GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Pathetic comeback g&d. In an effort to explain why there has not been as much warming recently as the climate models say there should have been, some 'scientists' have published a study which includes only cooling aerosols from Hunga Tonga (ignoring the far more considerable stratospheric water vapour injection) and other volcanoes plus a modelled overestimate of the cooling effect due to wildfires. The pathetic Guardian of course immediately covered this 'scientific' paper. Now that IS pathetic. If you're going to use volcanoes to explain the recent inconvenient lack of warming, you really should include both cooling AND warming effects of volcanoes and not try to exaggerate the effects of wildfires, as well as leave out other possible warming effects, such as the elimination of sulphur from ship fuels.
Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, and whose house my wife used to walk by regularly as a kid in Port Hope, ON., wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records. Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” The results of this? Especially in northern Europe, “the period between 1150 and 1300 was truly a flowering period, for population reached unprecedented levels that were never to be seen again until the late 18thcentury in many countries; the English population experienced a staggering threefold increase in its population during the last century since the Domesday Survey in 1086”.
This climate optimum (also called a climate anomaly) coincided with a period of increased solar activity Farming of various crops extended hundreds of kilometers farther north than it is possible today. Cf this picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra,
Nice work! I can tell you this: the Chicago area has had one of the coolest summers I have seen in decades. Tonga area itself has had the second coolest temp EVER just recently, and the Pacific Tongue (I forget the exact name) is also abnormally cold
The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and today we are still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, below the three thousand year average, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum, albeit far above the LIA. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S. The following graph of temperature in the Sargasso Sea tells you all you need to know (note: that big horizontal line running across the page is the 3,000 year average!), Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
The entire premise of "Climate Change" is pointless which we know....
The geologic record shows, the climate will change and there's nothing you can do about it.
From a human standpoint building resiliency through rapid adaptation is the only option on this blue rock. Arguing about rare gases or volcanoes or sun cycles is quite pointless.
"The amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere after the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) was unprecedented, and it is therefore unclear what it might mean for surface climate. We use climate model simulations to assess the long-term surface impacts of stratospheric water vapor (SWV) anomalies caused by volcanic eruptions. The simulations show that the SWV anomalies lead to strong and persistent warming of Northern Hemisphere landmasses in boreal winter, and austral winter cooling over Australia. Thus, SWV forcing from volcanic eruptions like the one from Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai can have surface impacts on a decadal timescale. We also emphasize that the surface response to SWV anomalies is more complex than simple warming due to greenhouse forcing and is influenced by factors such as regional circulation patterns and cloud feedbacks. Further research is needed to fully understand the multi-year effects of SWV anomalies and their relationship with climate phenomena like El Niño Southern Oscillation."
The trouble is the models are based on vague data and parameterisations. Error propagation is ignored to their peril and they always try and hindcast fit to the temperature record which itself is an order of magnitude more noisy than what they are trying to measure. They have never been verified to be anywhere near useable and the whole field is an interesting hypothetical exercise but that’s it. You always have to remember they try and fake the models as REAL THINGS when they are just X box games. I don’t even need to read the papers these days as 20 years following this field gives me a headache.
This is it. Hunga Tonga may have a profound effect upon circulation patterns for several years, so it's not just a straightforward case of water vapour radiative forcing. Some areas might warm considerably, others might cool. Rainfall and storm tracks may be affected too. So it is entirely negligent for the UK Met Office to leave out any mention of Hunga Tonga when summarising the state of the UK climate, and it is bordering on fraudulent to blame any rapid warming on man-made climate change.
Evil and fake gets thrown out a lot here. Funny how it’s never applied to the worlds richest and most corrupt industry the fossil fuel companies. I guess there’s nothing evil about Exxon scientists predicting with uncanny accuracy today’s temperature increases in reports issued decades ago - reports that were used to make sure that Exxon equipment was modified to account for the increase in sea level rise and temperatures, etc. but never revealed to the public so they could make a few more billions of dollars while the world is going to hell. But no, we’ll never hear that here.
The only thing that I know for sure is that the hysteria in support of the fossil fuel complex will increase in intensity and vindictiveness in lockstep with the increases in temperature and extreme events
In fact, if you actually look at the Exxon graph of model projections, you will observe the "historically observed" temperature change between 1900 and 2003 is wildly out.
I take such reports that “Exxon scientists knew …” with a very large pinch of salt, especially when promulgated by establishment narrative supporting media like The Guardian and Science. Moreover it is plain stupid to the castigate energy companies for supplying essential fossil fuel products that the whole world needs. The so-called “energy transition” (from fossil fuels to renewables) is a total con. There is no energy transition, just energy addition, see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/12/there-is-no-energy-transition-just-energy-addition/.
If man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, why did global temperatures fall in the 1960s and 70s and flatline for most of the last 25 years (disregarding transient El Ninos) while man-made CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 rose unrelentingly? Not exactly the claimed slow but steady warming of 0.2°C per decade.
My 2020 analysis on the HadCET series concludes “All the evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the alarmist theory of dangerous man-made global warming is a blatant political sham, a subterfuge power bid to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives”, see https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/uk-temperature-analysis-from-1659-to-2019/.
Big Oil is stingy as well as corrupt. You'd think with all the stuff I write in support of getting the fossil fuel complex off the hook for catastrophic global warming, they would at least slip me a few thousand bucks occasionally. No such luck. Poor as a church mouse I am.
GHE theory fails because of two erroneous assumptions: 1. near Earth space is cold & w/o GHE would become 255 K, -18 C, ball of ice & 2. radiating as a 16 C BB the surface produces “extra” GHE energy aka radiative forcing (nee caloric).
Both
Are
Just
Flat
Wrong
!!!
Without the atmosphere, water vapor and its 30% albedo Earth would become much like the Moon, a barren rock, hot^3 400 K on the lit side, cold^3 100 K on the dark.
“TFK_bams09” GHE heat balance graphic & its legion of clones uses bad math and badder physics. 63 W/m^2 appears twice (once from Sun & second from a BB calculation) violating both LoT 1 and GAAP. 396 W/m^2 upwelling is a BB calc for a 16 C surface for denominator of the emissivity ratio, 63/396=0.16, “extra” & not real. 333 W/m^2 “back” radiating from cold to warm violates LoT 1 & 2. Remove 396/333/63 GHE loop from the graphic and the solar balance still works.
Kinetic heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules (60%) render a terrestrial BB (requires 100%) impossible as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
Since both GHE & CAGW climate “science” are indefensible rubbish alarmists must resort to fear mongering, lies, lawsuits, censorship and violence.
Clutching at volcanos, very pathetic Jaime
Pathetic comeback g&d. In an effort to explain why there has not been as much warming recently as the climate models say there should have been, some 'scientists' have published a study which includes only cooling aerosols from Hunga Tonga (ignoring the far more considerable stratospheric water vapour injection) and other volcanoes plus a modelled overestimate of the cooling effect due to wildfires. The pathetic Guardian of course immediately covered this 'scientific' paper. Now that IS pathetic. If you're going to use volcanoes to explain the recent inconvenient lack of warming, you really should include both cooling AND warming effects of volcanoes and not try to exaggerate the effects of wildfires, as well as leave out other possible warming effects, such as the elimination of sulphur from ship fuels.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/aug/23/volcanoes-and-wildfires-offset-20-of-global-heating-over-eight-years
Farley Mowat, the noted Canadian leftist and Greenpeace activist, and whose house my wife used to walk by regularly as a kid in Port Hope, ON., wrote in his book West Viking (written while we were still in the global cooling scare) that there were probably at least dwarf forests growing in Greenland when the Vikings arrived in 985 AD and the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History reports “… Erik the Red discovered two areas of southwest Greenland which were suitable for farming, with grasslands and small stands of alder and birch.” You will note that it is too cold today for any type of forests to grow in Greenland, and there is zero ability to farm, unless modern technologies are utilized – and even then, crop selection is very minimal. Mowat also reported the Arctic pack ice was much less in that Viking discovery era than today. Dr. Fred Singer writes that when the Vikings first settled Greenland, they grew vegetables, and it was warm enough to allow the population to grow to 3,000 people and by 1100 AD the place was thriving enough that they had their own bishop and twelve churches. Nature reported in a 2010 article that clamshell studies also confirm Norse records. Meanwhile, the Archeological Survey of Canada has also noted around “A.D. 1000, a warmer climate resulted in the tree line advancing 100 kilometres north of its present position.” The results of this? Especially in northern Europe, “the period between 1150 and 1300 was truly a flowering period, for population reached unprecedented levels that were never to be seen again until the late 18thcentury in many countries; the English population experienced a staggering threefold increase in its population during the last century since the Domesday Survey in 1086”.
This climate optimum (also called a climate anomaly) coincided with a period of increased solar activity Farming of various crops extended hundreds of kilometers farther north than it is possible today. Cf this picea glauca (white spruce) stump on the Tuktoyaktuk Peninsula in tundra,
some 100km north of the current treeline. Photo by Professor Ritchie (University of Toronto). Radiocarbon date was 4940 ±140 years Before Present (BP), and was featured in Hubert Lamb’s classic work Climate, Present, Past and Future. See http://drtimball.com/2012/sensationalist-and-distorted-climate-stories-increase-as-climate-science-failures-exposed/ for this picture, as well as other AGW info
Nice work! I can tell you this: the Chicago area has had one of the coolest summers I have seen in decades. Tonga area itself has had the second coolest temp EVER just recently, and the Pacific Tongue (I forget the exact name) is also abnormally cold
The truth is, there has been global warming recently – but it started around the time of the Revolutionary war, and today we are still BELOW the average of the past 3,000 years. And this is not just for Europe, Greenland and North America, yet another red herring that has recently been thrown out by the desperate global warmers. The universality of the Viking and Mediaeval climatic optimums is written about by Kegwin, who wrote in Science, 1996:274:1504-1508, the mean surface temp of the Sargasso Sea (which lies roughly between the West Indies and the Azores), which was obtained by readings of isotope ratios in marine organism remains in sediment, shows we are, today, below the three thousand year average, and far below the Medieval Climatic Optimum, albeit far above the LIA. Civil Defense Perspectives, Mar. 2007, Vol. 23, #3, p. 1, notes that evidence for this climatic optimum has been found in all but 2 out of 103 locations where it was examined for, including Asia, Africa, South America and the western U.S. The following graph of temperature in the Sargasso Sea tells you all you need to know (note: that big horizontal line running across the page is the 3,000 year average!), Interestingly, the warmer times coincided not only with the best harvests, but also the least amount of major storm activity.
Let’s put it another way, from the Dansgaard & Johnson study, cias here on ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Average-near-surface-temperatures-of-the-northern-hemisphere-during-the-past-11000-years_fig5_313127868
What happened to the Interurban?
https://tomg2021.substack.com/p/what-happened-to-the-interurban
The entire premise of "Climate Change" is pointless which we know....
The geologic record shows, the climate will change and there's nothing you can do about it.
From a human standpoint building resiliency through rapid adaptation is the only option on this blue rock. Arguing about rare gases or volcanoes or sun cycles is quite pointless.
"This system uses large collections of climate model simulations..."
More bloody playstation science!
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Five stars for the headline😀
"The amount of water vapor injected into the stratosphere after the eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai (HTHH) was unprecedented, and it is therefore unclear what it might mean for surface climate. We use climate model simulations to assess the long-term surface impacts of stratospheric water vapor (SWV) anomalies caused by volcanic eruptions. The simulations show that the SWV anomalies lead to strong and persistent warming of Northern Hemisphere landmasses in boreal winter, and austral winter cooling over Australia. Thus, SWV forcing from volcanic eruptions like the one from Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai can have surface impacts on a decadal timescale. We also emphasize that the surface response to SWV anomalies is more complex than simple warming due to greenhouse forcing and is influenced by factors such as regional circulation patterns and cloud feedbacks. Further research is needed to fully understand the multi-year effects of SWV anomalies and their relationship with climate phenomena like El Niño Southern Oscillation."
https://essopenarchive.org/users/304243/articles/657090-long-term-surface-impact-of-hunga-tonga-hunga-ha-apai-like-stratospheric-water-vapor-injection
The trouble is the models are based on vague data and parameterisations. Error propagation is ignored to their peril and they always try and hindcast fit to the temperature record which itself is an order of magnitude more noisy than what they are trying to measure. They have never been verified to be anywhere near useable and the whole field is an interesting hypothetical exercise but that’s it. You always have to remember they try and fake the models as REAL THINGS when they are just X box games. I don’t even need to read the papers these days as 20 years following this field gives me a headache.
This is it. Hunga Tonga may have a profound effect upon circulation patterns for several years, so it's not just a straightforward case of water vapour radiative forcing. Some areas might warm considerably, others might cool. Rainfall and storm tracks may be affected too. So it is entirely negligent for the UK Met Office to leave out any mention of Hunga Tonga when summarising the state of the UK climate, and it is bordering on fraudulent to blame any rapid warming on man-made climate change.
Evil and fake gets thrown out a lot here. Funny how it’s never applied to the worlds richest and most corrupt industry the fossil fuel companies. I guess there’s nothing evil about Exxon scientists predicting with uncanny accuracy today’s temperature increases in reports issued decades ago - reports that were used to make sure that Exxon equipment was modified to account for the increase in sea level rise and temperatures, etc. but never revealed to the public so they could make a few more billions of dollars while the world is going to hell. But no, we’ll never hear that here.
The only thing that I know for sure is that the hysteria in support of the fossil fuel complex will increase in intensity and vindictiveness in lockstep with the increases in temperature and extreme events
In fact, if you actually look at the Exxon graph of model projections, you will observe the "historically observed" temperature change between 1900 and 2003 is wildly out.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/
I take such reports that “Exxon scientists knew …” with a very large pinch of salt, especially when promulgated by establishment narrative supporting media like The Guardian and Science. Moreover it is plain stupid to the castigate energy companies for supplying essential fossil fuel products that the whole world needs. The so-called “energy transition” (from fossil fuels to renewables) is a total con. There is no energy transition, just energy addition, see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/12/there-is-no-energy-transition-just-energy-addition/.
If man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, why did global temperatures fall in the 1960s and 70s and flatline for most of the last 25 years (disregarding transient El Ninos) while man-made CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 rose unrelentingly? Not exactly the claimed slow but steady warming of 0.2°C per decade.
My 2020 analysis on the HadCET series concludes “All the evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the alarmist theory of dangerous man-made global warming is a blatant political sham, a subterfuge power bid to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives”, see https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/uk-temperature-analysis-from-1659-to-2019/.
Big Oil is stingy as well as corrupt. You'd think with all the stuff I write in support of getting the fossil fuel complex off the hook for catastrophic global warming, they would at least slip me a few thousand bucks occasionally. No such luck. Poor as a church mouse I am.
Even if you are financially poor, you own something very valuable – a critical thinking brain and fluency to put your insights into words.
Who are the science deniers now?