the historical record does not rules out a high ECS level−it is paleoclimate and process evidence that do so. Steven Sherwood’s incorrect assertions in his comment (CC1) on my 2025 manuscript that the main impact of L22’s objective prior is to narrow the pdf [for ECS], when it in fact Lewis22 showed that it slightly widens S20’s pdf, and that L22’s multiplication of fixed-SST F2×CO2 estimates by 0.86 when estimating S from process and historical evidence introduces n inconsistency between forcing and feedback, when it actually avoids such an inconsistency, are also concerning.
The ongoing debate over climate sensitivity reflects the inherent difficulty of the problem, and some methodological weaknesses–particularly regarding statistical issues–in published research, rather than any fundamental disagreement about the reality of human-caused climate change. While climate sensitivity research has progressed substantially over the last decade or two, significant uncertainties remain. Debate and disagreements are healthy, but should centre on evidence and its interpretation, not on baseless claims.
[1] Ironically, Forest was lead author of a key ECS study in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report (AR4) that Lewis had shown in a peer reviewed 2013 paper to be riddled with errors in its likelihood estimation. Surprisingly, although Forest (with his joint author) corrected those errors in a later study using the same methodology, he never corrected the same errors in his AR4 study – which has been cited nearly fifty times since my 2013 paper showed it was erroneous.
[2] Two for historical evidence, as the third method was defeated by S20’s highly asymmetrical aerosol forcing distribution. See Lewis22 Supporting Information Figs. S1, S2, and S3
[3] I pointed this coding error out to the S20 authors in September 2022. They have now corrected this error in the online version of S20, albeit without acknowledgement of my having notified them of it
[4] Even when using their method, S20 would have estimated the ECS to S ratio at a value very close to that derived in Lewis22 had they not included an outlier CO2 quadrupling simulation result from a GCM in which it exhibited near runaway warming.
I suspect the difficulty in determining ECS stems from a flawed model. Temperature is not exponentially related to CO2 concentrations; rather, [CO2] is integrally related to temperature, specifically SST.
https://localartist.org/media/ForgetECS.png
Meant to say logarithmically related to CO2. Need more coffee.
Thanks for the correction. Got a reference?
https://romps.berkeley.edu/papers/pubdata/2020/logarithmic/20logarithmic.pdf
Surely a basic reality check on ECS estimates must be downward compatibility with empirical fact. If ECS is 2C and the effect is logarithmic, then halving CO2 would reduce surface temperature by 2C. Halve it again, and you get another 2C of cooling. You see the problem? Long before CO2 was completely removed from the atmosphere, the earth’s surface would be colder than the surface of the moon. Reduce it still more, and it would be colder than Mars, an absurd and impossible result. Because of this logical requirement of downward compatibility, ECS must be far lower than typical current estimates, likely under 1C, which is far too low to be concerned about.
Roy, Here is a reality check for you:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf
See last section on saturation.
As for your deflection, ECS is defined for doubling preindustrial CO2 (280 ppm) to 560 ppm. Your extrapolations to lower and lower concentrations are not justified.
https://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf
FIgure 7 in particular.
” [CO2] is integrally related to temperature, specifically SST”
On that we can agree, from 5 years ago, see panel #10:
https://i.postimg.cc/VktdqX1x/ML-CO2-is-driven-by-Outgassing.jpg
I have recently redone and fixed my panel #7 not using the 12m∆, but with 12ma∆, and now have zero lag, which is expected at the outgassing temperature threshold of 25.6°C (fix not shown here).
Robert your use of UAH global is not ideal for outgassing work as it is not SST, it is the troposphere; it is lagged 3 months from SST.
I congratulate you on putting it into integral form.
Robert,
If you are saying CO2 rise is driven by temperature and not by human emissions, please explain why the atmospheric accumulation rate is a little less than half of human emissions. That tells me and most people that natural processses are mitigating the CO2 rise. Natural processes are removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they are adding.
For time-scales of 10-20 years and shorter, I’ve shown that [CO2] lags temperature.
I’ve first did this using frequency-domain coherence, where the phase response indicates lag, and both the amplitude and phase responses exhibit characteristics consistent with integration.
https://localartist.org/media/CO2_Temp_FRF_1st_detrend_byHem.png
I then showed the lag using time-domain detrending where temperature is linearly detrended, and [CO2] detrended using a quadratic, which is integrally related to a linear trend.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_2_1_global.png
Logarithmic detrending produced less than satisfactory results.
https://localartist.org/media/longtrends_ln_global.png
While both methods clearly establish that [CO2] lags temperature, neither method can rule out the possibility that the long-term trends are a different process, even though that was unlikely as anthropogenic emission were not constant, or even monotonically increasing; they should have been detectable.
By establishing that the trend and the variations on the trend can be represented by a single equation, I’ve greatly reduced the possibility that another significant temperature-CO2 process is involved.
David and Robert–
In 16 out of 16 cases (start and end of the 8 glaciations in the last million years) CO2 lagged temperature by about 600 (+- 300) years.
Lance, I’m not sure how long the integral relationship holds; more research is required. An integrator introduces a 90° phase lag, which for a two-year period is 0.5 years. For a 1000-year Eddy cycle, the lag would be 250-years, which may explain this graphic.
https://i0.wp.com/i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/KouwenbergandMoberg2.png?resize=640%2C438
The graphic comes from a 2010 WUWT article written by David Middleton.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
David, we’ve been over this before.
Atmospheric CO2 Math
Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)
Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which,
Humans: 2% X 4% = 0.08%
Nature: 2% X 96 % = 1.92%
Ratio Natural : Human =1.92% : 0.08% = 24 : 1
Ron Clutz, no matter how many times you pass an anthropogenic CO2 molecules through natural reservoirs, its remains anthropogenic in origin.
“Once a human CO2, always a human CO2”. This silly notion presumes nature somehow segments CO2 from hydrocarbone fuels and treats it differently from other CO2. Completely imaginary. And don’t come with the persisting pulse claim. Whether it’s vocanoes or bomb testing, nature has proven able to absorb them while maintaining its ongoing carbon cycle momentum.
Ron,
CO2 molecules have a source history, even if we don’t know what it is for individual molecules. You also might try differential and integral calculus for complex dynamical processes, instead of arithmetic.
Ron Clutz,
Yes, we have been over this before. Since human emissions exceed atmospheric rise, natural processes are removing net CO2 and cannot be adding it. The excess atmospheric carbon removed has increased the stock of carbon in biomass over the last century and has also added carbon to the oceans, lowering their ph. Or do you think the biomass increase is because trees make carbon? Or do you think carbon is rising to the surface from the deep ocean? The only place I can think of that has less carbon now that it used to is the fossil fuel reserves. It all ties together.
Robert, your suspicion seems to be not too well informed, because both papers (S20, L22) did NOT use any model!
Equilibrium Climate Change or ECS is defined as the increase in global temperatures following a doubling of CO2 concentrations. By definition this is a logarithmic empirical model.
Robert, no, the logarithmic behaviour is NOT a model output, it’s defined by the behaviour of the real world! See https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
What if the rise is the result of human causation? Let’s work with 300 going to 400 ppm because of industrialization, i.e., a 33% increase. Sounds like a big jump, right? But, in going from 0.03 to 0.04%, does that extra 0.01% of CO2 in the air make any difference? AGW witchdoctors only want you to listen to superstitious analogies like polar bears are dying and CO2 is a deadly poison so any increase no matter how small poses life-threatening consequences. But your exhaled breath is 40,000 ppm not 300-400. Compared to the atmosphere there is a ten-fold increase in the air of modern submarines. CO2 is added to greenhouses because plants love it. To plants CO2 is fertilizer (and plants exhale the oxygen we need to live).
‘Climate sensitivity estimates inform policy decisions with enormous economic and social consequences. Ensuring that these estimates are based on rigorous and unbiased analysis is essential for maintaining public trust in climate science.’
I think we all can understand all too well what is going on here. It’s not just GIGO and America is evil and cause of the world’s problems. No matter how you dress up the pig, global warming is just another Left versus right issue.
“Imagine your life without abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and transportation fuels,” says Paul Driessen… Real pollution from modern coal-fired power plants (particulates, sulfates, nitrates and so on) is a tiny fraction of what they emitted 40 years ago – and far less harmful than pollutants from zero-electricity wood fires.”
‘…anyone with knowledge of the politics of science and the politics of public policy can know this much: this is not going to end well.’ ~Jeffrey Tucker
Thanks, Nic.
> While climate sensitivity research has progressed substantially over the last decade or two, significant uncertainties remain. Debate and disagreements are healthy, but should centre on evidence and its interpretation, not on baseless claims.
How true.
The “Clarifying Misrepresentations” at the end of the second paragraph after figure 2 should be formatted as a new heading title.
Thanks. Now fixed.
A complicated summary of a complex problem. However it is all based upon the CO2 absorption spectrum doing what the authors say or assume. The HITRAN data base of infra-red spectra, used widely in the sphere of infra-red spectroscopy shows clearly that the CO2 spectra is heavily overlapped by the much higher concentrations of atmospheric H2O and in any case is almost at the saturation point where little further absorption of energy occurs as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.
A paper published by two geriatric physicists with over 40 years experience each in the field of absorption spectroscopy and a Professor of physics at Dortmund University who has authored the industry standard tome on Gas Measurement Technology in Theory and Practice have published a paper showing precisely the infra-red absorption capabilities of CO2, H20 as well as CH4 and N2O. It can be found at https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12
The abstract of the paper summarises
The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity not only for CO2, but also CH4 and N2O, which are also considered to be strong greenhouse gases, by determining just how atmospheric absorption has resulted in the current 33K warming and then extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations. The HITRAN database of gaseous absorption spectra enables the absorption of earth radiation at its current temperature of 288K to be accurately determined for each individual atmospheric constituent and also for the combined absorption of the atmosphere as a whole. From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. This result strongly suggests that increasing levels of CO2 will not lead to significant changes in earth temperature and that increases in CH4 and N2O will have very little discernable impact.
There is very little overlap. See
https://x.com/EthonRaptor/status/1955748859407425700
May actually be a useful trick for showing images in places where they can’t be pasted
Why the small water cycle is important.
The article by Nic Lewis, “Addressing misconceptions about Climate Sensitivity research: A Response to recent Criticisms,” published on August 13, 2025, critiques the methodology of Sherwood et al. (2020, S20) and Sherwood and Forest (2024) while presenting revised estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). While Lewis’s analysis identifies valid statistical and methodological issues in S20, such as flawed likelihood estimation and inconsistent CO2 forcing assumptions, it shares a critical oversight with S20 and IPCC assessments: the exclusion of the small water cycle. This omission undermines the reliability of ECS estimates and their applicability to regional climate impacts, particularly in North America. Below, I outline the methodological flaws in Lewis’s study related to this exclusion, maintaining clarity and conciseness.
### 1. Omission of Small Water Cycle Dynamics
Lewis’s 2022 study (Lewis22) relies on historical, paleoclimate, and process-based evidence to estimate ECS, yet it does not account for the small water cycle—precipitation recycling, soil moisture retention, forest transpiration, wetland recharge, and microbiome-driven cloud formation. These processes significantly influence regional climate feedbacks, particularly in North America, where they modulate precipitation patterns and temperature extremes. By focusing solely on global-scale forcings (e.g., CO2 doubling, aerosol cooling) and large-scale climate feedbacks, Lewis22 inherits the same limitation as S20 and IPCC models, underestimating the role of local hydrological feedbacks. For example:
– **Precipitation Recycling**: Soil moisture deficits can reduce regional rainfall by 20-30%, amplifying drought risks in the Midwest and Great Plains. Lewis22’s historical evidence analysis ignores this feedback, potentially overestimating ECS by neglecting cooling effects from enhanced soil water retention.
– **Forest Transpiration**: Forests contribute to rainfall via transpiration, increasing local precipitation by 10-15% in regions like the Southeast. Lewis22’s process-based estimates, which rely on GCM-derived feedbacks, miss this effect, leading to biased ECS ranges.
– **Wetland and Groundwater Dynamics**: Wetlands stabilize hydrology by recharging aquifers, reducing drought-fire-flood cycles. Their absence in Lewis22’s paleoclimate and historical analyses limits the accuracy of regional climate sensitivity estimates.
This omission results in ECS estimates (1.75–2.7°C) that may not reflect regional climate variability, particularly in North America, where small water cycle feedbacks are critical.
### 2. Inadequate Representation of Regional Feedbacks
Lewis22’s methodology combines evidence from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP), and historical periods, but it does not incorporate regional hydrological feedbacks driven by the small water cycle. For instance, the article’s Figure 1 shows likelihoods for ECS based on global-scale paleoclimate and historical data, yet these datasets lack parameterization for local processes like evapotranspiration or soil moisture-precipitation coupling. This global focus skews ECS estimates, as North American weather patterns are heavily influenced by small water cycle dynamics, which can amplify or dampen global warming signals. Excluding these feedbacks likely contributes to the narrower ECS range in Lewis22 compared to S20 (2.6–3.9°C), as regional cooling effects (e.g., transpirational cooling) are ignored.
### 3. Neglect of Ecosystem Restoration Impacts
Lewis22’s revisions to aerosol forcing and pattern effect estimates do not consider the potential of ecosystem restoration (e.g., reforestation, wetland restoration) to enhance small water cycle processes. The article notes the uncertainty in aerosol cooling and pattern effects but fails to explore how carbon-funded restoration could strengthen local hydrology, thereby altering climate feedbacks. For example, restoring 100,000 acres of forest in a 500,000-acre region could increase precipitation by 5-10% and reduce regional warming via transpiration, effects not captured in Lewis22’s ECS calculations. This omission limits the study’s relevance to policy-relevant climate mitigation strategies.
### 4. Statistical Methodology and Prior Selection Bias
Lewis22 adopts an objective Bayesian approach with a Jeffreys’ prior to minimize bias, a valid improvement over S20’s subjective Bayesian method. However, the prior and likelihood functions do not account for uncertainties in small water cycle feedbacks. For instance, the historical evidence likelihood (Figure 1c) assumes a uniform treatment of forcing and feedback without incorporating soil moisture or transpiration variability, which can alter effective radiative forcing by 5-10%. This omission risks underestimating uncertainty in ECS, particularly for regions like North America where small water cycle effects are pronounced.
### Implications for Climate Sensitivity Estimates
The exclusion of the small water cycle in Lewis22, as in S20 and IPCC AR6, leads to incomplete ECS estimates that fail to capture regional climate dynamics critical for North American weather patterns. Incorporating small water cycle processes—such as soil sponginess, forest transpiration, and wetland recharge—would likely widen the ECS uncertainty range by accounting for regional cooling feedbacks and reduce median estimates by including transpirational cooling effects. For example, integrating these dynamics into models could lower North American regional warming projections by 0.2–0.5°C, aligning with observed precipitation increases in northern high latitudes.
### Conclusion
While Lewis22 corrects significant methodological flaws in S20, its failure to incorporate the small water cycle mirrors a critical oversight in mainstream climate models. This omission limits the study’s ability to accurately estimate ECS for regional applications, particularly in North America, where local hydrological feedbacks drive weather pattern stability. To improve ECS estimates, future studies must parameterize small water cycle processes, leveraging data from ecosystem restoration projects funded by voluntary carbon markets. Such integration would enhance the robustness of climate sensitivity estimates and better inform regional climate adaptation strategies.
I leave some of the statistical issues around priors to other people, but it’s completely ridiculous to assert that one “should have” used a (Gregory) regression method over fixed SST runs for forcing estimates. The latter is quite standard for a reason and has a rich history in the literature.
You have completely failed to understand my (perfectly correct) argument on this point. It relates to a particular case where use of [Gregory] regression based doubled CO2 forcing (F2xCO2) is definitely appropriate, notwithstanding that (as I wrote in my ACP Comment article) such “regression-based F2xCO2 values are bound to underestimate true F2xCO2 , as estimated from fixed SST simulations”. Maybe it would help you understand why if you read my ACP article.
Water is abundant, water changes states, water, in its changing states have orders of magnitude more influence than the trace gas CO2. (ECS)—the long-term warming response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations—Is in the noise of the influence of water in its powerful self corrections in its changing states. Where water is absent, where CO2 is dominate, in dry places, temperature extremes are much more. where water is present, where water in its changing states is dominate, the temperature extremes are much less. Sea levels and ice mass and ice extents determine climate change, orders of magnitude more than CO2 changes.
“Where water is absent, where CO2 is dominate, in dry places, temperature extremes are much more.”
–
The CO2 is a trace gas, a trace gas doesn’t dominate anywhere.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It dominates the absorption in the IR water window, which closely matches, and transmits, Earth’s thermal emissions. CO2 absorption fills/blocks a large part of that window. It is well understood – study more.
Thank you, B A.
Now, here’s your chance to prove you actually know something about science.
Find at least ONE thing wrong with this graphic:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
It should be easy, as there are several things wrong.
Good luck!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos My publications and educational background already demonstrate my broad knowledge in the physical sciences. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for you. Also, your web page and comments here indicate that your science understanding and expertise are extremely limited. Like I said, study more! Although probably a waste of time, since you have shown that you have minimal science comprehension skills and quite likely suffer from self-delusion (worse than willful ignorance).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/why-we-blame/201709/willful-ignorance-and-self-deception?msockid=0e7df573745465ef28b7e5f67569643c
B A, find then at least ONE thing wrong with this graphic:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
Because to REAL scientists, it’s just full of holes….
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I can list the things that you think might be wrong – that does not make them wrong:
Over-simplification of Complex Systems They argue that the diagram reduces Earth’s climate system to a static balance of incoming and outgoing energy, ignoring dynamic feedbacks, internal variability, and non-radiative processes.
Assumptions Behind Radiative Forcing Some challenge the assumptions used to calculate radiative forcing, particularly the role of CO₂. They may claim that water vapor, clouds, or solar variability are underrepresented or mischaracterized.
Cloud Feedback Uncertainty Diagrams often show net cloud effects as a single value. Contrarians argue that cloud feedbacks are poorly understood and could offset warming more than models suggest.
Downwelling Longwave Radiation The depiction of greenhouse gases emitting infrared radiation back to Earth is sometimes criticized as violating thermodynamic principles—though this is a misunderstanding of radiative transfer physics.
Lack of Error Bars or Uncertainty Ranges The diagram typically shows precise numbers (e.g., 342 W/m² incoming solar radiation), which contrarians argue gives a false impression of certainty in measurements and models.
Neglect of Non-Radiative Energy Transfers Processes like convection, latent heat transport, and oceanic heat redistribution are often simplified or omitted, which critics say distorts the full picture.
Christos, I commented on your statement:
” The CO2 is a trace gas, a trace gas doesn’t dominate anywhere.”
and I responded:
It dominates the absorption in the IR water window, which closely matches, and transmits, Earth’s thermal emissions. CO2 absorption fills/blocks a large part of that window. It is well understood – study more.
Is a stupid gotcha question all you have to deflect from your lack of knowledge and inability to learn?
Christos, here are rebuttals to many of the contrarian beliefs that may lead you to think there are things wrong with the NASA energy balance diagram:
Back Radiation violates thermodynamics This reflects a misunderstanding of radiative transfer. The second law prohibits net heat flow from cold to hot—not individual photon exchanges. The surface emits ~398 W/m², and the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m². Net flow is still upward.
CO₂ is saturated While central absorption bands are near saturation, the wings continue absorbing. More CO₂ raises the altitude of emission, reducing outgoing IR and warming the surface.
Diagram ignores feedbacks and dynamics The energy budget is a snapshot of radiative fluxes—not a full climate model. Feedbacks like cloud and water vapor are addressed in dynamic models, not static diagrams.
No error bars = false precision The diagram is pedagogical, not a statistical report. NASA and Trenberth et al. provide uncertainty ranges in their technical papers.
Non-radiative processes are omitted Sensible heat (~24 W/m²) and latent heat (~78 W/m²) are included. The diagram balances radiative and non-radiative fluxes at the surface.
Thank you, B A, for your response.
“Back Radiation violates thermodynamics This reflects a misunderstanding of radiative transfer. The second law prohibits net heat flow from cold to hot—not individual photon exchanges. The surface emits ~398 W/m², and the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m². Net flow is still upward.”
–
I never said “back radiation violates thermodynamics”.
There is a back radiation, but it is very small, it is almost not there, but it is – at least theoretically.
It doesn’t affect climate…
*********
I would like to concentrate on the “The surface emits ~398 W/m², and the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m².” assertion.
Because neither the surface emits ~398 W/m², and nor the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m².
Those both are terrible mistakes!
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, Concentrate on whatever you want – I’m not interested.
Because neither the surface emits ~398 W/m², and nor the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m².
Those both are terrible mistakes!
Please have the surface covered with standard 400 W radiative heaters per square meter (m²).
And please cover the skies with 340 W radiative heaters per square meter (m²).
They would produce a high temperatures furnice!
Unbelievable! Who started that nonsence in the first place?
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A Bushaw wrote, citing some government climate “scientists”:
“Back Radiation violates thermodynamics This reflects a misunderstanding of radiative transfer. The second law prohibits net heat flow from cold to hot—not individual photon exchanges. The surface emits ~398 W/m², and the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m². Net flow is still upward.”
No, none of that is correct physics. There is no such thing as “net heat”, nor is there any “returned power”. That’s not how power works, nor electromagnetic radiation for that matter. You can easily tell because none of those quantities are measurable. They are pure fictions, or “counterfactual values that could be real in a different universe than the one we live in”.
The only “misunderstanding” of radiative transfer is on the part of government “scientists”.
Radiation is a form of energy, and therefore of course you can measure radiant energy from the atmosphere – but not radiant power at the surface, due to that pesky 2nd Law. No one ever has.
Pingback: Addressing misconceptions about Climate Sensitivity research: a Response to recent Criticisms – Climate- Science.press
Nic, thank you for your continued work to audit the science. I know this is not a lot of payment for your work even when multiplied by millions.
Climate sensitivity is the single most important physical variable in climate science since without the threat of >3C per doubling there is little alarm. If fact, if it’s < 2C then CO2 is mostly beneficial overall, including the increase to crop yields and greening of dry places. If it's 2C-3C then we should continue to mitigate CO2 but without worry.
Though I know you like to stick with using the established methods, and only correct their math, do you personally suspect that PETM was influenced by more than just CO2? For example, could the current continental division of the oceans be significantly cooling the poles, and thus the planet (by increasing ice albedo), versus paleo era single continent of Pangea?
According to Gemini AI the PETM was 56MM ya, well past Pangea but much different than today. It concludes: “This unique continental arrangement, combined with the lack of significant polar ice caps, was a major factor in the extreme global warming and changes in ocean circulation that characterized the PETM.”
Is this taken in consideration in the models or studies?
GCM paleoclimate simulations normally incorporate, and hence take account of, continental configuration & orography, insofar as practicable, but I’m unsure to what extent this is so in the PETM. Nor am I sure that Gemini AI says is accurate.
The subject question raises three issues:
1. Any AI is extrapolation the present day hymn book in ignorance of all other matters known and unknown.
2. One can only rely on present earth axial tilt up to 2346bce, and even in that period there were minor flings. Before it was very different.
3. This is only limited to the Mediterranean. It was different before ~ 3195bce, the last of abrupt tectonic rotations and subsidence of parts. But apparently similar events in vicinity of Indian coastlines. Elsewhere is unknown (to me).
Ron, thanks for your comment. It is quite possible that the PETM was influenced by other factors than CO2 and the related likely rise in CH4 and N2O (estimated in both S20 and Lewis22 as increasing the CO2 forcing by 40%). I’m not a PETM expert and I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess as to whether the major differences in climate state and in continental configuration & orography boosted or reduced ECS in the PETM relative to the present day. But they clearly increase the uncertainty in estimating ECS from PETM data, over and above the uncertainty arising from very limited and quite poor proxy data. The equation in S20 & Lewis22 used for estimating ECS from PETM data includes a factor intended to allow for such uncertainty.
It is interesting that despite the immediate pre-PETM GMST being almost double the current level (in degrees C )- somewhere in or around the 23 to 28 C region) and then rising by around another 5 C, very few species seem to have become extinct as a result.
Judith, thank you. I love reading your work for an expanded understanding.
For a non-climate scientist who has only a rudimentary understanding, how is saturation built into these models and what is your opinion of Happer et al’s assessment of saturation?
This is Nic Lewis replying, as the article is by me.
GCM radiation code allows for the saturation effect, which results in CO2 forcing from its strongest absorption line/band increasing only logarithmically (thus more and more slowly) with CO2 concentration, but not hitting a maximum. The absorption line spreads out a bit and the regions in its wings are not saturated. This is consistent with Happer et al.’s calculations, so far as I am aware.
Sorry – I should have addressed to you and not Judith – I didn’t pay attention to the author line.
I also hadn’t read the comments and I see that one of them does address saturation.
Happer and van Wijngaarden suggest a doubling of CO2 will result in warming of 1.4-2.2 C. Independent of CM modelling, they do appear to have credible spectroscopy credentials…
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Pingback: CAPIRE LA SENSIBILITÀ CLIMATICA: UNA RISPOSTA ALLE CRITICHE RECENTI – Attività Solare
I write to you as the scientist who first identified and formalized the phenomenon I termed “heat creep”—a process demonstrably governed by the principle of maximum entropy production, which lies at the heart of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
My principal paper, Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures (2013), is available on ResearchGate and also at SSRN, alongside other peer-reviewed work. All my papers are at https://ssrn.com/author=2627605.
The empirical and theoretical evidence supporting this discovery spans laboratory experiments and planetary data across the Solar System—including Uranus and the Moon—and remains unrefuted.
I invite you to explore my website: http://climate-change-theory.com, which consolidates the implications of this work. In particular, I demonstrate that water vapor acts as a cooling agent, not a warming one, due to its role in reducing the magnitude of the tropospheric temperature gradient. This gradient is not a product of adiabatic lapse processes, but rather emerges from molecular-level interactions governed by gravity’s influence on kinetic energy distribution. Josef Loschmidt explained this in the 1870’s.
This framework explains phenomena such as the ~320K temperature at the base of Uranus’s nominal 350 km troposphere, as detailed in my planetary studies. It also offers a coherent thermodynamic basis for lunar core temperatures.
To date, no one has successfully refuted the findings presented in my papers or the 15-minute explanatory video linked on my site. Nor, I contend, can they—because the physics is sound and the data compelling.
The prevailing greenhouse gas narrative, particularly regarding CO₂, relies on flawed assumptions and misrepresented energy budget diagrams. These suggest, implausibly, that trace gases comprising less than 0.3% of the atmosphere can radiate twice as much thermal energy downward than the Sun delivers to Earth’s surface. Even Dr. Roy Spencer has acknowledged that the so-called “back radiation” figure is a theoretical construct—not a measured reality.
I encourage you to review:
• The water vapor analysis in the Appendix of my 2013 paper
• Prof. Claes Johnson’s Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation (especially p. 24) which explained why back radiation is not thermalized at all in the warmer surface
• My 2012 peer-reviewed paper Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which extends Johnson’s work with a rigorous quantification of heat transfer
The CSIRO in Australia is unable to produce any valid explanation based on the laws of physics in support of the contention on their website that greenhouse gases warm the planet. Nor can NASA or the IPCC and nor can any of the authors of the report.
These contributions merit serious consideration in any revision of your climate report. The assertion that CO₂ warms the planet is not only scientifically untenable—it undermines the credibility of climate science itself
“The prevailing greenhouse gas narrative, particularly regarding CO₂, relies on flawed assumptions and misrepresented energy budget diagrams. These suggest, implausibly, that trace gases comprising less than 0.3% of the atmosphere can radiate twice as much thermal energy downward than the Sun delivers to Earth’s surface. Even Dr. Roy Spencer has acknowledged that the so-called “back radiation” figure is a theoretical construct—not a measured reality.”
–
Very good said:
“”The prevailing greenhouse gas narrative, particularly regarding CO₂, relies on flawed assumptions and misrepresented energy budget diagrams.”
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos
Doug Cotton and Demitris are well known skeptics. Could you discuss the salient agreements and disagreements between all three of your views, however subtle. Thanks.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/complex-systems/articles/10.3389/fcpxs.2025.1617092/full
You wrote:
“Even Dr. Roy Spencer has acknowledged that the so-called “back radiation” figure is a theoretical construct—not a measured reality.”
Can you point me to where he admitted this? The last time I talked to him about the fake “adjustments” in pyrgeometer equations a few weeks ago, he still seemed to think that this imaginary “flux” was somehow a real quantity, despite being unmeasurable.
It is easily measured – at night.
“It is easily measured – at night.”
No it isn’t. Show me.
Yes it is, and also during daytime. An example with real data:
https://www.arm.gov/publications/tech_reports/handbooks/pyrg_handbook.pdf
“pyrgeometer”
Since you’re apparently claiming to be a pyrgeometer expert, please explain the two terms in the “pyrgeometer equation” to me, and what the underlying physical validity of each one is.
I’m not claiming to be an expert. I just know how to do literature research. Perhaps you’d like to explain it to me, and why the data in the report I cited is incorrect. Deflection is BS.
I’m not “deflecting” anything, just trying to find out whether you have any idea what you’re talking about. Now that we know that the answer to that question is “no”, I will give you the short answer to my own question:
The “pyrgeometer equation” has two terms in it. The first one is a completely valid power measurement from a thermopile. But *that’s not what they report*. First, they “adjust” this power measurement with a completely fictional calculation based on a *temperature* measurement. This “adjustment” is not only an order of magnitude *larger* than the actual power measurement, but in the *opposite direction*. Converting temperature directly into power is, of course, invalid physics. So my original statement stands: no one has measured “downwelling longwave infrared radiant power” from the surface. Or, more precisely, when they do, they get a *negative number*.
Not a deflection. Sure then why didn’t you address:
“Perhaps you’d like to explain it to me, and why the data in the report I cited is incorrect.”
You could start by explaining\referencing the pyrgeometer equations and the “fake corrections”.
Then, perhaps, why so many groups are able to make measurement of the “unmeasureable”.
BTW, I admitted to not being an expert on the subject, do you have any publications that show that you are?
Never mind, I’ll go with ARM for derivation and explanation, over your quantification-free word salad.
https://www.arm.gov/publications/proceedings/conf16/extended_abs/stoffel_t.pdf
“then why didn’t you address”
I did address it. It’s not my fault you didn’t understand any of the words.
“do you have any publications”
Nope. But any physicist in the world will agree with my assessment. So will ChatGPT, for that matter. Why don’t you ask one of them?
“I’ll go with ARM”
You know that “Argument from Authority” is a classic Logical Fallacy, right?
“for derivation and explanation”
You didn’t understand a single word of their “derivation and explanation”, never mind mine, so this is simply fantasy and “quantification-free word salad” on your part.
“quantification-free word salad”
Like I said, it’s not my fault you didn’t understand any of my physics terms. To non-physicists, yes, physics often looks like “word salad”. That’s true for other sciences too, of course. Why don’t you study this subject yourself before shooting your mouth off about it, and insulting people who *have* studied it? In my case, for my entire life?
If you really want quantification of my argument, not that it will help you any, the actual downwelling (upward-looking) longwave infrared radiation power measurement ranges between 0 and -100 W/m^2 depending on the humidity. The average is about -50 W/m^2. At no time is it a positive number. You can confirm this yourself with your own thermopile – no need to take my word for it (and no real scientist would ask you to take their word, either).
Thank you, B A, for interesting article about pyrgeometer.
https://www.arm.gov/publications/tech_reports/handbooks/pyrg_handbook.pdf
Does the blackbody in calibration dome emit 390W/m2 at 15C?
Because I think it doesn’t.
How the pyrgeometer is calibrated then to measure the 390W/m2 at 15C?
I’m a physicist – I disagree with you, therefore wrong again.
“I’m a physicist”
No you’re not. Sit down and stay in your lane.
S K-J, How would you know? You can try “Researchgate B A Bushaw”, Then “PNNL” and enter “Bushaw” in the search box at upper right.
You are clearly a wannabe that can’t do physics research or understand it. Get out of my lane, or get run over.
“How would you know?”
Because I grew up with one, and I know how they think. None of them think that converting temperature directly into power constitutes valid physics, the way the pyrgeometer “scientists” are doing. None of them think that “argument from authority” constitutes valid science, either. Nor do any of them characterize a discussion of the relationship between “temperature” and “power” as a “quantification-free word salad”. Finally, all of them have a higher IQ than a squirrel, which you have yet to demonstrate. No, publishing papers does not guarantee that you have any idea what you are talking about, and no, I’m not worried about getting intellectually “run over” by someone with the IQ of a squirrel.
So anyway, with your extensive professional physics background, can you please explain the following terms to me, in short sentences: “energy”, “work”, “power”, “temperature”, “radiation”, and “entropy”. Then, and only then, can we discuss why you think the pyrgeometer “scientists” are on the right track – because they aren’t using those words the way actual physicists do. They are inventing *fake power* out of thin air, with the stroke of a pen, and that’s not how physics works. You should know that. I certainly shouldn’t have to *explain* it to you. Right?
You’re right – we have nothing to talk about.
Somehow I don’t think that will stop you.
“we have nothing to talk about”
On the other hand, if you were actually a physicist, we certainly would! There are major scientific crimes being committed here, all over the world, and you don’t care in the slightest… but never mind all that, just keep writing papers about laser ionization and hope the problem just sorts itself out without you. Right?
“– we have nothing to talk about”
Was this what you meant when you threatened to “run over” me? Because from here, it looks a lot more like you are “running away”.
Where did you get your physics degree from, anyway? Because I think you should ask for a refund. It obviously wasn’t worth the toilet paper or cereal box top that it was printed on. Are they just handing those things out like grocery store coupons these days?
Chatter around the campfire is that gannon was just a lab gofer in charge of the Dawn dispenser for the daily beaker bath.
He certainly isn’t intelligent enough to be running laser ionization experiments on his own. He should be supervised with the beaker bath, too. I went to check the WordPress link in his name to see what other baloney he’s written, but it’s been deleted. Good riddance. And just like that, the IQ of the entire Internet has just gone up a point!
Kid, Chatter around the campfire is that cerescokid thinks he’s clever when he makes up crap, but in reality he just shows how stupid he and his insults are.
ganon
Knuckleheads get published all the time.
Taleb was on to something when he said “Intellectual yet idiot.”
Kid, let us know when you publish something. You’re already half-way there, Knucklehead.
“how stupid he and his insults are.”
When are you planning to “run me over” with your astonishing intellect? I’m still waiting. Can you explain for us the difference between a Joule and a Watt? The pyrgeometer “scientists” certainly can’t.
SK-J:
“Can you explain for us the difference between a Joule and a Watt?”
Sure, A Joule is the SI unit for energy, A Watt is the SI unit for power and is equivalent to 1 joule/1 second.
I don’t need to “run you over” – you do fine all on your own.
Those are the correct definitions for Joules and Watts, which is a good start. Now can you explain to us under what conditions you think a Joule of energy can be used to develop a Watt of power?
SKJ. Of course I could, but I’m not going to – not interested n your silly quizes.
“not going to”
You can’t “run me over” if you don’t answer my questions. That’s just “running away”.
“not interested n [sic] your silly quizes [sic]”
If you were in fact a physicist as you claim, you would recognize a physics lesson when you see one. When was the last time you received an *actual* physics lesson? And how many “quizes” [sic] were involved?
SKJ,
Frankly, your past and present sociopathic behavior doesn’t deserve any answers at all. Bye.
“sociopathic”
Psychological projection on your part, of course
“Bye”
Running away again? You’re not going to “run me over” like that.
Steve, that’s the parrots flight of fancy in motion—though for the uninitiated his shrill squawks do take some getting used to.
Steve, I’m sorry I really meant a narcissistic sociopathic loser, suffering from Dunning-Kruger and related superiority-inferiority complex. As far as “running you over” – I already have, with respect to demonstrable physics and other physical science competency, you are an extreme loser, 124:0. You should have stayed out of my lane.
“narcissistic sociopathic loser, suffering from Dunning-Kruger and related superiority-inferiority complex”
The psychological projection sure is strong with this one.
“As far as “running you over” – I already have, with respect to demonstrable physics”
Which part was the “running over”, again? I must have missed it. The only thing I’ve been “run over” by is the dust from your rapidly disappearing shoes.
Sure, Stevie. It means I have 124(+) publications in the physical sciences, particularly chemistry and physics, in high-end, peer reviewed journals such as Physical Review Letters and Analytical Chemistry. You, OTH, have admitted to zero publications. Further, as to educational and professional background experience, I have BS and MS degrees in chemistry, PhD in physics, and 35 years as a national laboratory scientist. You, OTH, have no known educational or experiential background, well maybe you “grew up around some physicists” and therefore you know how all physicists think (LMAO). That is why I think of you as an extreme loser, or more simply a zero with a giant chip on his shoulder. Not to mention that you can’t defend your position on pyrgeometers – that they can’t measure downwelling IR. I provided two references proving you wrong. All you had to support your position was your personal opinions – no references – again, a zero and an extreme loser, scientifically speaking.
Hope you understand now, but probably not.
“I have 124(+) publications”
Why would you think that anyone cares? Least of all me? You can’t demonstrate the slightest knowledge of physics beyond a primary-school level. That’s the problem. You have done exactly nothing to rectify it thus far, and you are behaving like a six-year-old.
Why don’t you start your next response like an adult, and explain to the class what the relationship between “energy” and “power” is. It’s a short description and very easy for a real physicist. In particular, what conditions do you think need to be met in order for “energy” to develop “power”?
Sorry Steve, I don’t need basic physics lessons from a nobody with no known qualifications, and who is deflecting from the fact that he can’t refute the disproof of his hypothesis that pyrgeometers can’t measure downwelling IR.
“basic physics lessons from a nobody”
I never said you had to take physics lessons from me. But you obviously haven’t comprehended whatever lessons you took from anyone else, either. The knowledge you have demonstrated in this thread thus far appears to be a 6th grade level, at best.
The pyrgeometer “adjustments” (not the actual measurement – that part is fine, and of course it’s a negative number) rely on a complete failure to grasp the relationship between “energy” and “power”. They want us to believe that these concepts are, essentially, freely interchangeable. But that’s not what I was taught, and it’s not what I’ve ever observed either. What were you taught about this relationship, Professor? And what have you observed?
AI level– ‘The energy vs. power distinction is critical for understanding climate change science, particularly regarding the concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Scientific claims about climate change often focus on total energy accumulation (energy), while some critical viewpoints question the rate of warming (power) and the climate system’s total energy capacity.’
From what I see, an important issue AGW climatists ignore is, using the analogy of filling a bucket with water: their bucket is overflowing. Tim Ball offers the explanatory analogy of painting a window black.
AGW Climatists prefer to live in a mystical era like Vermont immigrants who cut down trees to cook, heat log cabins and raise kids who grew up to blame their parents for cutting down trees. The parents of these idiot kids don’t hate trees they love trees.
‘Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint.’ (Dr. Timothy Ball)
Stevie,
You are still an unknown nobody, and your psychotic personal opinions are nothing but fantasies.
” fantasies”
Which part of what I wrote was the “fantasy”? Remember, I am following the measurements. You are not. That doesn’t make you a very good “physicist”, or “scientist” of any description.
SK-J: “” fantasies”
Which part of what I wrote was the “fantasy”? Remember, I am following the measurements. You are not. That doesn’t make you a very good “physicist”, or “scientist” of any description.
Fantasies – Every time you attempted to insult me about my competencies.
Nah, I’m the one following the measurements – you are not (where are the references that support your claims?)
“Decadal variation of longwave downwelling and net radiation as observed at the surface with implication for climate sensitivity: Based on pyrgeometer and pyranometer measurements” [Ohmura, Journal of the European Meteorological Society, Volume 1, December 2024, 100003]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemets.2024.100003
That is direct disproof of your unsupported hypothesis claiming that geopyrometers can’t determine downwelling IR.
But then you are quite clearly neither a scientist nor a physicist, just a jerk that thinks insults will cover for his ignorance. And of course, there is no reason to pay any attention to your unsupported personal opinions, since you won’t even share any of your background – are you embarrassed about it?
“longwave downwelling and net radiation as observed”
Fabricated
“attempted to insult me about my competencies.”
I asked you a fundamental physics question. It is part of my lesson on how the pyrgeometer “scientists” are hoodwinking you. Yet you failed to answer the question, producing instead only a great deal of grumbling, stumbling, fumbling, crumbling, and of course running away, multiple times – despite the fact that you’re nevertheless mysteriously still here. So my entirely logical conclusion is that you don’t know the first thing about physics. Why would I rationally conclude anything else? What would you conclude, in my shoes?
“direct disproof”
Fabricated unmeasurable nonsense
“you won’t even share any of your background – are you embarrassed about it?”
Not at all. No need for *me* to be embarrassed, because I’m not the one claiming all the credentials without knowing the most basic thing about the subject. That certainly would be an embarrassing thing for someone to do, wouldn’t it? Myself, I practically grew up in the physics department at the university, where my father worked as a professor. It was a lot of fun, and a lot of hard work too, of course. As a result, among other things, I know the difference between “energy” and “power” very well, which you obviously don’t. Nor, clearly, do the pyrgeometer “scientists”. Furthermore I developed a very finely honed ability to spot physics BS at least a mile away, if not further. What criteria do you use to spot BS? And where did you get that “degree” of yours? A cereal box top?
I detect physics BS when a person won’t disclose their background and cannot provide references to support their claims, You qualify as BS, I don’t. Nice that you have such a distinctive name – Linkedin.
“I detect physics BS when a person won’t disclose their background”
Who taught you that idea? It wasn’t a physics professor.
And your own BS detector has already failed you, since I did disclose my background. Where did you say you got your PhD from, again?
Your claim to be a physicist without knowing the difference between “energy” and “power” is exactly like claiming to be a chemist without knowing what an “ion” is, or claiming to be a car mechanic without knowing one end of a wrench from t’other. No one is going to fall for it, and if you look around, you will see that, indeed, no one has.
SK-J,
You are a pathological liar:
B A Bushaw | August 31, 2025 at 10:08 am |
SK-J:
“Can you explain for us the difference between a Joule and a Watt?”
Sure, A Joule is the SI unit for energy, A Watt is the SI unit for power and is equivalent to 1 joule/1 second.
I don’t need to “run you over” – you do fine all on your own.
That response is at a first-year high school level. Can you answer the rest of the question, please, which I posed several days ago, as follows:
“Those are the correct definitions for Joules and Watts, which is a good start. Now can you explain to us under what conditions you think a Joule of energy can be used to develop a Watt of power?”
SK-J,
You asked as high school level physics question. I answered it. Doesn’t change the fact that you are a pathological liar.
“I answered it.”
No you didn’t. You gave half the answer, at best, and of course it was the least knowledgeable half. Here’s the rest of the question again: Can you explain to us under what conditions you think a Joule of energy can be used to develop a Watt of power? Or to put it another way, what do you think a “Joule per second” means, exactly?
If you don’t know the answer, just say “I don’t know”.
“a pathological liar”
More psychological projection and hypocritical deflection BS. You really should seek help for that. It’s not healthy.
SK-J,
Pathological liars keep repeating the same lie, even when provided direct evidence of the lie – that is you. Here are the question and answer, once again. If you don’t know what energy and power mean, that’s your problem.
B A Bushaw | August 31, 2025 at 10:08 am |
SK-J:
“Can you explain for us the difference between a Joule and a Watt?”
Sure, A Joule is the SI unit for energy, A Watt is the SI unit for power and is equivalent to 1 joule/1 second.
“If you don’t know what energy and power mean, that’s your problem.”
More hypocritical deflection BS.
No, it’s not my problem, because I’m not the one pretending to be a physicist. So far you have demonstrated precisely zero comprehension of this topic. Regurgitating some unit definitions you found on Wikipedia doesn’t count – a sixth grader can do that too. Can you do any better than that? And where did you get that hypothetical physics PhD from, anyway? A cereal box?
SK-J: “No, it’s not my problem, because I’m not the one pretending to be a physicist.”
No, you are the one pretending to know some physics when you don’t. Not only that, you are a pathological liar and a narcissist that can’t stand being called out by a real physicist when you get something wrong. Please keep making a fool of yourself and demonstrating your psychological deficiencies – it has been entertaining, but also boring.
“No, you are the one pretending to know some physics”
More hypocritical deflection BS. Why don’t you just answer my question, please? And if you don’t know the answer, just say “I don’t know”.
Doug Cotton wrote:
To date, no one has successfully refuted the findings presented in my papers or the 15-minute explanatory video linked on my site.
Dude, no one has paid the slightest bit of attention to your manuscript. Zero.
Get it published in a decent peer reviewed journal, then it will get at least a tiny bit of attention. Maybe.
But I’m sure you can’t even do that, unless maybe it’s a useless predatory journal.
You are a sad example of someone who is (kind of) interested in science, but can’t resist your conspiratorial thinking.
It’s really rather sad.
Mr. Appell, your and BA Bushaw’s religious reverence for pub counts leads you both down roads towards irrelevance. Perhaps it’s because of the amount of money you have to pay to get papers published.
Thomas, just what I’d expect someone with no ‘pubs’ to say. Yeah, we may be on the road to irrelevance (except for very few, we all are). But I’m glad you imply that we have relevance now. You don’t, and you never have anything of relevance to say. Care to make a supportable comment on, say, sea level rise or pyrgeometers, instead of launching false personal attacks?
BTW, pub counts, the journals they are in, and the content and quality of said pubs, are primary metrics for scientific competence. Unfortunately, there are a lot of zeros here, like you, here that have neither competence nor relevance.
e.g., by taking temperature measurements of the pyrgeometer’s components, AGW Climate Change gobbledygookers can use the pyrgeometer equation to isolate the longwave radiation that is specifically from the atmosphere (\(W_{atm}\)). This atmospheric radiation is a proxy for the ACTUAL air temperature, allowing for an estimation of the regional temperature, and correcting for the GIGO but, instead of having to correct the raw thermometer readings, how about eliminating the need for adjustments to correct for inaccuracies of official thermometers at a French airports where runways are continually swept of snow and jet exhaust warms the air by relocating the official thermometers to the countryside In the region that’s covered knee-deep in snow?
Pingback: Die Empfindlichkeit des irdischen Klimasystems auf CO2: neue Erkenntnisse – KlimaNachrichten
Hi Physics Scientist:
Could you please summarise your theory in 2 to 3 paragraphs.
Thanks
Pingback: CAPIRE LA SENSIBILITÀ CLIMATICA: UNA RISPOSTA ALLE CRITICHE RECENTI – ItaNews24
When is it believable that earth’s ‘climate’ is ever balanced in the sense that the atmosphere is ever in such equilibrium at any particular period of time where the temperature of the world can ever be realistically defined by averaging.
Averaging may be a convenient mathematical tool but doesn’t always prove useful in determining central tendencies that can be relied on to make valid inferences on decadal or even centennial time scales.
Wagathon:
Our climate is controlled by the amount of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere, from volcanic eruptions (or the lack of them) and from increased or decreased SO2 aerosol levels from the burning of fossil fuels from industrial activity, etc.
It can NEVER be used to make any predictions, because of their random occurrences.
‘Even if we closed down every factory, crushed every car and aeroplane, turned off all energy production, and threw 4 billion people worldwide out of work, climate would still change, and often dramatically. Unfortunately, we would all be too poor to do anything about it.’ ~Philip Stott
Pingback: a Response to recent Criticisms – Watts Up With That? | BBC Record London
I was a published biochemist in the past and have always been interested in this topic. Here’s what I’ve gotten so far. Man creates 30 billion tons of CO2 each year and it goes into an atmosphere that already has 3,000 billion tons or 1% of all CO2 is man made. There are roughly 3 trillion trees , each absorbs 48 pounds of CO2/yr. Or roughly 72 billion tons per year. This is just the fixed CO2. Oceanic life forms , another 10 billion tons( I think this is an extremely low amount). Remember that this is only the “fixed” CO2 via photosynthesis. What’s hard to find is the amount (tons) of CO2 that earth’s photosynthetic life forms “inhale” during the day and “exhales” at night when sugars are metabolized and plants die and decay releasing more CO2. We have been missing an important dynamic aspect of the CO2 cycle. As above, say 82 billion tons fixed each year out of the available 3,000. That’s a small amount considering the actual cycle. Is it about 3,000 billion tons are inhaled during sunlight hours and 3,000 billion tons exhaled at night each year? Our 30 billion tons (1% CO2) additional contribution is so miniscule when considering the entirety.
Wesley,
You forgot to integrate the CO2 from anthropogenic emissions.
Since 1925, there have been ~ 1900 billion tons of human generated CO2 emissions. By your math, that is more like 65%. About half is absorbed into the various reservoirs, leaving ~ 33% increasing the atmospheric content. For a quick calculation, that corresponds pretty well with the observed concentration increase.
https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions
As for trees being a salvation: Trees die, and (eventually) decomposition releases 90-99% of the sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 and CH4. Since CH4 is a much stronger GHG than CO2 with an atmospheric lifetime of ~10 years, also with conversion back to CO2 via reactions with atmospheric hydroxyl radicals. So in the long term, actual sequestration of carbon absorbed during the growing process is on the order of a few percent, and the overall GHG effect may be worse because of the time spent as CH4.
“CO₂ is saturated While central absorption bands are near saturation, the wings continue absorbing.”
The additional IR absorption caused by adding CO2 to ordinary sea level atmospheric air is derisory. This result is easily confirmed by any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab, and conclusively refutes the CO2 climate narrative at its foundation.
“More CO₂ raises the altitude of emission, reducing outgoing IR and warming the surface.”
Because the earth is a sphere, raising the altitude of emission also widens the effective overhead aperture for the final escape to outer space, maintaining the radiative equilibrium. There is consequently no significant reduction of outgoing IR or warming of the surface.
Roy, “The additional IR absorption caused by adding CO2 to ordinary sea level atmospheric air is derisory”.
Do you have a reference to confirm that?
B A Bushaw wrote:
“Roy, I wasn’t interested after you gave as your only reference Andy May’s 28-year-old blog description of Heinz Hug’s long debunked ‘experiment’.”
Yet you continue to respond to my posts, though without being able to address any of my arguments.
References are not really appropriate when identifying the logical implications of facts that are well known and not controversial. If you can find a more recent or authoritative (and unpaywalled) description of Hug’s (or a similar) experiment that satisfies your exacting standards, please provide it. I assume you must have seen one, as that is the only way you could honestly describe it as having been “debunked.” I have read a few attempts to debunk it, and they were nothing but fallacious, dishonest nonscience. None of the “debunkers” has ever offered a reference to an actual empirical experiment to replicate Hug’s and show that his results are not reproducible. Absent such an experiment, Hug’s results have not been debunked. Period.
“I also don’t have much interest in the antics of what I perceive as an angrily aggressive Duning-Krugerite,”
Why would I be angry at your consistently dismissive, condescending, and derogatory (yet curiously evasive and unresponsive) rejoinders to my posts?
“who has no desire, or capability, to learn something new.”
As they say in Japan, “It’s mirror time!”
I have identified numerous uncontroversial facts and showed that their logical implications are not consistent with the CO2 climate narrative. You just derogate me personally and make no attempt to address any of my arguments.
Am I detecting a pattern, here?
BA…your model assumes C02 is a stagnant and accumulating gas in the atmosphere. My position is that it is not. Its a very dynamic gas from my standpoint as a biologist and biochemist. No one has yet answered my question and maybe you can. A mature tree can fix 48 pounds of C02 each year via photosynthesis but this is not what I’m asking. I’m asking how many pounds or kilos of C02 does a single tree inhale during the day and exhale at night. Then multiply that to the 3 trillion trees there are on our planet and you’ll have a partial answer to the question. Then I’ll need to figure out the amount in grasses, bushes, and mosses. As well as oceanic photosynthetic life forms. Again, I’m not looking for the amount of C02 is reduced (to carbohydrates) each year. I can’t find this number anywhere but by deduction, I came out to close to 3,000 billion tons each year which is about the amount of C02 already in our atmosphere. In other words, the entire mass of C02 is recycled in the fast C02 cycle each year making it a very dynamic gas in biological ecosystems and the planet.
Wesley,
Nope the models that I ascribe to are quite dynamic, not stagnant. It isn’t it is quite dynamic. Was this your (one and only?) publication as a biochemist?
Thermostable endogenous inhibitors of cathepsins B and H
JF Lenney, JR Tolan, WJ SUGAI… – European Journal of …, 1979 – Wiley Online Library
I don’t know the answer to your question about inhale and exhale quantities. Try literature searches – I would imagine that data is available.
Trees die, and (eventually) get burned in wild fires.
The trees’ branches – which are the actually the burned part of trees, turn out as the CO2 gas released in atmosphere.
The trees’ trunks do not burn out. The trees’ trunks get carbonized (as it happens when we make from wood the charcoal).
The trees’ trunks get then sequestered as the coal deposits, thus having removed the carbon from the carbon cycle.
The continuous removal of carbon from the carbon cycle in Earth’s multimillion years natural history is the cause of the observed CO2 depletion and it is the cause of the naturally developing ecological catastrophe!
The fossil fuels burning returns some of the naturally removed carbon from the carbon cycle – and thus providing plants with more of the necessary for plants food (CO2), by enriching the Earth’s atmosphere with a higher CO2 content, which is very beneficial – the Earth’s greening phenomenon.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Yes, roughly 1/2 is returned to the atmosphere and 1/2 to deep geologic sequestration.
For some reason, I don’t have an active Reply option on the post to which I am responding, so I am responding here.
B A Bushaw wrote: “Roy: “The additional IR absorption caused by adding CO2 to ordinary sea level atmospheric air is derisory”.
Do you have a reference to confirm that?”
Dr Heinz Hug carried out a reasonable approximation of the empirical experiment I described. This is a non-paywalled version of his paper:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2025/02/10/the-climate-catastrophe-a-spectroscopic-artifact/
For some reason, I don’t have an active Reply option on the post to which I am responding, so I am responding here.
B A Burshaw wrote:
“Roy, Here is a reality check for you:
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf
See last section on saturation.”
How is that relevant to the problem of downward compatibility?
“As for your deflection,”
What deflection would that be? ISTM you are the one deflecting.
“ECS is defined for doubling preindustrial CO2 (280 ppm) to 560 ppm.”
No, it is based on the assumed logarithmic response of temperature to variations in CO2, and in principle is the same throughout the logarithmic response range. That is its point.
“Your extrapolations to lower and lower concentrations are not justified.
https://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/mailings/2012/20120508_ClimateSensitivity.pdf
FIgure 7 in particular.”
The problem is that Figure 7 actually supports my argument, because it shows the problem is even worse than the downward incompatibility of logarithmic response: it shows ECS INCREASING at lower concentrations, which means that reducing CO2 would make the earth even COLDER, sooner.
To make the claimed high ECS at current CO2 levels physically plausible, it is absolutely inescapable that ECS would have to DECREASE, dramatically, at lower CO2 levels, not increase. There is no plausible physical mechanism that could support such a decrease. Indeed, at extremely low levels — i.e., beginning at 0 CO2 — the response should be LINEAR, and only shift gradually to the logarithmic regime once the level increases to the saturation point.
Roy, thanks for the reference. There are three nested levels of comments here: top -no line at left, 2nd – 1 line, 3rd – 2 lines.
Only the first two allow replies, thus avoiding infinite nesting. It’s WordPress ;-) how nice it would be if they could recognize a level 3 reply request (if they have one) and simply shove it back into level 3 immediately after the comment being replied to. SMH
No, Roy Figure 7 does not support your thesis. The definition always goes from the low to the high. And it means a small change, even fractionally for low concentrations, and at the low temperature, the sensitivity to the change increases. At the high end, the increased sensitivity is largely because positive feedbacks turn on before negative ones. Note also, that the ECS only increases by a factor of 2 – 2.5 at the ends of the graph.
BTW are you a “competent physics undergrad,” or better? How do you know one could make that measurement it in a “university optics laboratory”?
B A Bushaw wrote: “Roy, thanks for the reference. There are three nested levels of comments here: top -no line at left, 2nd – 1 line, 3rd – 2 lines.
Only the first two allow replies, thus avoiding infinite nesting. It’s WordPress ;-) how nice it would be if they could recognize a level 3 reply request (if they have one) and simply shove it back into level 3 immediately after the comment being replied to. SMH”
I guess that means I have to keep responding to the same level 2 post. smh indeed.
“No, Roy Figure 7 does not support your thesis. The definition always goes from the low to the high. And it means a small change, even fractionally for low concentrations, and at the low temperature, the sensitivity to the change increases.”
How does increased sensitivity at lower concentrations and temperatures not support my thesis? My thesis is precisely that such sensitivity implies that removing enough CO2 from the earth’s atmosphere would make it colder than Mars, a clearly absurd and impossible result.
“Note also, that the ECS only increases by a factor of 2 – 2.5 at the ends of the graph.”
It would have to DECREASE DRAMATICALLY at the low end in order not to be absurd and physically impossible, as already explained. Where is the plausible physical mechanism for such a decrease?
“BTW are you a “competent physics undergrad,” or better?”
No; but many years ago, I took some courses on planetary physics, including atmospheric physics. You should have been able to tell from the content of my posts that I know more about this topic than a typical competent physics undergrad.
“How do you know one could make that measurement it in a “university optics laboratory”?”
I also took first-year physics, and know roughly the kind of equipment that was available in my university’s optics lab. Are you claiming that one couldn’t make such measurements in a university optics lab? Where do you think Dr. Heinz Hug made his measurements? His carport?
Roy, As I tried to explain, you got it upside down. IT’s an easy intuitive mistake to make. Read carefully:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
Maybe it will help. Also note the increased wing absorption in going from 280-560 ppm (figure 2), about 4%, not exactly ‘derisory’.
Then maybe you should actually read the other two publications from MIT and Harvard.
As for the content of your comments; seems about right for someone who took a couple of physics courses ‘long ago’.
B A Bushaw wrote: “Roy, As I tried to explain, you got it upside down. IT’s an easy intuitive mistake to make. ”
I did not get it upside down. That is just a bald fabrication on your part. The Y axis on Figure 7 is clearly labeled, and the self-evidently W-shaped ECS curve shows increasing ECS at lower levels of CO2, just as I said.
“Read carefully:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
Maybe it will help.”
How is it responsive to any of my arguments? In particular, it supports the consistency of ECS down to 4ppm, more than an order of magnitude lower than atmospheric CO2 has ever been in the earth’s entire 4Gy history.
“Also note the increased wing absorption in going from 280-560 ppm (figure 2), about 4%, not exactly ‘derisory’.”
The description of Figure 2 states clearly that it is for a DRY atmosphere, not typical sea-level atmospheric air, so like all the other rejoinders you have offered, it is not responsive to my argument.
“Then maybe you should actually read the other two publications from MIT and Harvard.”
Cargo-cult “science” does not impress me, sorry.
“As for the content of your comments; seems about right for someone who took a couple of physics courses ‘long ago’.”
And you accuse ME of “deflection”? Your consistent resort to evasion and complete inability to address any of my arguments are noted.
Roy “The description of Figure 2 states clearly that it is for a DRY atmosphere, not typical sea-level atmospheric air, so like all the other rejoinders you have offered, it is not responsive to my argument.”
So you don’t know that the CO2 15 um band lies in the water window of the IR spectrum, (normal humidities make little difference) and it is near the peak of Earth’s thermal emissions?
Bye bye
B A,
“the CO2 15 um band lies in the water window of the IR spectrum, (normal humidities make little difference) and it is near the peak of Earth’s thermal emissions”
–
What peak of Earth’s thermal emissions? What water window of the IR spectrum?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos – you should know these things. The peak of the earths thermal emissions is where the spectral intensity, integrated over the earths surface, is maximum – around 10 um. It is broader than a single temperature Planck distribution, due to the earth’s surface temperature range and spatial distribution. The colder parts yield a spectrum that has near 70% of the peak intensity at (CO2’s) 15 um absorption band. The mid-IR window goes from ~ 9 – 14 um.
Thank you, B A.
“Christos – you should know these things. The peak of the earths thermal emissions is where the spectral intensity, integrated over the earths surface, is maximum – around 10 um. It is broader than a single temperature Planck distribution, due to the earth’s surface temperature range and spatial distribution. The colder parts yield a spectrum that has near 70% of the peak intensity at (CO2’s) 15 um absorption band. The mid-IR window goes from ~ 9 – 14 um.”
–
Earth doesn’t emit at its average temperature 288K.
Also 288K is 15°C. A surface of 15°C doesn’t emit 390W/m²..
It is all a huge mistake!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I answered your questions. Too bad you didn’t understand my prebuttal of your objection to using an average temperature – which you cry about incessantly. I’m not interested in further discussion.
Thank you B A.
” The peak of the earths thermal emissions is where the spectral intensity, integrated over the earths surface, is maximum – around 10 um.”
–
What is it “the spectral intensity, integrated over the earths surface ?
Please explain.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos,
Please explain what part is confusing you. Spectral intensity, integrated over, earth[‘]s surface.
Yes, how much it is the ” Spectral intensity, integrated over, earth[‘]s surface.” ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
B A Bushaw wrote:
“So you don’t know”
So you again just derogate me personally rather than addressing my argument, and then evade.
Thought so.
“that the CO2 15 um band lies in the water window of the IR spectrum,”
So you don’t know that just as CO2 absorbs in a wider bandwidth because of spectrum spreading at ~400ppm, H2O absorbs in a wider bandwidth at ~10,000ppm?
So you don’t know that the “water window” doesn’t mean water vapor doesn’t absorb IR radiation at all in those wavelengths, just that it absorbs more in nearby ones?
So you don’t know that the “water window” is centered at 10μm, where CO2 also absorbs very little, and not at 15μm, or that water vapor absorbs ~100x more IR at 15μm than at 10μm?
So you don’t know that although CO2 absorbs ~20x better in the “water window” band than H2O, there is ~50x as much H2O in the atmosphere as CO2?
So you don’t know that the “pre-industrial” level of CO2 already massively oversaturated absorption in the 15μm band, so adding CO2 has almost no additional effect on IR absorption, just as Dr Heinz Hug found?
Somehow, I kinda figured it’d be something like that…
“(normal humidities make little difference)”
Refuted above. And if they make little difference, why not use normal sea level atmospheric air to measure baseline IR absorption and the effect of adding CO2 to it? Maybe because the results would be just as Dr Heinz Hug found, and as any competent physics undergrad with access to a university optics lab could confirm?
“and it is near the peak of Earth’s thermal emissions?”
No. The thermal emission peak is around 10 μm, not 15μm, and H2O absorbs just fine at 6-7μm, which is closer to that peak than 15μm.
“Bye bye”
cya
Roy, thanks for your thoughts – I’m not interested.
B A Bushaw wrote:
“I’m not interested.”
More accurately, you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, you know it, and you have no answers. You have derogated me personally, exhorted me to waste time reading lengthy irrelevancies as if they were arguments, claimed support from sources that actually support my position, and completely failed to address any of my arguments. It’s always the same when the CO2 climate narrative collides with the facts.
That tells me something.
Roy, I wasn’t interested after you gave as your only reference Andy May’s 28-year-old blog description of Heinz Hug’s long debunked ‘experiment’. I also don’t have much interest in the antics of what I perceive as an angrily aggressive Duning-Krugerite, who has no desire, or capability, to learn something new.
B A Bushaw wrote:
“Roy, I wasn’t interested after you gave as your only reference Andy May’s 28-year-old blog description of Heinz Hug’s long debunked ‘experiment’.”
I gave that reference because you asked for one, it was not paywalled, and it showed the relevant facts. I’m not sure how much time you would want me to devote to finding references that meet your exacting standards, but I am pretty sure that no matter how much it was, your standards would somehow still not be met.
The only way Hug’s experiment could be debunked is by replicating it and finding the results are not reproducible. Either provide a reference to a paper describing such an experiment or admit it has never been debunked.
“I also don’t have much interest in the antics of what I perceive as an angrily aggressive Duning-Krugerite, who has no desire, or capability, to learn something new.”
Yet somehow, I am the one identifying arguments you can’t answer, and refuting your evasions, deflections and ad hominems, and you are the one who is unable to offer a plausible refutation of either of two independent arguments, either of which, if valid, conclusively demolishes the CO2 climate narrative.
Most of the Earth’s CO2 sequestration is within limestone and most of that is underwater (the ocean).
Christos Vournas wrote:
Yes, how much it is the ” Spectral intensity, integrated over, earth[‘]s surface.” ?
Do you know calculus?
Be honest.
Roughly a decade ago, uncertainty in aerosol forcing was the biggest source of uncertainty when estimating ECS from the instrumental (historical) period or the better monitored satellite or post-1970 era. However, aerosols began to fall after 2000 and sometime (soon?) will have produced a negligible net forcing change over a period approaching a half-century. Is there a narrower uncertainty in ECS from less aerosol forcing anywhere in our near future?
The sudden (poorly explained?) warming of the past 2 years may be a complication
Great question Frank. I think many of us suspect the models over-parameterized pollution aerosol forcing. At some point the signal from the change in emissions should become resolvable.
Yes, Ron, high climate sensitive over a historic period can be compensated for by increasing a model’s sensitivity to aerosols. However, if we analyze forcing changes and resulting warming using an energy budget over a period when the change in aerosol forcing is negligible (or even small), it doesn’t matter what ERF is assigned to aerosols or how wide its confidence interval may be.
Thanks Frank. I am taking “change in aerosol forcing” to mean human, (mainly coal burning), but volcanic aerosols can also be exaggerated. There is always freedom to over or under-parameterize.
With large forcing changes from volcanic eruptions, our planet doesn’t quickly reach a new equilibrium between forcing change and temperature change (within a year). Take the heat capacity of water (4180 kJ/m3/K) and a -1 W/m2 volcanic forcing for a year (-3.2^7 J/m2), that is a -7.5 K/m/yr of ocean cooling. For a 50 m mixed layer, that is about -0.15 K/yr of cooling. High climate sensitivity (3K/doubling) is about 1 K/(W/m2) forcing and low is about 0.5 K/(W/m2). So it takes 3-6 years of forcing to reach a new equilibrium temperature in the mixed layer alone, at the initial cooling rate. As the planet cools the radiative imbalance at the TOA shrinks and we approach equilibrium more slowly. So AFAIK everyone doing energy balance models stays as far away from the perturbations of major volcanic eruptions in their starting and ending periods.
Not having a warm summer this year in Southern California- June gloom, no sky July, Fogust-August, but- warmer weather is certainly nothing to worry about as far as the success of life on Earth, e.g., ‘It is no accident that 90% of the world’s living species thrive in the warm, wet tropics, while only 1% live at the cold, dry poles.’ ~Monckton, et al.
When it comes to climate, to warmth, what’s a century or two?
https://journals.ametsoc.org/configurable/content/journals$002fclim$002f33$002f11$002fjcli-d-19-0650.1.xml?t:ac=journals%24002fclim%24002f33%24002f11%24002fjcli-d-19-0650.1.xml
Historical data trumps theory -c.f Feynman on method
Phil Jones was honest enough to note that the rates of warming of the last three warmings since the emergence from the LIA (without preceding CO2 change) — 1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 — are statistically indistinguishable despite the gentle and unremitting rise in CO2 over the period. The first was before man emitted significant CO2 and the last when our output had increased markedly (a 50:1 ratio of man’s Co2 emission between the start of the first warming and last.) Note the lack of CO2 decline 1929-1931 (30% decline in human production) and in 2020 (17% decline in a larger production), and the absence of trend increase during WWII and post war production.
“Recorded data” I suspect goes back only as far as 1979. But if you accept recorded data earlier than the satellite record, earlier than US data, you will find that the most abrupt and rapid warming in the instrumental records (CET and Armagh) was the period 1680-1720 (CO2 ~280 ppm).
And here, lest we forget:
1933: Hottest June In U.S. History – Heat Wave & Drought
1934: All 48 U.S. States Over 100 Degrees During June
1934: Global Warming Causes 81% Of Swiss Glaciers To Retreat
1938 : Surging Floods In China Kill 150,000
1938: Chinese ‘Dust Bowl’ – No Rain In Szechuan For A Year – One Million Starving To Death
1938: Heat Wave Grips America – 110 Degrees In Dakotas
1938: U.S. Suffers A Forest Fire Every 3 Minutes During 1938
The Medieval Warm was about 1°C warmer, with seas at least 6m higher and was evidenced by vineyards in the north of England; Viking settlements in Greenland, where farming is not possible today, with graves just now beginning to be uncovered; grapes are presently grown in Germany up to elevations of about 560 m, but from about 1100 A.D. to 1300 A.D., vineyards extended up to 780 m, implying temperatures warmer by about 1.0 -1.4 °C (Oliver, 1973). Wheat and oats were grown around Trondheim, Norway, suggesting climates about 1°C warmer than present (Fagan, 2000); sea surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea were approximately 1°C warmer than today; three churches, one large estate, and 95 farms have been excavated on the west coast of Greenland, mostly under permafrost. Oxygen isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core clearly show a prominent MWP. Oxygen isotope studies in Greenland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Tibet, China, New Zealand, and elsewhere, plus tree-ring data from many sites around the world, all confirm the existence of a global MWP. Soon and Baliunas (2003) found that 92% of 112 studies showed physical evidence of the MWP. And the most rapid rise in the historical record (CET and Armagh) was 1680-1720, with no preceding CO2 change. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
Yes, climate change is very annoying, but not at all unusual, and we have little to do with it. Nor does CO2, at this time, at these levels, with 50% of its GHG effect in the first 20ppm and logarithmic decline after that, as discovered by Arrhenius, and the math is now correct (MODTRAN at U of Chicago). So the next doubling to 800ppm will increase its GHG effect by around 3%, most likely unnoticed by the other 8 major forcings.
Since the surface temperature of Venus is now acknowledged to be due to the adiabatic lapse rate of its dense atmosphere, how much of our own shall we attribute to that?
And then, humans contribute less than 5% to the annual CO2 inflow, so we are not in control of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The triumph of sentiment over good sense?
And then, while we struggle to maintain our fragile electrical grid overburdened with EVs and electric appliances and tools replacing the current ones, India and China go their way mouthing promises and estimates while building coal plants. Not to mention the REAL pollution of lithium mining, processing, distribution, and disposal.
And of course the benefit of CO2 to agriculture increases arithmetically up to at least 1800ppm. USN submarines do not institute anti-CO2 measures until it reaches 8,000 ppm.
I look forward to reading Nic Lewis’ analyses and critiques of estimating the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR) using observed historical and paleo climate data. I have been, as a layperson in these matters, investigating the estimation of the observed climate sensitivity by finding climate models that best fit the observed historical temperature changes over the historically observed and modeled periods. I posted a thread here at Climate Etc. on my initial work and results. I have recently been doing further investigations on those comparisons using more metrics. I was motivated by reading papers where climate models were ranked/weighted primarily by comparing the observed and model temperature changes during the historical periods and considering the lack of independence between models.
So far in my literature searches, the model weighting papers have, in my view, not used all the metrics available for doing the comparisons and weightings, and further, do not explicitly show the final model rankings by weighting even while using the weighting process. I think the latter is due to political shyness in not wanting to offend the modelers of the lower ranking models and/or that the lower sensitivity models are ranked higher. While I can determine that papers are ranking lower sensitivity models higher, as my comparisons do, I contacted the lead author of one paper asking if he would table his rankings for me. I have not received a response.
I do not agree with a weighting approach for using model results in climate studies, since in my view there are many models that are flat out wrong in the historical period and should have no weight in those studies.
I find interesting that while CMIP5 and CMIP6 model temperature changes in the future periods of 2006-2100 and 2015-2100, respectively, have very high correlations (in the mid 0.90s) for all three scenarios of RCP4.5, RCP6.0 and RCP8.5 for CMIP5 and SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 for CMIP6, those correlations with the model changes in the entire historical periods of 1861-2005 and 1850-2014 are very low positive to negative. Currently many published climate studies use temperature changes in the 1980-2005 and 1980-2014 periods as representing a time near free of aerosol changes and thus effects. When those periods are used the historical to future model temperature changes show higher positive correlations for the CMIP6 models but not for CMIP5 models. In the case of CMIP6 models there remain sufficient model outliers in the later historical period to keep R squared values below 0.5 when combining comparison methods.
When I finish my latest analysis, I plan to post a link to it in a post here at Climate Etc.
Ken: Climate models produce far too few marine boundary layer (stratocumulus) clouds, a problem that isn’t widely publicized. The only place this I have found this allegedly well-known problem discussed is in this 2019 lecture by Tapio Schneider in the graph around 18 minutes (but start around 12 min). These clouds are the most cooling clouds on the planet and therefore climate models must contain large compensating error to produce a reasonable surface temperature. So if you are interested in ranking/weighting models, their ability to simulate more marine boundary layer clouds might be an interesting parameter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGshzvKAM3w
A related paper from Schneider:
Shallowness of tropical low clouds as a predictor of climate models’ response to warming
Abstract: How tropical low clouds change with climate remains the dominant source of uncertainty in global warming projections. An analysis of an ensemble of CMIP5 climate models reveals that a significant part of the spread in the models’ climate sensitivity can be accounted by differences in the climatological shallowness of tropical low clouds in weak-subsidence regimes: models with shallower low clouds in weak-subsidence regimes tend to have a higher climate sensitivity than models with deeper low clouds. The dynamical mechanisms responsible for the model differences are analyzed. Competing effects of parameterized boundary-layer turbulence and shallow convection are found to be essential. Boundary-layer turbulence and shallow convection are typically represented by distinct parameterization schemes in current models – parameterization schemes that often produce opposing effects on low clouds. Convective drying of the boundary layer tends to deepen low clouds and reduce the cloud fraction at the lowest levels; turbulent moistening tends to make low clouds more shallow but affects the low-cloud fraction less. The relative importance different models assign to these opposing mechanisms contributes to the spread of the climatological shallowness of low clouds and thus to the spread of low-cloud changes under global warming.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Florent-Brient/publication/282618748_Shallowness_of_tropical_low_clouds_as_a_predictor_of_climate_models'_response_to_warming/links/567276ef08ae54b5e462ae81/Shallowness-of-tropical-low-clouds-as-a-predictor-of-climate-models-response-to-warming.pdf
A climate sensitivity of 3.6 K/doubling is roughly 1 K/W/m2 of additional heat being emitted or reflected to space per degK of warming. So high climate sensitivity is about 1 W/m2/K of heat being emitted or reflected by a warming planet and low climate sensitivity is about 2 W/m2/K. If evaporation at the ocean surface were to increase 7%/degK of warming and 80 W/m2 of latent heat on average leaves the surface of the ocean, that would be 5.6 W/m2/K. So, the planet must find some way to slow down the evaporation. Most models slow evaporation by increasing the relative humidity in the boundary layer, allowing evaporation to increase only 1-2%/K. Intuitively higher humidity should increase marine boundary layer clouds.
Thanks, Frank, for the detailed look at an influencial predicter of model climate sensitivity and getting the surface temperature changes right.
My current analysis is confined to differentiating how well climate models match the observed temperature changes over the historical period. While there have been papers addressing this matter in recent years, I remain surprised that more detailed and definitive analyses have not been made. There seems to be an inhibition to publicly judge individual climate models perfomance in emulating the historical observed temperature change and recognizing that low sensitivity models do better in emulation.
My past and current analyses show that sensitivity differentiation very clearly. I anxiously await climate science to make this critical distinction.
Nic,
Just to take some oranges out of your apples, here is the IPCC verbal certainty scale
virtually certain: 99–100% probability
very likely: 90–100%
likely: 66–100%
about as likely as not: 33–66%
unlikely: 0–33%
very unlikely: 0–10%
exceptionally unlikely: 0–1%
Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
I appreciate that you find, by extension, that ECS less than 1.2 C is implausible (extremely unlikely?). This speaks to those that like to quote Will Happer, and a few here that still insist ECS ≈ 0.
I appreciate your extensions/corrections to S20’s treatment of the subject.
B A, I am not sure how IPCC arrives at these probabilities. Once they postulate them, they can sort them in boxes to achieve a maximum effect.
Maybe this will help:
Confidence levels and likelihood terms in IPCC reports: a survey of experts from different scientific disciplines [Kause et al. 2022]
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-022-03382-3
The implicit suggestion, by the bird, is–let’s forget that the IPCC is largely a political body. He might surmise, upon reflection, consensus is science, after all. When it comes to science consensus, it’s Cook’ed! [Clapping sounds from the consensus audience]
Dirtypants,
Like aways, you think you are clever, when actually you are an asshat with nothing to add to the conversations that you butt into. I appreciate your continued efforts to demonstrate that.
Reflects the tinfoil hat, under which offers no salient rebuttal to consensus ideology.
“for”
B A, thank you. The way I read Krause et al. is that every individual researcher estimates the probability, but instead of reporting it directly, reports a “confidence level” – but I don’t know what they do if two researchers report different confidence levels. Do you?
George, Hope this can answer your question:
https://statsig.com/perspectives/weighted-confidence-limits-statistics. Use the imbedded links if you need more details.
B A, thanks. Are you sure that the IPCC uses this tool?
George, Yes, I’m sure.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/6_Uncertainty-1.pdf
You should learn to do your own literature searches.
Christos, I don’t have time to discuss, but you should start with seminal paper by Kiehl & Trenberth (1997):
Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1997)0782.0.CO;2
It is the original source of the experimentally based Energy Balance Diagram in question. It includes detailed spectroscopic measurements and detailed discussion. Read it, understand it; if you have further questions, ask somebody else.
DOI Not Found
10.1175/1520-0477(1997)0782.0.CO;2
This DOI cannot be found in the DOI System. Possible reasons are:
The DOI is incorrect in your source. Search for the item by name, title, or other metadata using a search engine.
The DOI was copied incorrectly. Check to see that the string includes all the characters before and after the slash and no sentence punctuation marks.
The DOI has not been activated yet. Please try again later, and report the problem if the error continues.
Christos Vournas wrote:
The DOI is incorrect in your source.
Don’t be stupid. Just find the paper yourself.
Mr. Appell, the sight of you calling somebody else stupid is just… entertaining.
Don’t you know how to find a paper from authors, year, and title? Here it is directly from the journal:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/78/2/1520-0477_1997_078_0197_eagmeb_2_0_co_2.xml
Earth’s Annual Global Mean
Energy Budget
J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth
“For the outgoing fluxes, the surface infrared radiation of 390 W m−2 corresponds to a blackbody emission at 15°C. “
Is this, B A, “the spectral intensity, integrated over the earth’s surface” ?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No. It is exactly what it says it is. Stop your silly nitpicking. If you don’t get it by now, you never will, and I’m not interested.
A body at 15°C doesn’t emit 390 W m−2.
It doesn’t happen in the real world!
No one nowhere has seen a body at 15°C
emitting 390 W m−2.
It is too big a number.
–
Yet it is the basis concept in the :
Earth’s Annual Global Mean
Energy Budget
J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth
–
Link: https://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
Christos Vournas wrote:
No one nowhere has seen a body at 15°C
emitting 390 W m−2.
What’s your proof of this, your evidence?
Christos, you left out a word fragment “black”. How typical. What K&T said was, ” … the surface infrared radiation of 390 W m−2 corresponds to a blackbody emission at 15°C. “ That is a correct statement.
If you wish to talk about non-ideal “bodies”, the SB-equation should be modified with albedo and emissivity. And guess what, the energy balance equations work either way. Try it with albedo = 0.05, e = 0.95 (clear deep ocean).
No one nowhere has seen a body at 15°C
emitting 390 W m−2.
Emissivity coefficient doesn’t add any emitting power.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let’s continue:
Earth’s Annual Global Mean
Energy Budget
J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth
Link: https://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387H/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf
“Based on these error estimates, we assume that the
bulk of the bias in the ERBE imbalance is in the shortwave absorbed flux at the top of the atmosphere, since
the retrieval of shortwave flux is more sensitive than
the retrieval of longwave flux to the sampling and
modeling of the diurnal cycle, surface and cloud in
homogeneities. Therefore, we use the ERBE outgoing longwave flux of 235 W m−2 to define the absorbed solar flux. Mean values of the total solar irradiance have varied in different satellite missions from
about 1365 to 1373 W m−2 (see National Academy
of Sciences 1994 for a review; also Ardanuy et al.
1992), and the change with the solar cycle is estimated to be 1.3 W m−2. Here we assume a “solar
constant” of 1367 W m−2 (Hartmann 1994),
and because the incoming solar radiation is one-quarter of
this, that is, 342 W m−2,
a planetary albedo of 31% is implied.”
(Emphasis added)
–
Isn’t that what they claim? The incoming solar radiation averaging over the entire globe by dividing the solar constant of 1367 W m−2 by four ?
Because they claim that:
– the incoming solar radiation is one-quarter of “solar
constant” of 1367 W m−2 ?
The averaging of the not reflected fraction of the solar flux over the entire globe’s area is a FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE THOUGH!
The incoming solar energy what it does is to INTERACT with surface’s matter at the points of incidence!
When interacting with surface’s matter the solar energy behaves as EM (electromagnetic energy)
and not as an added heat.
That is why:
The “Energy Balance Diagram in question” makes no sense whatsoever.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Prepare for the inevitability of global cooling: our thousand years is up! We must learn what everyone once knew– climate change
happens without our help.
And climate change is faster and more difficult to understand with our human contributions.
The warmest July on record was in 1850…
Just make up stuff do ya? 1850 July anomaly was -0.16 C. I haven’t checked them all, but at least every year for the last 40 had a warmer July than 1850. (HadCRUT 5.0.2.0)
Try thinking, if possible, before you write.
“climate…difficult to understand with our human contributions”
Though flora understands it too well.
The summer of 1850, yes, a very good year for trees and grasses—a somewhat satisfying hors d’oeuvre for wont of inputs; only finally, more completely satiated through anthropomorphism. Three cheers for life, says green; for CO2.
Thanks, Dirtypants. If you want to quote me, don’t change the meaning by omission. What I said was
“And climate change is faster and more difficult to understand with our human contributions.”
scuz is, as scuz does. And you, my friend are really, really scuzzy.
Hey silly blue parrot, it’s called parody.
Jungletrunks wrote:
The summer of 1850, yes, a very good year for trees and grasses—a somewhat satisfying hors d’oeuvre for wont of inputs; only finally, more completely satiated through anthropomorphism. Three cheers for life, says green; for CO2.
Then why is agricultural production decreasing?
$hitypants, you can call it parody if you want. I call it ignorant asshat.
Mr. Appel, as usual you are completely mistaken: ‘Over the last six decades (1961 to 2021), world agricultural output increased at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent, faster than the 1.2-percent average growth rate for input use.”
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2023/december/world-agricultural-output-and-productivity-growth-have-slowed
Some people like to quote the past, others like to make a straw man out of a green house with lots of water, in a controlled environment. Others don’t stick their head in the sand, instead make an honest effort to understand what the near and long-term future will be like.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2025/06/18/us-and-europe-face-40-drop-in-food-production-scientists-warn/
David Appell | August 22, 2025 at 11:27 pm |
Jungletrunks wrote:
The summer of 1850, yes, a very good year for trees and grasses—a somewhat satisfying hors d’oeuvre for wont of inputs; only finally, more completely satiated through anthropomorphism. Three cheers for life, says green; for CO2.
Then why is agricultural production decreasing?
Appell –
A -no its not decreasing
B – you know its not decreasing
https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-production
Wagathon wrote:
Prepare for the inevitability of global cooling: our thousand years is up! We must learn what everyone once knew– climate change happens without our help.
LOL. You were saying the same thing 15 years ago.
You look like a fool.
Joe, no surprise that the contrarians here fool themselves regularly because they don’t have the background to understand the real science, and much prefer the simpler, unfalsifiable pseudoscience.
I have likewise witnessed the numerous times both Bushaw and Appell have posted junk science studies and/or misrepresented various scientific studies. Bushaw has been very prominent with his distortions and misunderstanding of renewables and subsidies.
Let those with no sin cast the first stone.
Sure, Starkeley, What junk science, and how would you know?
B A Bushaw-
Quite a few individuals with considerably more engineering expertise than you have frequently explained in detail your errors. Displaying your usual misplaced arrogance, instead of demonstrating an actual knowledge, you chose to attack the person instead of addressing your mistakes, which reflects your lack of comprehension. As stated, let those with no sin cast the first stone. You have chosen otherwise.
Starkeley, and you still can’t name them. Besides, I could have sworn we were talking about junk science, not engineering or accounting. And, you haven’t explained how you (and your background) are able to determine what is, and what is not, junk science. I presume you follow Jojo’s lead, as you apparently know even less about the science than him. You also, like Jojo, don’t know how to substantiate your insults, and thus, that is all they are.
As you say, “Let those with no sin cast the first stone”. You insulted me without substantiation, several times in past. And, in our exchanges, you “cast the first stone”. So, I don’t have to worry about that, and feel entitled to insult you (and Jojo, who exhibits the same pattern) as much as I like. Unfortunately, both of you are kind of boring and only succeed in showing how ignorant you are.
Jungletrunks wrote:
The summer of 1850, yes, a very good year for trees and grasses—a somewhat satisfying hors d’oeuvre for wont of inputs; only finally, more completely satiated through anthropomorphism. Three cheers for life, says green; for CO2.
You’re someone who should know that agricultural productivity is decreasing with increasing CO2, not increasing.
You should know this science.
“…agricultural productivity is decreasing with increasing CO2, not increasing.”
An example for why the local DA is of the brunt of jokes:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/september/global-changes-in-agricultural-production-productivity-and-resource-use-over-six-decades
CO2 levels between 1000 ppm and 1500 ppm is considered optimal for maximizing plant growth In greenhouses.
David Appell wrote: “You’re someone who should know that agricultural productivity is decreasing with increasing CO2, not increasing.”
Source? Everything I see says the opposite:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/international-agricultural-productivity
The rate of INCREASE in agricultural productivity has dropped off — can you say, “diminishing marginal returns”? — but productivity is still increasing.
Roy Langston | August 24, 2025 at 3:31 pm |
David Appell wrote: “You’re someone who should know that agricultural productivity is decreasing with increasing CO2, not increasing.”
Roy – Not surprising the resident science experts posting here frequently get fooled by junk science,
Wagathon wrote:
The warmest July on record was in 1850…
A shameless, stupid lie.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series
Shameless is celebrating the phony statistics of a corrupt agency that’s being defunded. This is how you get AI to tell the truth-
Ai overview… The user’s statement “NOAA should be given the ‘There are lies, damned lies, and statistics’ award” is an opinion that reflects common criticisms regarding the agency’s data and statistical methods. These criticisms often suggest that NOAA manipulates data to align with a political agenda, particularly concerning climate change.
Nic Lewis wrote:
My revised assessment, using their basic framework but with corrected and improved methodologies and carefully justified updatings and other revisions to some of their input data, suggested a substantially lower and narrower likely range for ECS of 1.75–2.7°C, with a median estimate of 2.16°C, and a 90% probability range of 1.55–3.2°C .
These lower limits make no sense. Atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 147 ppm since preindustrial times (280 ppm). That’s only 53%. And yet warming has been 1.1-1.2 C.
Are we supposed to believe that warming from here to 100% will only be another 0.4-0.3 C? With the feedbacks starting to occur? That it will be much smaller than the warming from the first 50% of CO2?
That boat just doesn’t float.
That makes no sense whatsoever.
So we’re looking at the upper ends of the ranges presented here. 2.5-3 C. That is in no way reassuring–in fact, it’s terrifying:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2025/08/modern-warming-compared-to-p-t-mass.html
David, Nic’s work reminds me a lot of McIntyre, just without the hope of showing malfeasance. Maybe he can start his own blog … oh, wait.
B A Bushaw wrote:
David, Nic’s work reminds me a lot of McIntyre, just without the hope of showing malfeasance. Maybe he can start his own blog … oh, wait.
LOL. Nic will keep plucking away at misrepresenting the data, no matter how warm it gets. Until his deathbed–just watch.
Two basic features are decisive in calculating the ECS. Firstly, what is the correct RF dependency of CO2 concentration? I have noticed that many researchers are not aware that the stratospheric cooling effect in the AR6 in the 2*CO2 is 1.1 W/m2, leaving 2.8 W/m2 in the troposphere. There is no real explanation for how the stratospheric cooling really cools the stratosphere, but it has anyway a positive RF impact of 1.1 W/m2, which is about 30 % of the ERF value of 3.9 W/m2.
Another issue is positive water feedback, which has not been validated.
Hi, Antero!
The CO2 content in Earth’s thin atmosphere is of a trace gas content.
The ~150 ppm rise in CO2 content since predindustrial era doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is a trace gas in Earth’s thin atmosphere.
The Climate Sensitivity is not an issue, because there is nothing to discuss – there is not enough CO2 in atmosphere.
For Earth’s Radiative Energy Budget the role of the CO2 is so much infinitesimal – it is like there is not any CO2 present – so small it is!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The AGW global warming consensus of opinion–
Imperial Western Academia– contemptuous of constitutional protections, international human rights and motivated by its condescending anti-energy/anti-science, pro-Leftist political and bureaucratic agenda– hereby reaffirms the existence of a consensus of opinion that human-caused global warming is real, impending, and will result in disastrous consequences unless the Democrat party and the EPA are given absolute power over the people and control of the economy.
The pretense to knowledge is all that keeps the government-sponsored climate change hysteria Ponzi scheme afloat. Voters are not as smart as they used to be. They believe those who work for the government when they say, “we have modeled your future” (‘Any model, including those predicting climate doom, can be tweaked to yield a desired result. I should know.’ ~Robert J. Caprara, WSJ: Confessions of a Computer Modeler).
Hi BA Bushaw, yes, I help on the Cathepsin paper but also worked on several others with the experiments and providing data for the final paper but was not listed as an author. Here’s one of them.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0003986177903496
I’m was also an ecologist/biologist and had spent a week on Mid Way Atoll reviewing the ecosystems there. Its not the largest Marine Preserve called Papahanaumokuakea.
Thanks for the confirmation, Wesley.
BA, I’m now just an old timer physician on the 5th island from Honolulu, Oahu on my coffee farm in the rainforest of Hawaii Island. I’m still doing my calling but also teaching medical students and residents as an assistant professor. My knowledge of physics and math are limited but I still enjoy the science of it all. One thing is that I don’t like to be spoon fed data. I try to look at all points of view and screen out the rhetoric from the facts.
True true… e.g. hate to see some of the simple issues with AI being given the freedom to simply tell the truth when the truth is obvious. For example, I asked AI why it couldn’t be honest about Hong Kong. This is the answer I got (almost as if it’s trying to tell the truth but just can’t quite do it):
‘Your understanding is correct; you can admit that Hong Kong’s population is now higher than it was in 2019, but the complexity comes from whether the current number represents a true all-time peak. Provisional figures show the population has surpassed the 2019 level, but the long-term trend has been volatile due to significant emigration and immigration.’
So, that’s AI’s explanation of sorts as to why it must continue to say Hong Kong reached its peak population in 2019 and has since fallen…
Roy Langston, See
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/448675/is-there-a-difference-in-the-infrared-absorption-spectrum-of-a-greenhouse-gas-wh
Hug only measured saturation on peak in the Q-branch. He didn’t measure it for the P- and R-branches. He didn’t have enough resolution or dynamic range to reach you conclusions without misrepresentation.
I’m still not interested.
Roy, ever wonder why Hug’s (apparently only) publication has only received 2 citations in 25 years. It’s because anyone with a reasonable science background and publishes in the area doesn’t think it is even worth a response. It only people like you, with little or no background, yet grasping for straws, that think it is a good talking point for denying that CO2 is still causing warming.
And no, His experiment does not need to be repeated to refute the conclusions – that only requires a modicum of intellect.
Spants, I already did, too bad you don’t seem to understand molecular spectroscopy. So I will explain again. He misrepresented the saturation at the peak of the Q-branch as representing the overall saturation over the entire band including P- and R-branches, which are additional real transitions with (nearly) the same oscillator strength but spread out over ~10x the spectral range of the Q – branch hence are roughly 10 times more difficult to saturate.
B A Burshaw wrote:
“Roy, ever wonder why Hug’s (apparently only) publication has only received 2 citations in 25 years.”
No. I tend to focus on replicable empirical results and valid scientific reasoning rather than derogating sources, reputations, or personalities.
“It’s because anyone with a reasonable science background and publishes in the area doesn’t think it is even worth a response.”
Either that or they tried Hug’s experiment themselves (it would be an afternoon’s work), found that his result was correct, and realized a paper merely confirming such a simple (if inconvenient) fact would not be publishable.
“It only people like you, with little or no background, yet grasping for straws, that think it is a good talking point for denying that CO2 is still causing warming.”
I have read a number of papers that purport to establish the CO2 climate narrative, and IMO their logic does not add up to their conclusions. I have watched hundreds of presentations and interviews with climate “scientists” pushing the CO2 climate narrative, and in EVERY SINGLE CASE they have made logical errors that invalidate their conclusions. And lest you dismiss “people like me” as having little or no background, there are also eminent climate scientists, some with extensive publications in the field, who agree with me.
“And no, His experiment does not need to be repeated to refute the conclusions”
Yes, it does.
” – that only requires a modicum of intellect.”
Then why have you not been able to do it?
Roy: “” – that only requires a modicum of intellect.”
Then why have you not been able to do it?”
I already have you. You just don’t understand it. One more time:
He misrepresented the saturation at the peak of the Q-branch as representing the overall saturation in the entire band including P- and R-branches, which are additional real transitions with (nearly) the same oscillator strength but spread out over ~10x the spectral range of the Q – branch hence are roughly 10 times more difficult to saturate.
B A Bushaw wrote:
“Having trouble keeping the simplest of facts straight? What a surprize.”
Unable to respond with anything but another personal attack?
What a surprise.
“Roy: “”
Then why have you not been able to do it?”
I already have you. You just don’t understand it.”
No, I already refuted it. Your objection (such as it is) applies to Hug’s second experiment, not the first one, of which you have offered no plausible criticism whatever.
“One more time:
He misrepresented the saturation at the peak of the Q-branch as representing the overall saturation in the entire band including P- and R-branches,”
Oh? Where did he do that? ISTM YOU have misrepresented an issue with the second experiment as applying equally to the first when it does not.
“which are additional real transitions with (nearly) the same oscillator strength but spread out over ~10x the spectral range of the Q – branch hence are roughly 10 times more difficult to saturate.”
10x more difficult to saturate because there is 10x less absorption, INCLUDING by added CO2, as demonstrated by the figure in YOUR OWN REFERENCE showing the EPA’s measurement of absorption in the neighboring bands at 1x and 2x CO2.
Roy Langston | August 26, 2025 at 2:25 pm |
B A Bushaw wrote:
“Having trouble keeping the simplest of facts straight? What a surprize.”
Roy’s response – “Unable to respond with anything but another personal attack? What a surprise.”
Roy – dont feel alone. He has initiated unprovoked attacks on most every commentator here. Then has the audacity to complain about being insulted.
The attacks are a coping mechanism, especially on topics which he is far out of his depth.
Roy, I am always referring to Hug’s unpublished 1998 work, as retold by Andy May as you referenced. That experiment adds CO2 and H20 vapor to dry air. I stand by my criticism of that work.
B A Bushaw wrote:
“Roy, I am always referring to Hug’s unpublished 1998 work, as retold by Andy May as you referenced. That experiment adds CO2 and H20 vapor to dry air. I stand by my criticism of that work.”
Your criticism seems to be that Hug measured only the Q branch, and not the P and R branches. But Figure 1 in the May summary clearly shows data for the P and R branches as well as the Q branch.
And, “Also note the increased wing absorption in going from 280-560 ppm (figure 2), about 4%, not exactly ‘derisory’.”
Actually, in this context, an increase of 4% in wing absorption, where there is hardly any absorption to begin with, is pretty much derisory. Numerous sources I have read, including some you have offered, state that CO2’s IR absorption outside the 15μm band is so small it can be ignored.
Roy, you said “Your criticism seems to be that Hug measured only the Q branch, and not the P and R branches. But Figure 1 in the May summary clearly shows data for the P and R branches as well as the Q branch.”
Yes, he measured the P, Q, and R branches (spectra, figure 1); but he only estimated (did not measure) the saturation at the Q-branch, not P&R. If you are astute enough, you can see the differences in saturation in his (calculated) second figure.
B A Bushaw wrote: “Yes, he measured the P, Q, and R branches (spectra, figure 1); but he only estimated (did not measure) the saturation at the Q-branch, not P&R. If you are astute enough, you can see the differences in saturation in his (calculated) second figure.”
You are straining at a gnat. Figure 2 implies that the possible difference in saturation is far too small to be measurable. So how could your objection (i.e., in effect, quibble) invalidate the gravamen of his conclusion that adding CO2 emissions from fossil fuels to typical sea level atmospheric air can’t have any significant effect on its infrared absorption properties?
Personally, I find Hug’s experimental design unsatisfying because it does not get close enough to replicating actual conditions at the earth’s surface. But until someone does a better experiment, Hug’s results stand.
BAB: “He didn’t have enough resolution or dynamic range”
Therein lies the birds, and the political consensus tyranny.
Misrepresentation is a two way street–where there’s no conclusive “resolution” of data. Without granular data to determine fact from fiction the facts remain an open book.
Only a flapping ideologue would weight their political side of an opinion as conclusive utilizing political consensus (the mob always wins, here representing the IPCC).
An honest brokers assessment of science requires much more.
And even worse, his analysis, like yours always is, was defective.
Show the resolution to said argument, otherwise your argument is defective.
Spants, I already did, too bad you don’t seem to understand molecular spectroscopy. So I will explain again. He misrepresented the saturation at the peak of the Q-branch as representing the overall saturation in the entire band including P- and R-branches, which are additional real transitions with (nearly) the same oscillator strength but spread out over ~10x the spectral range of the Q – branch hence are roughly 10 times more difficult to saturate.
I do wonder why you feel the need to attack based on things you clearly don’t understand. Oh, maybe it’s just ‘parody, but much more likely it is asshat harassment, that you don’t seem to be able to give up. Trying to be clever is one of the best ways to show how stupid you really are. Thanks for that.
It’s well known that I’m not a scientist. I’m not the one arguing one way or the other about said science, I’m simply challenging you to act decent with the denizen who’s challenging you, he replied to you earlier here: https://judithcurry.com/2025/08/13/addressing-misconceptions-about-climate-sensitivity-research-a-response-to-recent-criticisms/#comment-1019537
You find myriad ways to truncate discussions, maybe you lack the skill to get into the weeds on the subject? You certainly demonstrate heavy reliance in AI which isn’t at its best dealing at the margins of known science, where differing schools of thought, or speculation exists. In this example you revert to your cagey nature, instead of directing your responses directly to this denizen, you instead respond to him down thread—it’s your common method of dislocating a discussion, where it becomes difficult to follow. Dislocate, obfuscate, disavow, lie—you’re the cagey tinfoil asshat in these parts.
Jungletrunks | August 25, 2025 at 10:13 am |
I’m simply challenging you to act decent with the denizen who’s challenging you, he replied to you earlier here:
” The truth does not mind being questioned, while lies cannot stand being challenged.”
Jungle that explains the frequent unprovoked insults, while omitting any acknowledgement of who initiated the insults.
Trunks, yes, it is perfectly obvious you are not a scientist, nor is Roy. Neither of you understand my refutation. I have no problem with Hug’s experiment, it is his assumptions and interpretation that fail. If you can’t understand the most critical one, which I have already explained, that’s your problem.
“I’m simply challenging you to act decent with the denizen who’s challenging you” – coming from you, LMAO.
> It’s well known that I’m not a scientist
Lol. Get over yourself, trunks.
B A Bushaw wrote:
“https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/448675/is-there-a-difference-in-the-infrared-absorption-spectrum-of-a-greenhouse-gas-wh”
This reference says nothing that would invalidate Hug’s original experiment. It’s mostly about the second experiment, which was undertaken to try to determine why adding CO2 to ambient air had so little effect on its IR absorption.
“Hug only measured saturation on peak in the Q-branch. He didn’t measure it for the P- and R-branches. He didn’t have enough resolution or dynamic range to reach you conclusions without misrepresentation.”
Speaking of misrepresentation, you seem to be talking about Hug’s second experiment, where he measured IR absorption by pure CO2 and CO2 mixed with non-IR-absorbing helium and nitrogen. In the first experiment, he measured overall IR absorption in ambient air with different CO2 concentrations, not just CO2’s absorption in its 14-16μm Q band when mixed with different non-greenhouse gases (maybe he only measured that band because almost all CO2’s IR absorption is in that band). But the former is the experiment whose results, unless shown to be irreproducible, conclusively refute the CO2 climate narrative.
Roy:
“It’s mostly about the second experiment, which was undertaken to try to determine why adding CO2 to ambient air had so little effect on its IR absorption.”
“you seem to be talking about Hug’s second experiment, where he measured IR absorption by pure CO2 and CO2 mixed with non-IR-absorbing helium and nitrogen.”
Having trouble keeping the simplest of facts straight? What a surprize.
Christos,
“When interacting with surface’s matter the solar energy behaves as EM (electromagnetic energy)
and not as an added heat.”
That is incorrect. When the solar electromagnetic energy interacts with surface matter, the absorbed photons (that compose the EM) are converted to phonons (diffuse vibrations) in the condensed surface matter. This added heat. You need to study more and intuit less. You could start with Quantum Electrodynamics.
Thank you, B A.
Very interesting is what you say:
“When the solar electromagnetic energy interacts with surface matter, the absorbed photons (that compose the EM) are converted to phonons (diffuse vibrations) in the condensed surface matter. This added heat.”
–
And, when the solar electromagnetic energy interacts with surface matter, the NOT absorbed fraction of photons (photons are originated from the EM, they do not compose EM energy, since they got already materialized into photons)
when they also get converted to phonons (which is a form of EM energy too), those not absorbed phonons in the condensed surface matter get re-emitted as the immediate IR outgoing EM energy.
–
Thus, not the entire not reflected (diffusely and specularly), not the entire not reflected fraction of the incident solar energy gets absorbed in surface matter as heat.
It never gets entirely absorbed as heat.
Now, when planet surface has a higher (N*cp) product, the more of those phonons energy gets dissipated in surface matter as heat.
That is why there is the Solar Irradiated Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
Planets and moons with a higher (N*cp) product – everything else equals – appear to have a higher average surface temperature.
Thank you again, B A!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The conversion of the sun’s electromagnetic radiation into sensible and latent heat at the Earth’s surface does indeed involve the microscopic process of phonons. The absorbed solar energy increases the material’s internal energy, which is carried by phonons—quantized lattice vibrations—before manifesting as a macroscopic temperature change or phase transition.
The upper limit to water-vapor-increase from warming is bounded by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Measured water vapor increase is about 40 % more than significantly possible from just planet warming. This FALSIFIES the assumption by many climate scientists that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase caused by CO2 increase. Verification is at recent update to https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
You say: “The determination of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—the long-term warming response to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentrations—remains one of the most crucial yet challenging problems in climate science. Recent exchanges in the literature have highlighted both the complexity of this endeavour and the importance of maintaining rigorous methodological standards in the pursuit of reliable estimates.”
I suggest this is because models are the wrong way to understand the rather basic energy balance of the earth. First because they are measurably wrong in their predictions of their “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity “– ECS – measure, made up in models by climate “scientists”, and both wildly variable and reliably wrong in almost all of their predictions.
But primarily for the more definite and obvious reason that this fundamental measure of natural feedback control, the change in Earth’s surface temperature in response to any radiative perturbation, can be calculated directly from the measurements science already has to describe the strongly fed back natural feedback control of Earth’s thermodynamic Energy Balance in Space, the only control of global climate there is. It’s internal energy level. NO energy = NO climate.
Why use ECS at all? Guessing is pointless when we have all the empirical data we need to determine the natural control feedback response to a given radiative perturbation to Earth’s energy balance on a planetary scale. In a natural feedback measure of W/m2 degree Kelvin GMST change.
A deterministic method based on what is measured to happen is the only way to prove deterministic science of cause and effect. Claiming correlation as causation as in models is simply a statistical guess, using whatever imputations – of atmospheric models or geological correlation. It is true that the causal radiative perturbation, for example from changes in GHGs, can only be modelled. BUT the temperature feedback response to any radiative perturbation can be determined, directly and completely from the measurements we know.
So there is no need to guess this strange “ECS” parameter from inside a modellers rabbit hole. This quantification can be made based directly on the natural radiative feedback created per degree of temperature change on a global scale of energy gain and loss by measured cause and effect. It is here in pre-pub. Your climate may vary:
An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth’s Energy Balance (2025). Available at SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5220078
The feedback quantified suggests the “ECS” is 0.4K for a radiative effect of 3.3W/m2. This summary intro is in haste, the paper took 13 years of research to check the reality and create the simple feedback model, line by line. I may still be wrong. But how? Do tell.
My early work was to first understand, then address, Judith‘s early question about how the size of a radiative perturbation could be equated to a global temperature anomaly.
After a decade of addressing the merit of various claims, my understanding became that all the data and physics to quantify this relationship was available, treating the Earth at the macro level as the balanced energy system in space it must be, with c. 240W/m2 continuously passing through the dynamically changing surface system, so a variable cooling feedback of 240W/m2 at 288K GMST, where the internal temperature must change as required to ensure the energy losses to space equal the solar energy absorbed. So no models required.
Given this determination of an absolute natural feedback to change is deterministic and ECS is presumptive, ECS is both an unnecessary and deceptive measure that does not reflect the simple reality of how the dynamic energy balance of earth in space is maintained.
As Le Chatelier pointed this out, the obvious reality of the Earth’s thermodynamic system in space is that temperatures are stable within a few degrees Kelvin over 500Ma, through ice age cycles of significant orbital insolation variability, recoveries from asteroid strikes and major geological events – always returning to a similar level of energy balance, that control the temperature of the surface system of earth.
That feedback is at a level of 10W/m^2 of negative feedback per degree of GMST and provides a strong dynamic balance, even in human time scales.
Quote: “– Earth’s thermodynamic system in space is that temperatures are stable within a few degrees Kelvin over 500Ma,–” Not quite.
Earth is exposed to a near constant level of solar insolation. However if the earth’s orientation in space changes ( and it has changed repeatedly in the last 8k yrs.,) temp variability with latitude will change substantially, making areas too hot or too cold to sustain life (except in extreme forms); or the reverse. Axial orientation to the ecliptic plane is a fundamental conditioner.
Given that as much as we are capable of observing past climate from examining historical evidence and drawing logical conclusions, the only thing we can conclude from the alarm about the impact on weather and by extension climate relatively of rel recent increases in parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere (other than people can get alarmed about anything) is that the evidence for raising alarm has been corrupted (Urban Heat Island effect) and purposefully tinkering with the data by essentially, political agencies funded by the Left, e.g., NOAA which is being defunded for exceeding their mandate and the European climate agency which was corrupted by Eurocommie hatred of Americanism from its inception. The idea that the Earth actually has an average temperature is nonsensical from the get-go.
Wagathon,
“The idea that the Earth actually has an average temperature is nonsensical from the get-go.”
Ok, we are not able to measure, or calculate Earth’s average temperature with the 100% preciseness… But it is our problem though, not Earth’s.
Every given moment Earth has an average temperature. The next moment the average temperature is a little bit different.
We operate with planets’ or moons’ measured average surface temperatures on the yearly basis scale.
Also, the measured average surface temperatures are subjected to the measuring methods technics.
There is always a limited number on how many points of measurements should be applied, in order to have that most perfect measured result, which would be closely approximating the actual average temperature.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Wagathon wrote: ” The idea that the Earth actually has an average temperature is nonsensical from the get-go.”
But not as nonsensical as the idea that it doesn’t. Consider an analogy: the average height of human beings. There are various ways you could define that: the average of all the people alive today, the average of all the people who have ever lived, the average of the greatest height each person has grown to in their lifetime, etc. It might be impossible as a practical matter to determine any of those numbers with perfect accuracy, but there are ways to get good estimates, and the idea that there IS no such number at all is absurd. Likewise with the earth’s average temperature.
IMO the most credible current measure of the earth’s average surface temperature is provided by the UAH lower troposphere satellite temperature record. Estimates based on thermometer readings that predate the International Geophysical Year (1957-8) are largely guesswork, as instrument quality and station conditions were too uneven, measurement methodologies too inconsistent, and spatial coverage too sparse to obtain a credible average. As a result, there is no credible empirical evidence — none — that the earth’s average surface temperature is significantly higher now that it was in the early 1940s, let alone the 940s.
Perhaps more than just a practical matter as Eschenbach demonstrated by analogy–
“To illustrate what this complexity means for the current “simple physics” paradigm, consider a similar “simple physics” problem in heat transfer. Suppose we take a block of aluminum six feet long and put one end of it into a bucket of hot water. We attach a thermometer to the other end, keep the water hot, and watch what happens. Fairly soon, the temperature at the other end of the block starts to rise. It’s a one-dimensional problem, ruled by simple physics.
“To verify our results, we try it again, but this time with a block of iron. Once again the temperature soon rises at the other end, just a bit more slowly than the aluminum We try it with a block of glass, and a block of wood, and a block of copper. In each case, after time, the temperature at the other end of the block rises. This is clearly simple physics in each case.
“As a final test, I look around for something else that is six feet long to use in the investigation. Finding nothing, I have an inspiration. I sit down, put my feet in the hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth and wait for the temperature of my head to start rising. After all, heat transmission is simple physics, isn’t it? So I just sit with my feet in the hot water and wait for the temperature of my head to rise.
“And wait.
“And wait …
Wagathon, gotta love the wicked analogy.
Roy,
You specify lower troposphere temperature. Why not use all of the sampled atmosphere?
You are straight into subjective choice of parameters, perhaps without knowing it. Your inferences are therefore biased, as are all other attempts to measure ECS. Geoff S
Wagathon, it would work if you were dead.
Langston wrote: “But not as nonsensical as the idea that it doesn’t.”
It really doesn’t. To actually find a correct average global temeperature, temperatures would need to read from a constant GMT time everywhere instead of Tmax and Tmin. Say 12:00 GMT. T^4 does have an effect you know.
jgorman2424gmailcom wrote: “It really doesn’t.”
No, it really, really does.
“To actually find a correct average global temeperature,”
This is not about the practical problem of how one might determine the earth’s average surface temperature. It is about whether such a number even exists. And it indisputably does. Consider the analogy of determining the 100 decillionth digit of the decimal expansion of pi. There is absolutely no doubt that that number exists. We just have no practical way (yet) of determining what it is.
“temperatures would need to read from a constant GMT time everywhere instead of Tmax and Tmin. Say 12:00 GMT.”
Nonsense. GMT is just an arbitrary human convention. But one advantage of satellite temperature measurement is that there is no circadian time bias: the times of day average out.
“T^4 does have an effect you know.”
But we don’t care how T^4 affects the earth’s average surface temperature over the course of an hour, a day, or even a year, and it has no effect on longer time scales.
SP, Thanks for the Arrhenius endorsement. You forgot to mention that he was correct, even quantitatively – well within current ECS uncertainties.
Geoff S wrote: “You specify lower troposphere temperature. Why not use all of the sampled atmosphere?”
Because climate happens at the surface, and the earth’s average surface temperature is about the earth’s surface, not the whole atmosphere. It doesn’t really matter what happens in the rest of the atmosphere if it doesn’t affect the surface. True, the lower troposphere is also not the surface, but it’s the closest we can get so far.
“You are straight into subjective choice of parameters, perhaps without knowing it.”
No, there is nothing subjective about the fact that the earth’s average surface temperature is not about the whole atmosphere, or that climate describes conditions at the surface, not in the whole atmosphere.
“Your inferences are therefore biased, as are all other attempts to measure ECS.”
We are talking about whether the earth has an average surface temperature, not ECS.
Roy: “Because climate happens at the surface, and the earth’s average surface temperature is about the earth’s surface, not the whole atmosphere.
Yet you are discussing air temperature, not surface temperature. They are not the same and one must draw different conclusions when analyzing each. The actual surface land/ocean are heat sinks storing energy for later release. The atmosphere has different heat sinks parameters due to convection and radiation.
jgorman2424gmailcom wrote: “Yet you are discussing air temperature, not surface temperature.”
As I explained, the lower troposphere is the closest we have got so far to measuring surface temperature by satellite, which is the only practical way to get uniform geographical coverage.
“They are not the same and one must draw different conclusions when analyzing each.”
But it would be hard to explain if the trend in lower troposphere temperature were much different from the trend in surface temperature. The main advantage of using the lower troposphere is that it reduces the upward bias that urban heating, land use changes, etc. create in the surface temperature record.
“The actual surface land/ocean are heat sinks storing energy for later release.”
They release that stored energy every night (and outside the tropics, every winter), so it is not relevant to longer-term temperature trends.
“The atmosphere has different heat sinks parameters due to convection and radiation.”
And there is no reason to think those parameters have any relevance to temperature trends on time scales longer than a year.
Roy, Relative to surface temperature, but including subsurface oceanic temperature.
There were higher than average El Niños throughout the 20th century. 1997-98, and 2014-2016 are tied as the strongest El Niños within the last 50 years; though consider that throughout the 20th century El Niños were weighted as stronger on average. The 2023–2024 El Niño was described as moderately intense.
Ocean heat from El Niño events, or cooling from La Niña’s is stored in oceans where it’s mixed and stratified in layers and redistributed around the globe via ocean currents, for potentially hundreds of years before upwelling releases it into the atmosphere. Over the last 150 years it seems impossible, based on the upward trajectory of ever warmer El Niño’s throughout the 20th- 21st century, that there could have been a material ENSO neutral period; meaning there should be net oceanic long-term warming over the last 150 years.
The 1877 El Niño, post LIA, is the strongest El Niño on record. The resultant heat waves and famine killed an estimated 50 million people over 3 continents—this El Niño lasted a year and a half; which BTW belies the contemporary drumbeat that the last 150 years is unprecedented because of AGW hockey stick. The 1877 El Niño event wasn’t caused by anthropomorphism, its described causation was from natural variability.
The crux: wouldn’t a weighted average of stronger than normal El Niños drive a warmer climate by negating ENSO neutral over the last 105 years? Wouldn’t the storeded oceanic heat continue to compound warming until a new paradym presents itself? The current literature suggests ENSO nuetral throughout the hockey stick, but as described, recent work suggests higher averages of strong El Niños over the last 150 years, the latter should negate the ENSO neutral literature it would seem. Do you have thoughts on this?
I have other links, but this should suffice for the premise:
https://www.sciencealert.com/coral-records-show-that-brutal-el-ninos-haven-t-always-been-this-way
Jungletrunks wrote: “The crux: wouldn’t a weighted average of stronger than normal El Niños drive a warmer climate by negating ENSO neutral over the last 105 years?”
More likely it would be driven BY a warmer climate.
“Wouldn’t the storeded oceanic heat continue to compound warming until a new paradym presents itself?”
The Pleistocene record of temperature changes and subsequent CO2 changes indicates that the thermal inertia of the oceans takes several hundred years to reach equilibrium. So it’s always behind and out of phase with the millennial-scale solar activity cycle.
“The current literature suggests ENSO nuetral throughout the hockey stick, but as described, recent work suggests higher averages of strong El Niños over the last 150 years, the latter should negate the ENSO neutral literature it would seem. Do you have thoughts on this?”
There are many cycles of different lengths involved, and different latency periods in the responses of climate parameters to those cyclical variations. We are far from understanding it all, but the notion that the return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years must be due to increased atmospheric CO2 is a blatant post hoc fallacy with no basis in empirical science. That this hypothesis has become the mainstream paradigm in climate science is inexplicable. That computer models of global climate are all constructed around it and to provide support for it is indefensible. That historical temperature data have been retroactively altered to conform to it is unforgivable.
Roy –
“That this hypothesis [increased atmospheric CO2] has become the mainstream paradigm in climate science is inexplicable.”
Many of us find it quite explicable. Physical principles, observation, evidence. Works very well.
Roy’s comment
“. We are far from understanding it all, but the notion that the return to more normal Holocene temperatures following the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years must be due to increased atmospheric CO2 is a blatant post hoc fallacy with no basis in empirical science. ”
I am not taking a position on CO2 effect on the climate though worth noting that the warming in the last 150 years is reasonably consistent with the rate of warming over the last 12,000 years. The resolution of the paleo data/proxies is insufficient to determine with any confidence whether the rate of warming over the last 150 years is greater or less than the rate of warming over any prior period during the last 12,000.
Until a better understanding of changes in temps over the last 12,000 years is understood, attempts to estimate ECS with any confidence is fruitless
“https://news.arizona.edu/news/global-temperatures-over-last-24000-years-show-todays-warming-unprecedented
In reply to Joe K’s post and link:
Part quote “– proxy-constrained, full-field reanalysis of surface temperature change spanning the Last Glacial Maximum to present at 200-year resolution.”
200 years is too large. Also the real culprit is being missed – obliquity changes. There have been several in the last 9000 years, however four are recorded, after 5200bce. But it is the last major one that is important presently, at 2346bce. Event time less that 12hours, so a 200yr res the abrupt temperature changes globally are smoothed out. See polar against equatorial.
This is what science is missing out. An abrupt obliquity change also invokes a precession change which for 2346bce was about 150 degrees forward (near 150 days). In 200 years, to 2200bce, it meant the collapse of the then civilisations, the 4k2 event. Time/precession: from dec2347 jump to may 2346bce, meaning major harvest failures and famines.
Thanks for the reply, Roy.
I agree that the record of stronger than normal El Niño’s over the last 150 years should lead to a warmer climate, which was exactly my point, net stored oceanic heat. I also in particular agree with your description of latency, thus the description of the 1977 El Niño, the strongest on record, caused by natural variation. This El Niño coincided with the beginning of the so called hockey stick, its stored heat would be given up gradually, perhaps over hundreds of years—latency. It makes mockery soup out of CO2 causation for AGW, doesn’t it? Were subsequent strong El Niño’s influenced by the 1st strong El Niño? Not to mention a cascade of effects, i.e., changes in atmospheric WV.
I meant “1877 El Niño”
Roy said –
“…the notion that the [recent warming] must be due to increased atmospheric CO2 is a blatant post hoc fallacy with no basis in empirical science.”
Whoa! The CO2 hypothesis is the ONLY explanation that is NOT post hoc, right? Warming due to CO2 increase was predicted; all other hypotheses – natural cycles, solar variation, SO2, planetary rotation, sudden mysterious orbital glitches, excess water vapor, albedo variations, etc. – have emerged after the fact.
Pat: “Warming due to CO2 increase was predicted”
That’s certainly the political science definition wrapped in the political consensus science definition–defined as science by definition–by political scientists. As the world turns with obliquity changes.
Trunks,
Yeah, that old political scientist, Svante Arrhenius, just made things up to scare people and force an agenda.
BAB: “Yeah, that old political scientist, Svante Arrhenius, just made things up to scare people and force an agenda.”
You’re speaking of a different era, different sensibilities, nascent science in the field of climate; and Arrhenius wasn’t an ideologue the way you are.
I recently posted a book describing the history and working methodology of the IPCC.
The following is an essay excerpt that touches on Arrhenius written by Aant Elzinga, professor emeritus at the University of Gothenburg
He says about Arrhenius. if had he been able to witness IPCC megascience:
“…He might, however, not have been entirely pleased with the way the overlayering of complex institutional arrangements and orchestration of extended peer review processes may constrain basic research. Because of the orchestration processes at work it is possible that alternative concepts and approaches are partially foreclosed…What emerges is a picture where we have to abandon the old “truth speaks to power” image…it is assumed that Nature speaks directly to scientists without the interference of institutionally based bias.”
“It is readily seen how the consultation process on global warming launched by the IPCC is patterned to represent the science-politics interface. This is verified by the views of several renowned scientists involved in the process. Post-normal science is characterized by high societal decision-stakes combined with a high degree of uncertainty with regard to empirical data and even base-line data on the phenomena investigated. We can no longer know the “undisturbed climate”; it can only be ideally constructed in complex simulation models, which at best appear to be very sophisticated and powerful instruments for organizing complex data and making predictions about broad trends. In this view, GCMs are heuristic devices rather than reality maps. We have come a long way over the last 100 years, from science as a source of knowledge production, to Big Science, to megascience. The stakes are higher, the networks involved larger and many more, and the interpenetration with other domains of society more intense.”
Re something I missed earlier:
From Pat Cussen and repeated by Jungletrunks: “Warming due to CO2 increase was predicted”
“sudden mysterious orbital glitches” were predicted by GF Dodwell long before the CO2 ongoing saga has been. The difference is that Dodwell has been proven right and in some instances very precise. Whereas the CO2 prediction is still just that. In fact the present warming is no different than all the other previous warmings when near the peak of the Eddy cycle. At the time in late third millennium bce of the Dodwell prediction, temp still rose higher than today’s (from some charts).
Change is sudden, and the response in temps is relatively fast. So any multi-decade sampling will just wipe out the evidence. A micro-event of such occurred in 173ce, and the effect showed in fast glacier response in northern countries (not just predictions but also tell-tale glimpses of similar events)
Missing the woods for the trees?
Thanks Melitam for that observation. However I have been unable to locate any prediction that Dodwell (a fascinating character) made of the current warming, to which I was referring – do you have a reference?
As for Dodwell’s conclusions regarding past events, you are probably familiar with the critiques. For instance, from a detailed analysis by an individual named Paul Dunbavin (I don’t know him):
Updating Dodwell and his Astronomy
“… In summary it must be concluded that much as a catastrophist researcher might wish Dodwell’s work to support a case that the Earth’s axis has changed, unfortunately it cannot reliably be used in that way. Certainly it cannot be used to support the Biblical chronology as he intended.”
And this from an interesting article at the cultural website ADELAIDEAZ:
“…Dodwell concluded there was consistent evidence that the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis was altered by a catastrophe around 2345BC. This catastrophe claim won pockets of belief including those who attributed it to destroying the legendary island of Atlantis. Dodwell wrote the 400-page The truth of the Bible (1959) on his hypothesis, although an earlier version had been rejected by the Royal Astronomical Society.
Dodwell was a Seventh Day Adventist fundamentalist Christian. He was trying to align the comet hit and Noah’s flood, according to the Earth’s chronology as calculated by bishop James Ussher (1581-1656), based on Biblical evidence, and concluding that life started at 6pm on October 22 4004BC.”
So I don’t think that Dodwell’s work qualifies as a prediction in the sense that I had in mind.
Pat Cussen: Thanks for the reply. It is an opportunity to make clear some.
But first: Dodwell predicted “sudden mysterious orbital glitches”. Not the current warming.
Re Paul Dunbavin: He picked material from my book description, but never read the book. The book “Megalithic calendars of the Maltese islands” was published end 2015. Earth axial tilt changes are evident in the calendars’ mathematical design. Including evidence of alterations due to one tilt change, but no date. All there was to go by at the time were evidence from tree rings (pers corr gratefully supplied dates 2345bce, 3195, 4375). Dodwell’s work appeared that year, with date 2345bce. Plus from wiki, curves for Temp Anomaly for polar and equatorial, with abrupt changes at about 2345bce. I was baited.
Dodwell’s work repeated here: A Wittmann “The Obliquity of the Ecliptic” 1979. I repeated this work with a different point of view. All subsequently proved wrong hypotheses. But abrupt tilt changes are fact proven here (link https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
The link has plenty of data; including abrupt glacial melt/warming in ref paper.
The case for tilt change was clear. However extraterrestrial impacts are out; contradicted by Newton’s laws, since earth orbit is stable. However one Law demands conservation of momentum (gyro); with tilt change science requires evidence of precession change. That came late, accidentally, LED moments! Greek Plato has three instances of such; Biblical has several- 4 minimum;, Sanskrit Hindu also. But science/maths (dynamic stability of rotating objects) has the mechanics, the driver and the date. 8th May 2346bce (very surprised here to find date converts to Hebrew 17th Iyyar, second month after Nisan; see Genesis flood date. Dodwell was precise, but never knew it. Gen has not the year; science has.)
We missed the woods for the trees; and never smelled the flowers.
Wagathon wrote: ““As a final test, I look around for something else that is six feet long to use in the investigation. Finding nothing, I have an inspiration. I sit down, put my feet in the hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth and wait for the temperature of my head to start rising.”
How is this analogous to the issue of whether the earth has an average surface temperature or not?
Temperature is an intensive variable and averages of different temperatures is meaningless. AI, for example, is trained on the existing corrupt science holding that the average of intensive variables however, is not meaningless in climate science by definition.
Silly people worrying about 1st. order effects (physics) when the real news is the 2nd. & 3rd. order effects on the ecology and living environment. The biosphere and the climate are co-dependent. One of every two breaths you take came from the oceans (plankton) not trees. The agriculture & aquaculture industries depend on the insects, birds and lower lifeforms to produce our food.
https://a-z-animals.com/articles/bird-populations-decline-in-2025-state-of-the-worlds-birds-report/
Insect Populations Tanked By 75 Percent In Just 30 Years.
April 30, 2025
https://www.iflscience.com/bugpocalypse-why-insect-populations-tanked-by-75-percent-in-just-30-years-79017
We are the planet’s apex predator, who’s going to stop us?
Jack – dont get fooled by junk science.
A 75% decline in the insect population would be a serious ecological disaster. A major collapse of the food chain.
The study is pure junk
Yep– AI says ‘BirdLife International’ is a conservation organization that considers climate change a “catastrophic threat” to nature and people, based on what it describes as overwhelming scientific evidence.’
Why is it “junk” science? How would you know? Maybe, it’s just that Joe doesn’t like it, so it must be junk.
The problem is many “scientists” or individuals who claim to be “scientists” are either fooled by junk science or recognize junk science yet embrace and endorse the junk science because it fits their agenda.
Hint – the study Jack linked to is obviously junk science. Honesty and ethics are not the forte of those that would embrace it.
Joe, thanks for answering my questions. Here is another one: Why should we pay any attention to any of your unsupported opinions?
“Honesty and ethics are not the forte of those that would embrace it [junk science].”
Honesty and ethics are not the forte of those that would deny science (and calling it names) because they don’t like what it is telling them.
Since you call the “science” junk, have you read the original work – I bet not? What you are calling junk, is media report(s) about important scientific results. If you’d like to read the original work, you can find it without paywall, here:
https://www.newswise.com/pdf_docs/174490245273979_biaf034_LR%20(1).pdf
Total number of bird species that have gone extinct during the last century that is known to have been caused by climate change is zero. Humanity has been killing birds for 120,000 years but not with their CO2.
Bush –
Care to address the validity of a study that claims a loss of 75% of the insect population
Care to explain why there is not a major collapse of the food chain with a 75% loss of the insect population
No you cant -you attack the person because of you know the layman exposed the junk science while the “scientist” embraced the junk science.
Sure, I’d be happy to explain. You didn’t read the original work linked by the IFL media article. If you had bothered to look, you would see the title thereof is: “More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809
The fact that you didn’t even look at the title of the original work (or lied by omission about it) is the pure junk. You can apologize for your mistake any ol’ time.
Wagathon: “Humanity has been killing birds for 120,000 years but not with their CO2.”
Though anthropomorphic wind turbines do a pretty good job of it.
Joe wrote:
“A 75% decline in the insect population would be a serious ecological disaster. A major collapse of the food chain. ”
Not at all. Most insects spend most of their time eating and being eaten by other insects. It’s just churn. One astonished entomologist found seven levels of parasitism in a certain order of parasitic wasps. Would it be an ecological disaster or collapse of the food chain if there were only two levels? Analogously, there are billions of transactions per day in financial markets. Would the economy collapse if that number were reduced by 75%, or even 99%?
The paper in question isn’t a global reference for insect biodiversity loss, it’s a generalized German regional study. It doesn’t quantify the drivers for biodiversity insect loss; it considers a few possibilities, but ignores other potential causes that may be more obvious.
For example, Germany is a leading nation for renewables, the paper doesn’t touch on the land use effects from renewables, the creation of ecological traps. Wind turbines and solar panels cover large swaths of Germany’s landscape; while the paper decribes agriculture as an ecological trap, there’s no mention of the massive land footprint that renewables use—there’s probably good reason why spawling renewables are ignored as an example of an ecological trap. Also “light”; I’ve read other papers describing declines in specific insect populations, i.e., moths. None of those papers mentioned city lights, urban sprawl. Moths, and many other insects are attracted to light—not a mention; city lights are a different type of ecological trap.
Here are some of the caveats in said paper:
“However, we have not exhaustively analysed the full range of climatic variables that could potentially impact insect biomass. For example prolonged droughts, or lack of sunshine especially in low temperatures might have had an effect on insect biomass [59–62]. Agricultural intensification [17, 20] (e.g. pesticide usage, year-round tillage, increased use of fertilizers and frequency of agronomic measures) that we could not incorporate in our analyses, may form a plausible cause. The reserves in which the traps were placed are of limited size in this typical fragmented West-European landscape, and almost all locations (94%) are enclosed by agricultural fields. Part of the explanation could therefore be that the protected areas (serving as insect sources) are affected and drained by the agricultural fields in the broader surroundings (serving as sinks or even as ecological traps) [1, 63–65]. Increased agricultural intensification may have aggravated this reduction in insect abundance in the protected areas over the last few decades. Whatever the causal factors responsible for the decline, they have a far more devastating effect on total insect biomass than has been appreciated previously.”
It further states: “Declines of individual species or taxa (e.g. [7, 26]) may not reflect the general state of local entomofauna [27]. The total insect biomass would then be a better metric for the status of insects as a group and its contribution to ecosystem functioning, but very few studies have monitored insect biomass over an extensive period of time [28]. Hence, to what extent total insect biomass has declined, and the relative contribution of each proposed factor to the decline, remain unresolved yet highly relevant questions for ecosystem ecology and conservation.”
“In light of previously suggested driving mechanisms, our analysis renders two of the prime suspects, i.e. landscape [9, 18, 20] and climate change [15, 18, 21, 37], as unlikely explanatory factors for this major decline in aerial insect biomass in the investigated protected areas.”
The paper concludes: “Whatever the causal factors responsible for the decline”.
They don’t know.
B A Bushaw wrote: “Honesty and ethics are not the forte of those that would deny science (and calling it names) because they don’t like what it is telling them.”
Names like “climate change denialism,” you mean?
Roy, no, I meant names like “junk” science.
B A Bushaw wrote: “Roy, no, I meant names like “junk” science.”
I see. So, when the ideologues who push the CO2 climate narrative dismiss the work of respected scientists like Linzen, Curry, Shaviv, Svensmark, etc. as “climate change denialism,” that’s not name calling; but when a methodological trash-fest like Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph is identified for the dishonest garbage it indisputably is, that’s name calling…?
Somehow, I kinda figured it’d be something like that…
Roy: “I see. So, when the ideologues who push the CO2 climate narrative dismiss the work of respected scientists like Linzen, Curry, Shaviv, Svensmark, etc. as “climate change denialism,” that’s not name calling.
No, it is not name-calling; it is descriptive of their political and scientific viewpoint, and perhaps questions how that reflects on motivation, bias, and choices made in their “work”. By the same reasoning, “climate alarmism” or “catastrophism” are not insults; they have descriptive intellectual content, regardless if they are accurate or not. Try to comprehend the difference from “junk”.
jacksmith4tx is right on the basics.
However here “We are the planet’s apex predator, who’s going to stop us?” that question is simple to answer. Like the dinosaurs it is the apex predator that comes to a terminal end; the end of the rising exponential curve.
The reasoning of such comparisons is an abandonment of the spiritual dimension of sentient beings compared to all other life forms…
Ahab thought white whale’s were capable of malicious intent but… pretty sure all that was just in Ahab’s mind…
Wagathon says “– an abandonment of the spiritual dimension of sentient beings compared to all other life forms –”
The spiritual dimension is purely a human construct to attempt to explain nature, particularly the terrible natural events. It has only served to obfuscate the facts which are a fundamental part of the narratives. In fact all concern one singular event.
But it is not the spiritual dimension that explains it but pure science.
The mention of Ahab is of interest. Try to explain “Ahab’s Dial”.
More like the growth curve of a bacterial culture in a petri dish. No catastrophic event required. All that has to happen is turning resources into toxins, without regard for the future.
The reality of climate change is not affected by the understanding of it by sentient beings. Describing it as we understand it as ‘alarming,’ for instance, may be sociological, psychological, theoretical, spiritual but, scientifically- it’s ‘natural’ by definition.
From Wagathon: “The reality of climate change is not affected by the understanding of it by sentient beings.” Correct.
However the ” sociological, psychological, theoretical, spiritual” may put the matter in some perspective, which may be positive in understanding better or negative as in obfuscation. But the “scientifically” helps humanity make the best of the possibilities. The scientific may also serve us to avoid both natural and self-made pitfalls. But that requires wisdom, which is not at all a common character gift.
AI’s contribution seems relevant here (coached a bit perhaps by my question)–
‘No, it is not possible to entirely separate science from politics, as scientific inquiry is influenced by values and decisions made within political contexts, such as funding priorities and the choice of research topics, while political decisions often rely on scientific findings for data and evidence. While science aims for objectivity, the myth of a completely apolitical science hinders discussion of appropriate political influences and the recognition of science’s powerful role in shaping society and policy.’
Obviously, some scientists are capable of putting the AGW Global Warming conjecture to the scientific test of seeing if it survives the null hypothesis but politically they are relegated to being outside the the consensus of opinion as proclaimed by Leftist politically corrupt Western academia.
Melita,
The question is not what quantum of damage the apex predator can cause, the question is whether the apex predator is having any significant adverse effect. Face it, disaster mongers exist and some have vivid imagination. They are not scientists.
I have had decades as a hard scientist, that is, one intent on rejecting speculation while making measurements and using observations by other hard scientists to advance the understanding of the nature of things.
Most of what has been written on this blog thread is not hard science, though some might think that it is. True hard scientists can attempt to call out the pop science, but there is a great deal of it. In the case of climate change, an overwhelming volume of pop crap has distorted not only our attempts at reality, but also the reputation of science and thus a loss to mankind.
This article byxx
Sherro01,
I tend to agree re your second paragraph, but the first invites some comment.
The apex predator, who shares the planet with the rest of all life-forms, has science, as in technology, that has given him advantage in certain situations. But did he get all his science right? The answer is a firm ‘No’, and here history is a good teacher. To some examples:
The food chain: gauging by my years, technology has improved productivity so as to assure better protection from the ever present famines that history records. But there was an ugly downside to technology. The insects, birds, trees and fruits that I recall in my teens are all gone (for mixed reasons; pesticides and pest introduction). The potential for the soil to produce has been increasingly limited: water depletion, weather tampering (cloud seeding), economic interference, etc. From the scientific perspective, nature variability on a semi millennial level, remained largely unknown. The ever present millennial cycle, for the past 6k years, and its effects on humanity is still -apparently- unrecognised.
The science: Our present concept in an important field is challenged by history. But here this video says more than a whole book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIhT65GdjgI
It proves two fundamental points. The site is over 6000 years old.
1: Geological changes in recent times are greater than the present science holds.
2: Earth orientation changes are periodic, and with them big and permanent climate changes.
Presently science denies both. This has been my field of research and the proof is all over the historical material, which is presently held as fiction by science. In this cultural/religious ‘obfuscation’ has been prevalent and wild. Yet the numbers and the data are precise and common to all sources.
The risks: the apex predator is today in a ‘highly leveraged’ state. In a state of great social disaster from natural causes, when to many everything is gone, the media has one word for it: “they have no electricity”. Shows the depth of understanding of ‘Risk’.
The CO2 liberated by wildfires in Canada annually would approach 300 times greater than CO2 from local human activity. If atmospheric CO2 is to be viewed as alarming when it increases, you could just as easily blame the populations of India and China for being responsible for it– most of which having been driven by poverty – than to blame modernity for it.
Wagathon:
You say that climate change is “natural”, by definition.
That is true only up to the industrial revolution, when in addition to the earlier temporary volcanic-induced La Ninas and El Ninos that controlled our weather by their SO2 aerosol emissions, industrial activity began adding man-made SO2 aerosol pollution to the atmosphere, from the burning of fossil fuels.
Since then, apart from seasonal changes, and the effects of occasional volcanic eruptions, man-made increases or decreases in the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution has been responsible for all of our temperature changes, and the cleaner our air, due to “Clean Air ” and “Net-Zero” activities, the hotter it will get!
With respect to CO2, it can be proven to have no climatic effect, apart from greening our planet, and decreasing its albedo.
The population growth In India has been over 700% since the beginning of the industrial revolution and in China, over 500%. Britain, over 900% and the United States, over 20,000%, driven mostly by immigration from Europe. And yet, increases in the population of humanity on Earth has nothing to do with the increase in atmospheric CO2 in ppm. Seems like a relationship there to me.
Wagathon wrote:
And yet, increases in the population of humanity on Earth has nothing to do with the increase in atmospheric CO2 in ppm.
What’s your proof of this claim?
The local DA can’t generally posit an answer to the questions he poses, therefore he puts the onus on others for questions he can’t answer himself. The local DA should simply rely on the ole “dog ate it” defense—case closed.
Trunks, kinda obvious – there is no proof for the claim, and DA wants to ‘shine the light’ on people who make unsupportable claims. Me too.
Especially attempts at shining the light on climate—there’s many lacking claims going around and around in the name of science that don’t illuminate truth.
Trunks, How would you know? Thanks for shining the light on yourself. Although it was obvious, I do appreciate your admitting that you’re not a scientist.
How do I know? Your calculated integrity has no qualms with the fact that published IPCC reports are vetted using a voting process. A 50/50 mix of political bureaucrats and scientists, each group votes on material going into IPCC reports, only consensus material gets published. Political consensus isn’t science.
This quote especially applies to the politicized climate science. There is a remarkable lack of self awareness by many who don’t understand we are part of the equation.
“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”
— Max Planck
Max makes great sense- it’s all natural! More humans, more use of energy. Humans had mastered the use of fire hundreds of thousands of years before the first migrants from Siberia crossed the Bering land bridge to the American Continent. For humans, technology (use of energy) is critical to survive cold weather.
Trunks, Got a reference for that 50/50 split, or just making it up? Perhaps you don’t realize that IPCC doesn’t do science – it reviews it. Of course, you wouldn’t know the difference.
Yes, a reference.
http://web.archive.org/web/20160304004003/http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/journal-iostudies.org/files/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
Trunks, thanks for the reference, no mention of 50/50 in there. The way the process works: SPMs (Summaries for Policy Makers) are written by scientists, and then reviewed/modified by governmental representatives (GR), with the scientists also present to defend and explain their write up, but only the GRs alone decides on acceptance of the final form. Also, a formal vote is not used unless concensus is not reached. Concensus is considered reached if all GRs present accept or do not object to the text, line-by-line, or in full. A formal objection essentially gives any single country veto power over proposed SPMs (and changes therein).
The actual technical reports (WG1,2,3), by far the most important parts, IMHO, are controlled entirely by the writing scientists. The GR’s only have to reach concensus (as above) on acceptance of the technical reports, in toto, and do not get to modify them. Obviously, the AR6 technical reports have been accepted.
As expected, your 50/50 is a personal opinion, not supported by the facts, or your reference. As for me, I’m not interested in the SPMs – I’m not a policy maker, nor do I have much interest politically altered science, but I do appreciate that the real science reports are protected from political meddling.
Trunks, no 50/50 in that reference. I’ll assume it just an unsupported personal opinion. If you like, I can explain the IPPC review and report production process, if you like.
‘…the IPCC has been a remarkable success.’
The IPCC has been a success kind of like Putin’s war on Ukraine has been a success..
Reference excerpts, pages 54-56:
…scientists described the developments of the 1980s as a “revolution” in the social structure of climate science… “A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences” (O’Riordan and Jäger, 1996, 2)
IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body but a unique hybrid. The political representatives, by virtue of the consensus rule, would hold veto power over every word of the summaries that were the essential product for policy-makers. But the scientists, represented by the lead authors of their reports, would also hold an effective veto by virtue of their prestige and unimpeachable expertise. Once a consensus was forged among all parties, it would not be questioned by any well-constituted and representative political or scientific body.
…decisions among the dozens or hundreds of elite leaders are made by a negotiated consensus in a spirit of equality, of mutual accommodation, and of commitment to the community process—all of which are seldom celebrated, but essential, components of the republican political culture (Weart, 1998, 61). Note also that majority voting is normally important in this political culture, but in many cases consensus is even more important.
If IPCC was the outstanding example, in other areas, ranging from disease control to fisheries, panels of scientists were becoming a new voice in world affairs (Miller, 2001, esp. 212–13). Independent of nationalities, they wielded increasing power by claiming dominion over views about the actual state of the world—shaping perceptions of reality itself.
Look up the word: implicit /ĭm-plĭs′ĭt/
Polly, I’m not interested in your perch spinning.
Wagathon: ‘…the IPCC has been a remarkable success.’
The interesting thing about the referenced book is its unwitting indictment about the current state of science—unwitting by nature that the book is essentially a DEI celebration describing the revolution for institutionalized consensus science; “negotiated consensus in a spirit of equality, of mutual accommodation, and of commitment to the community process”.
It’s a damning book.
Trunks: “Polly, I’m not interested in your perch spinning.”
And I’m not interested in your lies, misrepresentations, name-calling, and insults; so maybe you should just ferme la bouche.
Roy, No, I mean names like “junk science”.
Here we go again….
The “ECS” is nothing more than an excuse why the models don’t work. But, the reason the models don’t work is they’re based on the false belief that CO2 can “warm the planet”.
Once the CO2 nonsense goes away, the ECS nonsense goes away.
A certain narcissistic sociopath has claimed that pyrgeometers can’t measure downwelling IR – yet such measurements have been routinely accomplished at a number of global sites for over 40 years:
“Decadal variation of longwave downwelling and net radiation as observed at the surface with implication for climate sensitivity: Based on pyrgeometer and pyranometer measurements” [Ohmura, Journal of the European Meteorological Society, Volume 1, December 2024, 100003]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemets.2024.100003
I need to explain some more on the solar energy/ planet surface interaction process – as I see it happening – to make it clear as much as I can.
When solar EM energy hits surface’s matter the following three things occur:
1). Reflection (SW), which is both – diffuse reflection and specular reflection (with specular reflection directional constituent).
2). Immediate (IR) emission, which is from the skin-surface-layer by interaction induced proces, which is observable by the skin-surface-layer’s elevated temperature.
3). A small fraction of the incident solar energy gets absorbed in inner layers in form of HEAT!.
*****************
*****************
When a planet or moon has a higher the (N*cp) product, the immediate (IR) emission lessens, and the small absorbed fraction gets larger.
Notice:
There is always some the immediate (IR) emission, because it is the result of solar EM energy interaction proces with surface’s matter.
When the (N*cp) product is lower, more (IR) EM energy goes out by the immediate (IR) emission, and less is retained as heat, so the average surface temperature is lower.
And,when the (N*cp) product is higher, less (IR) EM energy goes out by the immediate (IR) emission, and more is retained as heat, so the average surface temperature is higher.
Thus, the not reflected (SW) EM energy never gets absorbed in inner layers as heat in its entiety.
****************
****************
The planets and moons retain only a small fraction of the incident solar (SW) EM energy as heat.
Planets and moons surfaces emit – when they are not solar irradiated – very little (IR) EM energy.
They do not emit what the Stefan-Boltzmann emission Law requires for their respective surface temperatures.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What we see instead, what the established science of Earth’s Climate is doing?
They take the impossible number of 390 W/m2.
Then they take another impossible number of 240 W/m2.
And then, they calculate the difference of those two:
390 W/m2 – 240 W/m2 = 150 W/m2
The impossible 150 W/m2 !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The lead article by Nic Lewis should be read and understood by those about to comment. Many of the comments fail to address this. As a hard scientist, I accept the article even though it is about mathematics more than science. I accept it because it abides by a number of principles used by hard scientists and so it advances understanding of the world around us.
Sadly, many comments are little more than commercials for favoured positions of the writers. They do not have the structure or value of hard science methodology. Therefore, they have capacity to misinform, which is shameful. Commenters, please be careful. The topic of climate change has been harmful to the reputation and value of hard science and we do not want to continue the degradation, do we? Geoff S
The “hard science” debunked this CO2 nonsense years ago. The problem is that hard science does not overpower beliefs and hidden agendas.
Everyone believes he’s a scientist, but not one of the “believers” can provide a description/definition of the CO2 nonsense that doesn’t violate First Principles of physics.
Yet the funding keeps pouring in….
the Nobel committee awarded the Peace Prize in 2009 to the head of the Democratic party for stopping the seas from rising. Hard to top that! it’s been all downhill for the Left since then. This, is how a hoax dies.
‘In periods of decreasing solar activity there is global cooling, such as occurred during the Little Ice Age that continued until the end of the 19th century. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been at its highest since the medieval warmth of 1000 years ago, but now it appears that the Sun has changed again, and is returning towards what solar scientists call a ‘grand minimum’ such as we saw in the Little Ice Age.
‘The match between solar activity and climate through the ages is sometimes explained away as coincidence. Yet it turns out that, almost no matter when you look and not just in the last 1000 years, there is a link. Solar activity has repeatedly fluctuated between high and low during the past 10,000 years. In fact the Sun spent about 17 per cent of those 10,000 years in a sleeping mode, with a cooling Earth the result… Enjoy global warming while it lasts.’ (Henrik Svensmark)
Wagathon:
Svensmark is wrong!
Solar radiation has not fluctuated between high and low over the past 10,000 years.
What has fluctuated is the amount of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, that has the effect of dimming the incoming solar radiation.
Revised– Enjoy lack of solar reflection while it lasts.
Burl Henry wrote: “What has fluctuated is the amount of atmospheric SO2 aerosol pollution in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, that has the effect of dimming the incoming solar radiation.”
The cooling effect of volcanic SO2 is highly transient, lasting only a few years. Solar activity cycles occur on various timescales, the relevant one being millennial. The coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years was accompanied by the lowest sustained level of solar activity in several thousand years, and the return to more normal Holocene temperatures during the 20th century was accompanied by the highest sustained level of solar activity in several thousand years. The CO2 climate narrative would have you believe that this is coincidence.
Burl Henry wrote: “You cannot infer that the sun’ s radiation has fluctuated if there are any Volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere , of VEI4 or higher intensity in the atmosphere to dim the incoming solar radiation.”
Of course you can. Solar activity proxies like sunspots, 10Be, and 14C are not affected by SO2 aerosols, volcanic or any other kind.
“Although the effects an eruption may last only a few years, if there chains of eruptions, as during the LIA, there can be SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years.”
No. The only “chain” of eruptions in the LIA was in the late 15th century, and the SO2 was all out of the atmosphere before 1500. Volcanic activity was otherwise at typical background levels. There was one large volcano near the beginning of the LIA and two near the end, but the coldest period was at the same time as the Maunder Minimum in solar activity, 1645-1715, when there were no particularly large volcanoes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_volcanism_on_Earth
The London Frost Fairs were from the early 17th to the early 19th centuries, and ENDED before the Tambora eruption of 1815, the largest volcano of the LIA. Blaming volcanoes for the LIA is just another transparent rationalization for dismissing the role of increased solar activity in the post-LIA return to more normal Holocene temperatures that the CO2 climate narrative has to contrive some way to attribute exclusively to fossil fuel use.
Burl Henry wrote: “Roy Langston:
You are totally wrong that volcanic SO2 aerosols not the cause of the LIA.”
No, I am correct.
“It was triggered by the 1257 VEI7 eruption of Mount Samalas on Lombok Island, and was followed by two VEI6 and five VEI5 eruptions within the next 58 years. The five VEI5 eruptions all occurred between a year of each other, so there there would have been a large amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.”
No, SO2 is washed out in just a few years, as we directly observed after Pinatubo. So the SO2 from the series of eruptions that ended in the early 14th century was all gone before the cooling really got underway in the mid-14th century.
“This would have caused a lot of cooling, and ice formation.”
No, that is refuted by Tambora, which was far larger, only caused two years of cool weather, and was followed by extended warming.
“The Wolf Minimum occurred between 1280 and 1350, and the cooling then was caused by the aerosols, not reduced sunspot activity, as has been surmised.”
No, that’s false. The aerosols were out of the atmosphere by ~1320, and the cooling followed that, coinciding with the sunspot minimum.
“The Sporer minimum was from 1471-1550.”
~1460-1550.
“Tony Brown has extended the Central England Instrumental temperatures data set back to 1530, and he found a large temperature INCREASE during the minimum, between 1530 and 1540, which coincided with a 6-7 year period with no volcanic eruptions .”
I.e., it was at the END of the Sporer Minimum. And Central England is not the whole world.
“Another spike in temperatures during the LIA occurred between 1720-1740, again a period with very few volcanic eruptions.”
More accurately, it was the period immediately following the Maunder Minimum, when solar activity rebounded.
“If you look at the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set, 1659-present you will also see many temporary temperature spikes during the period of the LIA that it covers.”
So what? There is always local variation.
“From all of this you have to conclude that low temperatures during the LIA were due to Volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, interspersed by warm periods where there were pauses in the eruptions. ”
No, that can’t be true, because the aerosols from the 13th century eruptions were all gone before the cooling really got underway in the mid-14th century, and the biggest eruption of the LIA, Tambora, came at the end of the LIA, and was followed by decades of warming.
Interesting factoid: as a result of the decrease in the weight of the melting ice sheet occurring since the last ice age, the land in northern Europe has been uplifted relative to the rise in the sea level such that, e.g., the sea level at Stockholm, Sweden, says Tony Heller, has fallen about 10 cm since the time Greta Thunberg was born.
NO, Stockholm has risen ~20 cm, and sea level has risen ~10 cm. It’s called glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA). Check out the region around Hudson Bay (near the center of the Laurentide Ice Sheet) – rising over 1cm/year.
Roy Langston:
You cannot infer that the sun’ s radiation has fluctuated if there are any Volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere , of VEI4 or higher intensity in the atmosphere to dim the incoming solar radiation.
Although the effects an eruption may last only a few years, if there chains of eruptions, as during the LIA, there can be SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. years.
Roy Langston:
You are totally wrong that volcanic SO2 aerosols not the cause of the LIA.
It was triggered by the 1257 VEI7 eruption of Mount Samalas on Lombok Island, and was followed by two VEI6 and five VEI5 eruptions within the next 58 years. The five VEI5 eruptions all occurred between a year of each other, so there there would have been a large amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
This would have caused a lot of cooling, and ice formation.
The Wolf Minimum occurred between 1280 and 1350, and the cooling then was caused by the aerosols, not reduced sunspot activity, as has been surmised.
The Sporer minimum was from 1471-1550.
Tony Brown has extended the Central England Instrumental temperatures data set back to 1530, and he found a large temperature INCREASE during the minimum, between 1530 and 1540, which coincided with a 6-7 year period with no volcanic eruptions .
Another spike in temperatures during the LIA occurred between 1720-1740, again a period with very few volcanic eruptions.
If you look at the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set, 1659-present you will also see many temporary temperature spikes during the period of the LIA that it covers.
From all of this you have to conclude that low temperatures during the LIA were due to Volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, interspersed by warm periods where there were pauses in the eruptions.
Also see “The definitive cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”
https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2023.17.1.0124
Pingback: Climate sensitivity | …and Then There's Physics
Earth’s surface temperature is what it is, not because of atmosphere, but because of the very powerful Rotational Warming Phenomenon!
–
Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com
‘Carbon dioxide is definitely continuing to increase in the atmosphere, but Earth’s surface and atmospheric temperatures aren’t tracking it.’ ~Daniel Botkin
Depending on our holistic views, some may not be happy with an objective evaluation of the facts if they secretly want humanity to have a starring role in climate change. The hysterical AGW global warming alarmists of Leftist Western academia are wannabe kings in Greta’s clothing, not scientists.
Trunks: “Steve, that’s the parrots flight of fancy in motion—though for the uninitiated his shrill squawks do take some getting used to.”
GFY, you have nothing to add except showing how much of a jerk you are.
This comment is a test of WordPress comment formatting codes for italics and for bold:
For italics formatting:
GFY, you have nothing to add except showing how much of a jerk you are.
For bold formatting:
GFY, you have nothing to add except showing how much of a jerk you are.
This concludes today’s test of WordPress comment formatting codes. We now return to our normal programming.
Thanks, I like both. I appreciate your lesson. However, I find that quotation marks are sufficient to separate a quotation from a response.
Bushaw,
What is the strict, hard science meaning of your abbreviation “GFY”? Can you please provide a link to a respected peer reviewed journal?
Geoff S
Geoff,
Sure, it is a common vernacular TLA for various forms of autoeroticism. Here is one that I hope you and jungletrunks will try.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11758432/
Anyone still predicting the demise of the polar bear? Back in 2012, e.g.,
‘It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria … Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It’s not safe to camp there. They’re fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape … That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality.’ (Dr. Mitchell Taylor)
AI’s recap on the matter does not support cause for alarm–
‘Reports suggest the polar bear population in the Davis Strait is generally healthy, with bears being fatter on average than in the mid-2000s. A key reason for their good condition is the abundance of harp seals, a primary food source for this subpopulation.’
”Throughout history,” Dr. Philip Stott observed back in August 2008 (“More On Cognitive Dissonance — The End Of The World Is/Is Not Nigh!”), “many competing cults have attempted to predict dire catastrophes for the Earth.” Stott asks, “What happens when the predictions fail?”
Leftists of Western academia have a lot of anxieties and nothing makes them more anxious than what the weather will be in 30 years, irrespective of actual ‘science’ on the AGW climate change conjecture and how really bad for all living things on Earth It will be if we won’t listen to them.
Another month goes by and cooling continues. When the global temp hit highs we never heard the end of it. Now that it’s cooling, we never hear of it.
2024 Jan +0.80
2024 Feb +0.88
2024 Mar +0.88
2024 Apr +0.94
2024 May +0.78
2024 June +0.69
2024 July +0.74
2024 Aug +0.76
Average: 0.81
2025 Jan +0.45
2025 Feb +0.50
2025 Mar +0.57
2025 Apr +0.61
2025 May +0.50
2025 June +0.48
2025 July +0.36
2025 Aug +0.39
Average: 0.48
“Another month goes by and cooling continues.” Nope, another month goes by and the temperature anomaly increased. I guess the cooling must have stopped.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2025-on-track-to-be-second-or-third-warmest-year-on-record/
It’s safe to say 2025 ain’t gonna be the hottest year evah!!!
Yeah, much more likely 2nd highest. Instead of focussing on interannual variability, try to absorb where 2nd highest fits in the bigger picture:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Gary Novak:
” The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant Is In Error
W/m² = 5.67 x 10-8 x K4 ”
Link: https://nov79.com/stf.html
It’s deeply disappointing that Judith overlooks the glaring flaws in conventional “Earth Energy Budget” diagrams. How can less than 0.3% of the atmosphere—trace gases—be credited with driving a radiative energy transfer that not only defies thermodynamic principles by flowing from a cooler region to a warmer surface, but is also claimed to exceed the Sun’s input by more than double?
Such assertions collapse under scrutiny. The correct framework is not radiative dominance, but gravitational thermodynamics. It’s a well-established fact that gravity induces a temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere—a non-zero lapse rate that cannot be explained by radiation alone. You’ll recall who first articulated the non-radiative “heat creep” mechanism, derived from the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That process remains the only physically consistent method for determining temperatures at the base of a troposphere or within a planetary surface.
Its 0.042%. And there is much more to it than number density, e.g, absorption cross-sections of the thermal emission spectrum, collisional and radiative deactivation rates, which determine how quickly a CO2 can ‘recycle’ absorbed energy. The most obvious evidence is the approach to saturated absorption in the center of the 15 um band (which is well matched to the thermal emission spectrum as well as being in the ‘water window’).
I would think a ‘Physics Scientist’ would know these things; could you explain what makes you one?
Dear Dr. Lewis,
your articles are very interesting. Please have you considered the works described in the article: “160 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity” at https://notrickszone.com/50-papers-low-sensitivity/ – for example by Smirnov and Harde?
Fair and balanced (AI helped):
“A bibliometric survey across major academic platforms suggests that on the order of 4 500 to 6 500 peer-reviewed studies have reported an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) between 2 K and 5 K, with a central estimate of roughly 5 000 papers.”
Click “Open PDF in Browser” at the top at …
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5439017
for new paper …
A Scientific Critique of “Radiative Forcing” in Climate Discourse.
Roy Langston:
You still just don’t understand the LIA!
You say that SO2 is washed out in a few years, so the SO2 from the series of eruptions that ended in the early 14th century was all gone before the cooling really got underway, in the mid 14th century.
This was during the Wolf minimum, and there were six VEI5 and one VEI6 eruption between 1280 and 1315, and a LOT of cooling SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, that are wrongly attributed to the lack of sunspots.
However, there are also many temporary warming periods during all of the sunspot minimums, all during periods of no volcanic eruptions, which allows circulating volcanic SO2 aerosols to settle out of the atmosphere and increase the intensity of the solar radiation striking the Earth’s surface, warming it.
The fact that warming occurs during sunspot minima, when the solar radiation is supposedly diminished for decades, actually demolishes that hypothesis.
A single example would would be enough to falsify the alleged “cooling due to the lack of sunspots” hypothesis, but there are many.
For example, there was a 35 year gap between Quilotoa in 1280 and Tarawera in 1315, 10 years between then and Cerro Bravo in 1330, 10 years between then and Pele in 1340, and another 10 years between Kikhpinych, in 1350. All of these were during the Wolf sunspot minimum.
Temperature records for those periods are not available, but warming always occurs when there is a gap of ~3 years or more between VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions.
For example, there was a gap of ~6 years between Katia in 1721, and Orafejokull in 1727, and another 10 year gap between then and Fuego in 1737, whose warmings are clearly shown in the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set, 1659-present.
Regarding the Data Set, all temperature decreases during the LIA since then (and, undoubtedly earlier), were all caused by known VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions, somewhere around the world (with four unknown, probably seabed eruptions).
In summation, the absence of sunspots has NO climatic effect, and all of the LIA temperature decreases were due to volcanic SO2 aerosols, VEI4 or larger. Volcanic eruptions are world-wide events, and always cause a decrease in average anomalous global temperatures.
You should also Google “Was the Little Ice Age triggered by massive volcanic eruptions?”(2012).
Reportedly, only a small amount of global cooling resulted from the Icelandic eruption in 2010, Eyjafjallajökull. The composition of the aerosols is a major factor.
Burl Henry wrote: “Roy Langston:
You still just don’t understand the LIA!”
No. Your SO2 monomania merely blinds you to the facts that disprove it.
“The fact that warming occurs during sunspot minima, when the solar radiation is supposedly diminished for decades, actually demolishes that hypothesis.”
No, because solar activity (for which sunspots are merely a proxy) is not the only factor affecting temperature. El Nino and the decadal ocean circulation cycles can dominate on their own time scales.
“A single example would would be enough to falsify the alleged “cooling due to the lack of sunspots” hypothesis, ”
No it would not, because many other factors are involved. Your claim that only SO2 affects temperature is nonscience.
“Temperature records for those periods are not available, but warming always occurs when there is a gap of ~3 years or more between VEI4 and larger volcanic eruptions.”
Classic nonscience.
“In summation, the absence of sunspots has NO climatic effect, and all of the LIA temperature decreases were due to volcanic SO2 aerosols, VEI4 or larger. Volcanic eruptions are world-wide events, and always cause a decrease in average anomalous global temperatures.”
Garbage. Your hypothesis has been conclusively falsified. Tambora, the largest eruption for which we have direct observations, was followed by a few years of cooling, then decades of warming, falsifying your hypothesis. Novarupta and Pinatubo, the two largest eruptions in the last 140 years, were both followed by two years of cooling and then decades of warming, falsifying your hypothesis.
Roy Langston;
My “SO2 monomania” is driven by a better understanding of the behavior of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere than you exhibit!
You say “solar activity (for which sunspots are merely a proxy”.
You have that all wrong.
The LACK of solar activity (no sun spots) is hypothesized to dim the sun’s radiation and to cause cooling. For the Wolf minimum, all of the cooling then was due to VEI5 and a VEI6 eruption whose SO2 aerosols dimmed the incoming solar radiation, as always happens, falsifying that hypothesis.
I also gave examples from during the other solar minimums during the LIA, where temperatures ROSE whenever there was a gap of 3 years or more (ranging between 6 and 10 years, or more) between eruptions. There were no changes in the number of sunspots, so the only cause for the extended warming periods during the LIA had to be due to decreased levels of dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
“Your claim that only SO2 affects temperatures is nonscience”.
SO2 aerosols cool temperatures whenever their quantity in the atmosphere increases, and it increases warming whenever its amount decreases. This is an easily proven fact, and its changing levels drive other temperature changes such as sea surface temperatures, El Ninos and La Ninas.
“Classic nonsense”
No, easily proven to be factual
“Garbage”
No, the behaviors of Tambora, Novarupta and the Pinatubo eruption are exactly as I have claimed: initial cooling for a couple of years, then warming after their SO2 aerosols eventually settle out of the atmosphere, allowing temperatures to rise to pre-eruption levels, or usually a bit higher, because of the cleansed air.
You usually have excellent posts, I am perplexed by your inability to understand the role of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere!