By Jo Nova h/t Cohenite
New NOAA STAR Satellite system gets a major correction and suddenly agrees with UAH satellites, not RSS
An all new reanalysis of the STAR satellite data finds markedly lower temperature trends for the last 40 years. The big deal about this is that this third dataset suddenly supports the original UAH satellite data, not the other RSS system, and not the “surface thermometers” sitting near hot tarmacs and absolutely not the climate models.
The warming trend in the troposphere was only half of what the expert models predicted. From the paper:
Santer et al. (2021) reported that the multi-model averages for the TTT trends from CMIP5 and CMIP6 were 0.28–0.29 K/decade during 1979–2019. The total TTT trend found in this study was only one-half of the climate model simulations during the same period.
The authors admit that this has strong implications for the models, and supports a paper by skeptics Ross McKitrick and John Christy: Ross McKitrick replied in the Financial Post:
An important new study on climate change came out recently…
Zou’s team notes that their findings “have strong implications for trends in climate model simulations and other observations” because the atmosphere has warmed at half the average rate predicted by climate models over the same period. They also note that their findings are “consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020),” namely that climate models have a pervasive global warming bias.
Zou et al from NOAA is a bit of a blockbuster. Certainly a surprise. Skeptics have long favoured the original UAH satellite data set that consistently showed far less warming than climate models and for good reasons (see below) — especially because UAH agreed with 28 million weather balloons. A second satellite set called RSS gradually showed warmer trends than UAH did. A third satellite set was collected by NOAA and called STAR and it agreed with RSS — at least until a few weeks ago. Now suddenly it’s been re-worked thoroughly and the trend is almost identical to the UAH one.
As Roger Pielke Jnr says “if true — this is very scientifically important”:
He quotes Zou et al who are agreeing that their results support the skeptics
This is consistent with conclusions in McKitrick and Christy (2020) for a slightly shorter period (1979–2014). Possible reasons for the observation-model differences in trends may include climate model biases in responding to external forcings (McKitrick & Christy, 2020), deficiencies in the post-millennium external forcings used in model simulations (Santer, Fyfe, et al., 2017), phase mismatch in natural internal climate variability (Po-Chedley et al., 2021; Suárez-Gutiérrez et al., 2017), and possible residual errors in satellite data sets.
Pielke Jnr: Read that again, especially the last sentence. [They] are suggesting the possibility that either observations of global warming are flawed, that climate models are flawed, or maybe both. These possibilities would — if true — be very scientifically important.
Here’s now different the satellite datasets were in 2018
UAH was called the outlier, but all the other datasets used similar methods to RSS. They all continued to use a satellite called NOAA-14 even though its calibration was drifting. They also used similar strategies for diurnal drift adjustments. In Roy Spencer’s words “ Thus, NOAA and UW are, to a first approximation, slightly altered versions of the RSS dataset.”
Figure 2. A comparison of warming trends from 1979 to 2015 for the radiosonde data and the three global satellites. from Roy Spencer (Christy et al 2018)
Ross McKitrick explains the history of these differing satellite temperature sets. This is a battle that’s been waging for thirty years.
Ross McKitrick:The important climate study you won’t hear about
Special to Financial Post
[John] Christy and his co-author, Roy Spencer, invented the original method of deriving temperatures from microwave radiation measurements collected by NOAA satellites in orbit since 1979. Their achievement earned them numerous accolades, but also attracted controversy because their satellite record didn’t show any warming. About 20 years ago scientists at Remote Sensing Systems in California found a small error in their algorithm that, once corrected, did yield a warming trend.
Christy and Spencer incorporated the RSS correction, but the two teams subsequently differed on other questions, such as how to correct for the positional drift of the satellites, which changes the time of day when instruments take their readings over each location. The RSS team used a climate model to develop the correction while the UAH team used an empirical method, leading to slightly different results. Another question was how to merge records when one satellite is taken out of service and replaced by another. Incorrect splicing can introduce spurious warming or cooling.
The climate modelers have been seeking some kind of endorsement of their models from satellites for decades, but the gap has grown wider instead of narrowing. STAR was a lifeline for the modelers, now it’s not:
In the end the two series were similar but RSS has consistently exhibited more warming than UAH. Then a little more than a decade ago, the group at NOAA headed by Zou produced a new data product called STAR (Satellite Applications and Research). They used the same underlying microwave retrievals but produced a temperature record showing much more warming than either UAH or RSS, as well as all the weather balloon records. It came close to validating the climate models, although in my paper with Christy we included the STAR data in the satellite average and the models still ran too hot. Nonetheless it was possible to point to the coolest of the models and compare them to the STAR data and find a match, which was a lifeline for those arguing that climate models are within the uncertainty range of the data.
Satellite show the models are wrong:
This below is the graph in McKitrick and Christy (2020) that the new STAR analysis essentially supports. The best climate models in the world are running too hot, predicting a lot of warming that isn’t happening.
They overdo the warming in the lower troposphere and in the mid-troposphere in the tropics and all over the globe. After 40 years and massive emissions of CO2 the models are wrong. The modelers don’t know what drives the climate.
McKitrick-Christy-2020. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281
From 2017: Five reasons UAH is different (better) to the RSS global temperature estimates
I explained why UAH was scientifically much more respectable than RSS
Five reasons UAH is different to RSS
- UAH agrees with millions of calibrated weather balloons released around the world. RSS now agrees more with surface data from equipment placed near airports, concrete, airconditioners and which is itself wildly adjusted.
- In the latest adjustments UAH uses empirical comparisons from satellites that aren’t affected by diurnal drift to estimate the errors of those that are. RSS starts with model estimates instead.
- Two particular satellites disagree with each other (NOAA-14 and 15). The UAH team remove the one they think is incorrect. RSS keeps both inconsistent measurements.
- Diurnal drift probably created artificial warming in the RSS set prior to 2002, but created artificial cooling after that. The new version of RSS keeps the warming error before 2002, but fixes the error after then. The upshot is a warmer overall trend.
- UAH uses a more advanced method with three channels. RSS is still using the original method Roy Spencer and JohnChristy developed with only one channel (which is viewed from three angles).
The latest corrections by Zou 2023 were intricate and involved. This is just one eye candy graph of many (below). But we get some idea of how many satellites were involved in the last 40 years. In this case the adjustments were different over land and ocean for each satellite.
Figure 5: Inter-satellite difference time series for satellite pairs between those from TIROS-N to RTMT after the frequency adjustment for (a) over the global ocean and (b) over the global land. Zou et al
It’s a testament to the work of John Christy and Roy Spencer that the new detailed corrections suggest they were probably mostly right all along — despite the immense pressure on them to “find” results and adjustments like the other teams.
It’s a credit to Zou et al and the team at NOAA for publishing what appears to be conclusion that they might have preferred to ignore. Though they do suggest that the warming has accellerated lately:
Remarkably, the total tropospheric trends during the latest half period were nearly doubled the earlier half period over the global ocean.
But there is more discussion from Ross McKitrick at Judith Curry’s site on why the claimed “recent acceleration” in this paper is short term, not significant and dependent on picking the right break point.
In sum, based on a preliminary analysis the new NOAA data do not support a claim that warming in the troposphere has undergone a statistically-significant change in trend. The Global and Tropical TTT series show no support for the claim. The Global MT series appears to show support but only if the break data is placed in a specific interval in the early part of the last decade, and more recently the tests do not support acceleration. Finally, all of these results are biased towards finding evidence of a trend break due to the treatment of g. Robust critical values could be generated, which I might get to someday if no one else does it first.
REFERENCES
, & (2020). Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers. Earth and Space Science, 7(9), e2020EA001281. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020ea001281
Zou, C. Z., Xu, H., Hao, X., & Liu, Q. (2023). Mid‐Tropospheric Layer Temperature Record Derived from Satellite Microwave Sounder Observations with Backward Merging Approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, e2022JD037472.
Satellite image: By NASA
And that half is on the assumption that there has been no natural warming at all.
450
They discount the Sun, but you can see from the 30 year trailing TSI data, that is nonsense.
They also don’t take clouds into consideration… which again is total nonsense.
There is actually no evidence of any global anthropogenic warming. !
501
Zou et. al. indicates tropospheric warming of 0.14 K/decade during 1979–2021 and 0.22 K/decade after the year 2002. That is consistent with the surface temperature increase. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures
226
Admiral Titley summed it up ever so tidily years ago when he said” “Every time they run the numbers they get a worse result”.
Failing to notice that this means that 1. Mostly or always they got it wrong, and 2. there is a bias in their method.
190
But Simon, tropospheric warming — in every single model — is supposed to be faster than the surface if CO2 is the cause. That’s what all the modelers said in 2005. See the missing hot spot. https://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/
If the troposphere isn’t warming faster the models are wrong — and about the biggest single driving issue in the models. If so, CO2 is no problem. Without the water vapor feedback to create the extra heating in the trop CO2 causes very little warming. (About one third of what the models predicted).
“Consistent with the surface” is terrible (for the models).
160
No, the tropospheric hot spot is something that occurs above the tropics at about 10 km above the Earth’s surface because when the air cools enough for water vapor to condense, latent heat is released. The more moisture in the air, the more heat is released. As it’s more moist in the tropics, the air cools at a slower rate compared to the poles.
It’s not the whole troposphere that is warmer, just a very small part of it. Most of your objections are based upon fundamental misunderstanding.
216
Balloon measurements show that the hot spot DOES NOT EXIST !
It is purely a figment of bad science in the models.
Stop making up NONSENSE. !
160
The hot spot is a mystery just like the G spot .Some insist it exists but damned if they can find it.lol
40
FWIW
Another place where the “models are twice too good” –
“Dueling ITCZs”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/18/dueling-itczs/
10
I understand that a number of the African states have been telling the elites to stop using their continent as a test bed for their greenwash dreams. Sadly I cannot recall where I read the article that published this story.
50
Could South Africa be one of the states?
South Africa And The Green Energy Wall — Manhattan Contrarian
00
No warming from 2001 to 2015…. Cooling since 2016..
Only the 2015/16 El Nino event gives it any warming trend.
So thanks for confirming, yet again, that the warming is not from CO2.
190
What does a new entrant in the lower troposphere satellite record stakes really imply?
The overwhelming impression is the similarity of all these records, and not just in the year to year variations. The upward trends differ slightly for sure, but they are all recognizably describing the same climate change. Curiously, the TLT records bracket the spread of the other independent datasets, suggesting that the structural uncertainty is simply larger in the satellite retrievals (including the different versions of the AIRS data).
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/a-noaa-star-dataset-is-born
00
Climate “scientist” are believer, climate “sceptics” are based on reality and facts. Not new, but based on real science now.
400
We all know that the unvalidated computer models are actually just computer games played by so called ‘computer scientists’ that allow them to stay in their nice air conditioned offices. Real scientists get out in the world and verify their data before they use it.
240
ivan >”the unvalidated computer models”
The models are made up of modules that may be supplied by an external supplier, common to several models, and extensively validated. Example is AER’s radiative transfer models (RTM):
Atmospheric radiative transfer modeling: a summary of the AER codes
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022407304002158
“The radiative transfer models developed at AER are being used extensively for a wide range of applications in the atmospheric sciences.” [Includes weather models]
“The accuracy that the AER models currently demonstrate has been attained as a consequence of two important initiatives: (1) the continuing improvement in the quality of the line parameter database and (2) the spectral radiometric measurements obtained by the University of Wisconsin group [2] using interferometers with high photometric accuracy.”
All goes awry however when the highly validated RTM module is plugged into a climate model that enables “forcings” to be tweaked simply by moving a slide in the parameter setup (in one I deep-dived a while back which I think was CESM):
Community Earth System Model https://www.cesm.ucar.edu
More next comment on the “forcing” problem.
30
The “forcing” problem a.k.a. the ‘hot model’ problem.
The intercomparison projects (CMIP) prescribe specific forcings so each model’s response can be compared using a common set of forcings for each “scenario”.
At that point it doesn’t matter that a model’s RTM is highly validated because the rest of the “forcing” implementation takes over and observation-model differences become apparent as per Zou et al:
“climate model biases in responding to external forcings”
“deficiencies in the post-millennium external forcings used in model simulations”
“phase mismatch in natural internal climate variability”
There are other explanations for what is now known as the ‘hot model’ problem but the simplest is the the models are “too sensitive” to forcings (see below and following comment)
‘Use of ‘too hot’ climate models exaggerates impacts of global warming’
https://www.science.org/content/article/use-too-hot-climate-models-exaggerates-impacts-global-warming
I mentioned the CESM model previously and the following is in respect to CESM2:
‘Some of the latest climate models provide unrealistically high projections of future warming’
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200430113003.htm
Their explanation is succinct:
“Some of the newest models used to make future predictions may be too sensitive to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and thus predict too much warming,” said U-M’s Chris Poulsen, a professor in the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and one of the study’s three authors.
David Legates has an illuminating article on that (see next comment)
80
A Simple Explanation of Why Climate Models “Run Hot”
by David Legates
https://cornwallalliance.org/2021/09/a-simple-explanation-of-why-climate-models-run-hot/
“Unlike model airplanes or trains, a climate model is not a physical manifestation, but a mathematical representation of the climate system. One assumes that we take all the equations that describe everything related to climate, convert them to computer code, press the “RUN” button on the computer, and sit back and discover that the Earth will become a fireball in a very short time – unless we take extreme measures to stop increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Well, that is not quite how it works. In 2007, the Workshop on Theoretical Alternatives to Climate Modelling noted that “contrary to a widely held misconception, computer modeling of climate is, to a large degree, based on empirical rules of thumb and uncontrolled approximations in many of its key physical aspects” (emphasis original). A decade later, climate modelers finally admitted in The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning that
“With the increasing diversity in the applications of climate models, the number of potential targets for tuning increases. There are a variety of goals for specific problems, and different models may be optimized to perform better on a particular metric, related to specific goals, expertise or cultural identity of a given modeling center.” (Emphasis added)
Models are optimized according to specific agendas? Is this science as we knew it, or is it post-normal science where “expertise” guides the outcome?
The only true way to evaluate a climate model is to compare it with observed data.”
And,
“At a very basic level, however, there is a very simple explanation as to why models run hot – and it is given by this very basic equation: [continues]”
140
Legates >”The only true way to evaluate a climate model is to compare it with observed data.”
Below Figure 3 uses SCP5-8.5 which is “highly unlikely” and wrongly cited as Business As Usual (see Figure 2 in Legates article). Should be obvious that this “scenario” is a total waste of time and effort and bogus to boot.
Note in graph caption that although the models use common prescribed CMIP6 forcings each individual model group uses variable equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Legates Figure 3
Global Lower Troposphere Temperature
CMIP6 Models (SCP5-8.5) vs UAH
https://i0.wp.com/cornwallalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Global-lower-tropospheric-temperatures-45-CMIP-6-models-vs-UAH-data-Figure-3-of-Legates-AR6-critique.jpg?w=635&ssl=1
50
>”although the models use common prescribed CMIP6 forcings each individual model group uses variable equilibrium climate sensitivity” [ECS]
Can’t stress this enough.
There is wide disagreement between models.
But the prescribed forcings are exactly the same for each model run.
Only ECS varies between models.
70
>”All goes awry however when the highly validated RTM module is plugged into a climate model that enables “forcings” to be tweaked simply by moving a slide in the parameter setup (in one I deep-dived a while back which I think was CESM):”
CAM6 is the ATM module for CESM2. Tried to find slider example but could only come up with this:
CESM2/CAM6.3 Namelist Definitions
https://www2.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm2/settings/current/cam_nml.html
Variable: scenario_ghg (use search box)
Click variable for description.
Valid Values [‘FIXED’, ‘RAMPED’, ‘RAMP_CO2_ONLY’, ‘CHEM_LBC_FILE’]
Default: FIXED
RAMP is a unit step function which can be increased or decreased (RAMPED) using a slider or prescribed by file. Only in CMIP comparisons (or coincidence) will the GHG prescription be identical across models.
E.g. ramp_co2_annual_rate
Amount of co2 ramping per year (percent). Only used
if scenario_ghg = ‘RAMP_CO2_ONLY’
Default: 1.0
So tweak to your heart’s content.
Also, there are 1,065 of these namelist variables.
100
Great article, Jo. I would make bets the MSM will not publish one word here in the land of make believe “climate change.” As for computer modelling of weather, the old adage of “rubbish in, rubbish out” still hold true. If Albo gets this article it will probably be banned here as we must be an echo chamber for the UN, elites and the leftists.
590
That can’t be right Jo, surely not?
Ahhh …… I know what happened, they forgot to get the NOAA STAR Satellite system correctly homogenized by the BOOM!! 🙂
140
Don’t worry Dave. Albo will in future refer only to more BS in = BS out by way of more BS coming from AI. Quite sure that AI is Albo personified& Bowen is his disciple!
130
I think that the elites are aware that their models are wrong and they do know that the great scare is faltering. Hence the frenzy of activity to force us to change our ways whether it is eating grubs or driving electric cars. The elites are most concerned that the plebs will find out they have been lied to for four decades and that they have been robbed blind. Consider the fools that are leading us to disaster, Bowen for example, and ask what qualifications he has to change the way we live. He is just an older version of Greta with as little education. Bowen will never change his ways because he hasn’t the mental acuity. The trouble is he is supported by people of similar ability.
280
FIFY
181
tkx, I was thinking the same. The warmists are on the verge of desperation as their predictions fail and personal observations are causing doubt in the population. The warmists must redouble their legislative efforts to force change before too many are enlightened and demand a halt to the nonsense.
140
They have just shut down one of our few remaining power stations!
We must now make sure that they don’t shut down any more.
40
Jo, thank you for all you have done.
[Thanks Don! You too. – -Jo]
210
Is it even correct to refer to the computer games these taxpayer-funded “scientists” play all day for political.purposes as models?
Back in the day, simulations had to be tested and validated and only when they were demonstrated to be a somewhat realistic representation of reality would they be considered “models”.
These computer games produce results that are not even close to reality and are not even remotely based on physical fact, (e.g. they assume a flat and not spherical atmosphere https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1908198116 ).
The only purpose of these “models” is to produce scary “predictions” for political purposes. The models are incapable of forecasting or even hindcasting.
If they were real simulations they would have tested and refined them by now and removed ridiculous approximations such as a non-spherical atmosphere and they would be capable of producing realistic results.
451
The continual failure of public policy can be attributed to computer models. This is nothing new to rational and intelligent types that inhabit this site, but it irks somewhat that the bleeding obvious seems to elude our politicians and bureaucrats. The measurement of our planet’s temperature is a mess of jumbled interference that it is meaningless now – save for propagating a fear campaign.
270
I don’t wonder that UAH had and has the correct data as they always were and are consistent with data from weather balloons. So I can’t understand that RSS and their protagonists never didn’t reflect about.
But, as said above, they are believer and believe, climate models show reality.
210
When does an ‘expert’ Model become a non-expert Model? When scientific empirical evidence gets in the way.
Science ONE (WON) and ‘Eggspurts’ NIL.
160
Let me rephrase your question.
When does a professional modeler become an amateur modeler? When funding is lost.
Funding is proportional to fear. No fear, no funding.
240
Many TRILLIONs of dollars have been wasted over the last 30 years because many so called scientists loved their religious BELIEFs and refused to THINK and follow DATA and EVIDENCE.
In the meantime the Western scientific method was abandoned and we’re now trying our collective best to wreck our electricity grids in the wealthy OECD countries.
IOW they are trying to make us very vulnerable to attack from China, Russia etc and little wonder that these leaders are so aggressive.
They’ll use the latest, efficient and reliable fossil and Nuclear energy while we rely on UNRELIABLE, TOXIC W & S for our defences and literally encourage more aggression from these despots.
Thanks again Jo for posting this and many thanks to Christy, Spencer, McKitrick, Pielke jnr etc over the years and this should be used to try and WAKE UP the voters and the clueless pollies.
AGAIN if UNRELIABLE TOXIC S & W can’t supply a tiny population in the roaring forties with reliable energy there is DEFINITELY no hope at all for continental Australia.
370
The real problem is that all this totally unnecessary waste of money, and the destruction of Western society, will continue.
It might have started with a bit of wayward science, but it has now become its own political juggernaut, based on superstition and greed for power.
310
Much extremely valuable and well run industry has gone from Australia because of this global warming nonsense – can we get it back now please?
210
So the satellite data is delivering only half the warming from known greenhouse gas concentrations than the climate models hindcast. On top of this the modelers look out to the end of the century and put 2-3x the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (RCP 8.5) than are projected to be emitted. That means the total emission and modeling errors are compounded and would this mean their projected warming is off by a factor of 4?
170
I won’t be here… but I suspect from various studies of patterns in past data, that the end of the century will actually be COOLER than now.
141
Whilst we finally have a consensus among scientists from both sides, ironically confirming that the sceptical scientists have been correct all along, we now get to validate the next important question. Is CC alarmism a pagan ideology or do the alarmists really follow the science as they claim ?. Of course if the alarmists accept the new findings and accept there is no emergency, we can pat them on the back and say yes, you do follow the science, but we all know that won’t happen and they will double down, proving it’s been a Marxist pagan worship all along.
However, away from the ideology, these findings will have enormous consequences for net zero at a global level. It’s almost certain now that the bricks nations will all drop their net zero aspirations and that will leave western nations in a death spiral of their own making unless they follow suit. With the ALP/Green alliance down here that follow ideology only, we’re effectively doomed 🙁
240
To answer your question
, all I know is is the writings of the UN Church of Climatology.
80
CC.. is that the “Climate Council”… they are hyped up on alarmism… their very existence depends on it.
80
Clowncil, not Council as someone here called it recently.
50
Note, I meant no offence to members of the genuine clown community, who, unlike members of the Climate Council, are actually useful and productive members of society.
100
Following climate change science is like following footprints in intertidal beach sand.
50
Only conspiracy theorists think the sky is not falling …
an important upside down truth I learned from ‘Climate Change’ and its’ political theatrical sequel ‘Pandemic’.
Can’t wait for the revelation of the trilogy.
‘Alien Invasion’ seems like the best guess.
They make up in marketing for what they lack in creativity.
170
Francis Menton tackles the latest net zero fantasy from the Elon Musk Tesla team.
It’s all based on Hydrogen being the major player to power the world, but of course NOTHING adds up or makes any sense.
But Musk has made 100s of BILLIONs of dollars from taxpayer handouts and this fantasy will also require even more TRILLIONs of $ over the next few decades. And of course for a gilt edged guarantee of a ZERO return for global taxpayers forever.
But China and Russia will be very pleased.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-4-9-teslas-entry-into-the-net-zero-game-sustainable-energy-for-all-of-earth
60
Here’s part 2 of Francis Menton’s attempt to make sense of Musk’s absurd vision of powering the world with TOXIC UNRELIABLE energy.
It will not happen but Musk will just HARVEST the $ from the first RUINOUS attempts by the long suffering OECD countries’ taxpayers.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-4-11-reality-versus-the-tesla-energy-report-part-ii
81
“Satellite show the models are wrong:”
In line with all the other Climate Change guff,
those “things” are NOT models.
Technically they are dysfunctional and are simply a form of advertising that hypes the CAGW cause
Currently the world’s management is not founded on any scientific, engineering, environmental or moral solid ground.
The sole purpose of this “management” is to enslave, degrade and abuse us.
170
Heard some MAD scientists on the radio this week proposing solar panels in space (in Earth’s outer orbit) to collect the Sun’s ‘unobstructed energy’ and relay it back down to ground-level so we can all live in harmony with free energy and unicorns for every child…
The price they quoted – for research & development – was, as you’d expect, out of this world.
Meanwhile, with yesterday’s successful eclipse, can we now expect an emperor or a king to fall? There are a few, both great & small, on my list – apart from SpaceX’s whoopsie up-and-down kaboom extravaganza.
70
They’ve been talking about solar panels in space and beaming the “free” energy back to earth by microwave for over half a century.
The proposition has been determined to be not viable every single time it’s been examined.
That’s a sure sign Australia will put a few billion of taxpayer money into it.
150
I know people who ca’t see the contradiction even though it’s staring them in the face!
20
Does this mean we now have another another another another 10 years to save the planet?
70
Generally speaking all the climate “scientists” mentioned in this article are still “luke warmers”. They still believe in the CO2 radiation/warming theory and believe man is contributing to it. They then argue about the extent of that warming and what part man has of that. It’s all academic. I have great respect for Judith Curry but she’s in the same boat. Same goes for the likes of Bjorn Lombourg, who is still a believer but then thinks all our responses are unjustified – which is correct. All that will happen now is that there will be a flurry of papers ( all by the same people) contending this paper and the debate will go on and on and on. But the idiocy of Net Zero will forge ahead unabated, power prices will go up, western country industries will all offshore in the BRICS countries and our kids wont have any decent jobs.
160
This news certainly will not be mentioned on the ABC or any other channels other than Sky.
70
If it’s mentioned on the ABC it will be very briefly covered with no repeat. If the finding was the opposite, it would be repeated for days ( every 15 min news bulletin ) and then get discussed on shows like ” The Drum” and ” Q&A. Plus would also go huge social media posts. If in fact they did cover this story, as they would every climate alarmism piece, their consumers would probably accuse them of being “deniers” or fascists or something similar.
80
Perhaps because it is not newsworthy?
Is Dominion or the pillow guy mentioned on this blog any more?
427
If the assessment went the other way and said the models were under predicting compared to the actual observations would you suggest it also wasn’t newsworthy?
Is bad news always newsworthy and good news never newsworthy? Or is it simply that news that doesn’t support the left wing climate narrative of the ABC not newsworthy?
It is good news for anyone concerned about rising temperatures and the existential threat to our planet. Unless there is another agenda associated with the claims.
As for Dominion etc getting a mention, a payout by Fox doesn’t mean the potential for voter fraud via the dominion machines wasn’t real or isn’t real. Certainly more real than the Trump Russia Hoax the ABC found newsworthy and hasn’t corrected.
122
Gee Aye, and you’re going off topic because you have no answer to the discovery that satellites show that models predict twice as much warming as what has occurred. Does data matter to you or not?
Does climate change matter to you? The models are broken, a lot of the warming they attribute to CO2 turned out to be imaginary. There is no disaster coming from CO2 emissions. The poor are being ripped off to feed the rich, and you don’t seem to mind? We’re taking away some people’s opportunity to go on holidays with their children, or feed them better food so wealthy people can own an EV, or solar panels, or shares in companies that produce nothing useful.
390
No, the paper says that if the CMIP models are constrained to the observed surface warming, the predicted Temperature Total Troposphere (TTT) increase is less than observed. It may be due to climate model biases, but it also may be due to inaccurate estimates in external forcings or it may be due to natural internal climate variability or it may be due to residual errors in satellite data sets.
The important point is that the troposphere is warming at a similar rate to the surface (around 0.14 to 0.22 K/decade) with the possibility that the rate of warming is increasing in the troposphere. Warming attributed to CO2 is not imaginary, it’s real and obvious to all but a few outliers. Poor people will be more affected by anthropogenic climate change, which is why we have to do something about it.
524
“Warming attributed to CO2 is not imaginary”
Yes it is.. it is a superstition, a fantasy… a Grimm Bros fairy tale. !
It is totally unbacked by any real science or measurements.
You have proven that MANY times.
Poor people are massively affected by the [snip] RESPONSES to non-existent human induced climate change.
But you don’t seem to care about that. !
Yes, we do need to “do something” about it..
We need to stop all these idiotic “Net Zero” and “CO2 reduction” schemes..
Stop the destruction of reliable energy supply systems, and stop pretending we can replace them with erratic expensive UNRELIABLE ones.
They are ruining society, especially for the poorer people in western society.
And the anti-CO2 nonsense is also severely holding back development in no so developed countries.
The Troposphere has warmed ONLY at El Nino events, which are totally unrelated to atmospheric CO2
There is absolutely nothing in the satellite or balloon data to indicate that the slight warming, almost certainly from solar and cloud effects, has any human CO2 contribution whatsoever !
You are “believing” a superstitious, anti-science fantasy !!
172
Simon, the biggest problem for you is that the troposphere (TTT trends) was supposed to warm faster than the surface. This is a central core point of every single CMIP model — a fingerprint — of greenhouse warming. And it didn’t happen.
You can’t just give up the lack of warming in the Troposphere and pretend the surface warming is due to CO2. Learn about the missing hot spot. REad the papers (by Christy especially) about the ratio of warming we were supposed to see in the mid troposphere and higher, which they can’t find.
The warming the instruments measure may be real, but that doesn’t mean CO2 caused it.
100
“It may be due to climate model biases, but it also may be due to inaccurate estimates in external forcings or it may be due to natural internal climate variability or it may be due to residual errors in satellite data sets.”
[snip]
—
“warming at a similar rate to the surface (around 0.14 to 0.22 K/decade”)
Maths is difficult for you, it seems
0.14 is only a bit above HALF of the 0.22….. not remotely “similar”
And of course, UAH shows that for 40 or so of the 45 years… there is no warming at all.
132
UAH v6.0 TLT Trend: 0.133 ±0.047 °C/decade (2σ)
GISTEMP v4 Trend: 0.189 ±0.036 °C/decade (2σ) since 1980
Berkley Earth Trend: 0.193 ±0.030 °C/decade (2σ) since 1980
HadCRUT4 krig V2: 0.189 ±0.035 °C/decade (2σ) since 1980
RSS v4.0 TLT Trend: 0.212 ±0.052 °C/decade (2σ)
https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php
The climate is warming and there isn’t much difference between the surface and the troposphere.
217
This pretence that the surface data is a match to UAH and STAR, really is a low point, even for you Simon.
Show me where 2020 in the surface data is less than 1998, and where 2016 is only a fraction of a degree higher than 1998.
Also show me the zero trend in the surface data from 2001-2015.
That is what UAH and STAR tell us.
They are not a match.. even remotely !!
61
“And of course, UAH shows that for 40 or so of the 45 years… THERE IS NO WARMING AT ALL. !”
Only El Nino events.
STAR also shows this fact.
That means there is no CO2 warming.
And you have NO COUNTER.. because there isn’t one.
61
Do you really really not understand the difference between trend and variation, or weather and climate?
Here is a simple analogy of a dog on a leash. https://scied.ucar.edu/video/dog-walking-weather-and-climate
El Niño does not magically create heat energy from nothing, there a net transfer of heat from ocean to atmosphere.
27
“El Niño does not magically create heat energy from nothing”
neither does CO2
Oceans are heated by the Sun, not humans, and not CO2.
Simplistic analogies, show you don’t understand.
60
The simplistic analogy is interesting…
It shows the dog, ie ENSO, El Ninos… dragging the warming along with it.
00
ah yes, “forcings”, otherwise known as fudge-factors – because why not just throw in a few coefficients to get the desired result..
100
Simon says …
“Poor people will be more affected by anthropogenic climate change, which is why we have to do something about it.”
Good Lord.
So that’s the reason.
Thank you for not locking us in Steerage.
(You forgot the obligatory POC designation, which I hope results in reprimand from your handlers.)
Fortunately, renewable energy schemes are quickly moving the middle class to the ‘poor’ category, making the eradication of ‘anthropogenic’ climate change even more likely.
(Plus lockdowns gave this noble effort a much needed boost.)
With meaningful global climate policy we CAN achieve equity in human weather experience.
Thank you for concern for the Poors.
The Poors have no greater advocates than you and Billy-G.
BTW, is this you in the green pointy hat?
https://youtu.be/Vh17LbB8pU8
120
“Warming attributed to CO2 is not imaginary”
That is debatable, will you concede that ENSO is the temperature control knob?
You should join the lukewarmers club, with Curry and Lomborg, and adopt a less alarmist world view.
00
Skeptical Science is not a reliable source, look deeper elsewhere.
‘The conclusion to be drawn is that changing atmospheric carbon dioxide has minimal impact on Earth’s temperature and climate. In fact, the temperature changes observed over the recent four decades are consistent with a slowing of poleward transport of heat by the ocean currents.’ (William Kininmonth 2022)
00
So GA, it is not important to you that the whole data that the AGW farce is built on is PROVABLY WRONG.
Perhaps that is because you are well aware its POLITICALLY MOTIVATED, and absolutely nothing to do with science!
181
gee aye. It appears as though you have only one eye. And that doesn’t work either and makes you blinded to the obvious. Please try another Blog and leave us alone from your gross ignorance. Happy Friday.
150
Change of subject? Don’t like the current subject I guess.
00
NTZ is back up… (looks like they implemented some sort of “captcha” and sign-up)
Anyway… ElG, Rick and others interested in ENSO, could find this post quite interesting…
https://notrickszone.com/2023/04/19/are-enso-regime-changes-connected-to-major-climate-shifts-are-we-tipping-to-cooling/
91
The El Nino – La Nina cycles (Enso effect) are simply part of the cyclical nature of climate and are the natural result of warmer water displacing cooler water. Compare the following global 30 year temperature cycles to the Enso graph at NTZ –
1850 – 1880 – warming (not shown)
1880 – 1910 – cooling
1910 – 1940 – warming
1940 – 1970 – cooling
1970 – 2000 – warming
2000 – cooling
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Gabriel_3.png
90
Last week, we were told that SAT records as measured by automatic stations and using a proprietary methodology were suspect, and the old analog thermometers were better.
Now we are being told that temperature measurements from automatic satellites using proprietary methodology are fantastic, way better than those analog records.
Note: UAH is still showing a warming trend, and that trend is in line with all the other datasets.
433
No, UAH shows two warming steps.. NO WARMING between El ninos.
Analog thermometers for surface temperature.. ok.. not as unpredictable as newer rapid response.. Proven.
Trouble is that a large proportion of the surface data is heavily tainted by Urban expansion, and by black box homogenisation with sites that are PROVEN to be totally inappropriate for “climate” purposes… (except propaganda).
Sites that are away from urban expansion, generally show very little warming… until they have been “homogenised.”
Its great that you think all data sets show the 1998 El Nino peak just a fraction of a degree below the 2016 peak.
Great that you think all data sets show no warming from 2001- 2015, and cooling since 2016.
Would love to see that data 😉
Would also find it amusing for you to attempt to present scientific proof of warming by human released CO2.
But neither will happen. 😉
142
Peter, what part of the last 5,000 posts have you not read here? I’ve always preferred satellites, but there isn’t much satellite data available from 1896, so I take the next best thing.
PS: If the warming trend is half the models predictions, and outside their error bars, the models are wrong. They don’t understand what drives the climate. Your religious conviction that it is CO2 is backed by nothing. That doesn’t bother you?
301
you prefer models that conform to your bias, as does everyone.
To quote you
“The effect the electronic sensors can have is so much more complicated than “mean temperature” deviations. Even if the average temperature recorded by an electronic sensor was the same as as a glass one, the extremes could be quite different. And the behaviour of air, turbulence and variability at 3pm when maximum temperatures are recorded is different to the pre-dawn minimum hour of day. At the very least, electronic sensors could be offering up many more “Headline” records for heat, and increasing three day, five day, week long heatwaves, plus hottest nights, more days over 35C — there are many cherries to be picked here.”
why then are the sensors in the satelites better? What exactly are they measuring? How do they know it is accurate? how do they account for drift?
Your religious conviction that it is CO2 is backed by nothing. That doesn’t bother you? – when did I mention CO2? nice try at deflection though
421
You don’t read anything I write Peter, even things you quote. Blinded by your faith?
400 times I’ve told you the UAH satellites agree with 28 million weather balloons. Those weather balloons are calibrated to thermometers on the ground.
There is no “model” involved except in your imagination. I’ve written 5,700 articles endorsing observations over models. You have to lie to yourself about me to protect your delusion, or perhaps your employer? You never answer the straight question about whether you receive money to post these timewasting “misunderstandings”.
341
Now we are talking about ballons? As to the model question, what are your trying to say? Observations are just data points. You consistently assert that according to your bias those observations can not be linked to human activity – but that is a.model. For example you admit that Urban Heat Islands are a thing, clearing forests will change rainfall, yet these can not be included because?
Explain to me why your position does not include a model, because in your 5000 posts , the anti agw (including an assumption that CO2 has no role) model is what you continually reference.
212
“Observations are just data points.”
What do you think science is Peter?
But seriously Peter, there is an IQ bar for commenting. You are not even coherent above. I don’t assert anything “according to my bias”. I don’t have a model. I don’t need a model to say “your models don’t work because they don’t predict the real world.” And I don’t say “these observations” (whatever obs you are talking about?) can’t be linked to human activity. We skeptics call UHI a “man-made” local effect, while the cult followers pretend thermometers near airports are “like” ones in paddocks 120 years ago?
You’ve been here for years, made 5,000 comments, and you haven’t noticed that:
1 — Science is about observations.
2 — If your hypothesis predicts things that don’t happen, it’s falsified. Toss it in the bin.
3 — You want my money to “save the world” but can’t find evidence to support your fear mongering campaign.
4 — Your models don’t work, therefore they are missing one or more forces acting on our climate. (Eg Solar wind, solar magnetic, UV spectral changes, cosmic rays, something else we don’t know?)
5 — I repeated ask you (x 5 now) if you are paid to make these comments and you don’t deny that. Therefore I conclude you are.
I don’t object to you being paid, nor to you having a vested interest. I do object to commenters who don’t read my site.
My position (for the 5,000th time) is that your models are wrong, so lets call off all “climate mitigation” expenses until we understand the climate. I don’t need a model. You do.
220
Balloon data is a REAL problem for the AGW cult, isn’t it PF.
Did you know that they show that 2002 was basically the same temperature as 1958. ?. https://ibb.co/vX9jZ1m
(and we know that has only been the 2015 El Nino since then.!)
Urban and airport sites represent but a tinyfraction of the globe, yet they contribute basically all the surface data.
How can they possibly produce an accurate “global” temperature, especially as they are often rapidly changing and warming over time due to urban expansion, increased flights etc etc…
[snip]
70
Here’s your chance to defend your “precious” models, PF
Which model is correct against the reality of UAH and NOAA data.
Show me where 2020 in the model is less than 1998, and where 2016 is only a fraction of a degree higher than 1998.
Also show which model has zero trend from 2001-2015 and cooling since 2016.
That is what UAH and STAR tell us.
So WHICH MODEL is it !
We can wait ! 😉
41
That’s not true either. For many years, UAH was the outlier and RSS was far closer to the weather balloon radiosondes. https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/global-temperature-in-the-air-up-there/
Maybe UAH has been corrected in the last couple of years, it has certainly undergone some large revisions.
116
For many years UAH was the ONLY correct data .. that actually matched other real, un-fabricated measurements such as balloon data.
Now, even NOAA agrees that UAH is correct. 🙂 Get Over It !
For many years RSS showed slightly less warming than UAH.. then Karl got got-at, and went down the model fabrication route in an agenda driven attempt to match the FAKE surface data… thus making RSS basically irrelevant.
Everyone knows that the surface data is a total fabrication from sites that are totally-unfit-for-purpose.
And Tamino.. LOL… you have have got to be kidding ! Mathematical ineptitude and lies.. writ large.
[snip – better to give examples]
50
And every one of those revisions has been for sound empirical scientific reasons.
Unlike the surface data “adjustments”, which are purely agenda driven.
Sad that you are incapable of comprehending the difference!
51
UAH and balloon data vs models.
Protect your superstition… Close both eyes so you don’t see it ! 😉
Even NOAA STAR agrees with UAH !.
Those “models” are really, really SAD, aren’t they.
51
RSS V4 “adjustments” from V3. https://ibb.co/3pWkSZj
Did you know that even after their “adjustments”, RSS still shows NO WARMING from 2001-2015 ! https://ibb.co/QQjFHZf
Before the “adjustments” RSS and UAH showed COOLING from 2001-2015.. couldn’t have that, now could they… https://ibb.co/k0TsFWh
And you can see why they had to force Mears to “adjust” RSS as the models climbed but RSS was basically zero trend apart from the 1998 El Nino step… very embarrassing !. https://ibb.co/hdfcX01
41
The way sats “measure” temperture is completely different from electronic thermometer measurements.
90
Scientifically based explanations are utter pointless for PF.
He cannot comprehend them.
111
“when did I mention CO2”
Many times in the past….
Seems you now ADMIT that CO2 has nothing to do with atmosphere temperature.
Well done for the epiphany ! 🙂
Now waiting for your critique on the total inadequacy of the surface station data, especially now we have the 1 second thermometers. 😉
91
Don’t you know, satellites wear a very long cord with an electronic thermometer attached at the lower end to measure tropospheric temperatures. 😀
60
That graph doesn’t show the great climate shift from the mid 1970s until the end of century. Am I missing something?
50
Clearly my bad, it is what it is.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2023_v6.jpg
30
Oh no, not him again . .
41
Him ? Her thems theys itses bitses LGs IPs QRs otherers and the less controversial and highly compelling approved variants.
10
Peter, the criticism as I see it isn’t a case of automated digital bad vs analog thermometer good.
We have a temperature record based on thermometers for a length of time that were not able to read fluctuations as short as 1 sec in time. The BOM moved to automated devices that can. The BOM then adds one to the other to make a continuous record which is bound to show a different trend and set new records simply because of the 1 sec timeframe of the current equipment. The BOM doesn’t follow the practice of some other countries data recording which averages the 1 sec recordings over a longer interval to smooth out the 1 sec recordings and better reflect the thermometer performance. The BOM shouldn’t pretend the two methods of recording are able to be spliced together and produce a proper trend or proper past to current record comparison.
On the other hand, the UAH record from 1979 is kept as it’s own record and is able to cover the globe rather than just record where a device has been placed.
It’s not the automation per se that’s the problem. It’s the application and presentation of the data.
130
Jennifer Marohasy is covering the story.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/04/parallel-temperature-data-except-for-cape-otway-lighthouse/
50
Even if there is a warming trend do you think that a harmless gas named CO2 is causing it on its own? Wot’ baat’ the Sun? What baat’ the way this Planet revolves around this Sun of ours which is the giver of Life?. And if it is getting warmer, then ‘Happy Days’. Better than being frozen. Try it sometime.
70
Back in the day, one of the first lessons of computer science was Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO).
Now it Garbage In, Economy-Destroying Political Decisions out. GIEDPDO
140
Government & Industry Exchanging Data Prior to Disseminating Obfuscation?
30
Does anyone remember when David Suzuki arrogantly poo pooed a questioner on Q and A when he mentioned University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) because it was from a southern state, the suggestion being that this was a bunch of hicks?
100
Is this what you had in mind?
https://youtu.be/Z4SaIFsyxgA
Unfortunately it’s cut off before he calls them hicks (if that’s what he called them).
The full version is at:
https://youtu.be/zOK8JhgwmZ8
if you want to check.
He has no familiarity whatsoever with the data sources cited.
50
He didn’t call the hicks, the way he spoke about them suggested it.
10
David Suzuki yuk.
My comment from 2015 plus a link?
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/the-david-suzuki-school-of-irrational-thought-on-the-climate-if-only-he-knew-what-science-was/#comment-1741792
80
None of which matters. It was never about science.
110
So its not as bad as the models predicted and not as bad as the scientists thought but still bad. So whats causing all these extreme weather events, and destruction in nature, you know the 1 in 1000 year floods, the bush-fires, more droughts, more floods, the increase in cyclones, tornadoes and hurricanes (not) the destruction do the GB reef, the raising see levels, the loss of ice in the Arctic and antarctic, the polar bears, penguins, climate refugees, increase in liver disease, etc etc etc….
318
Liberator have a look at the data for yourself and you’ll understand.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
70
oh I forgot to add the SARC tag,
42
Tony Heller mocks both the ‘1 in a thousand year event’ and Michael Mann in this video cynically titled 5 Million Year Event
60
No doubt this will all be revealed in a future Royal Commission.
‘Diurnal drift probably created artificial warming in the RSS set prior to 2002, but created artificial cooling after that. The new version of RSS keeps the warming error before 2002, but fixes the error after then. The upshot is a warmer overall trend.’
30
Hyperactive media reporting that blows entirely cyclical events into “unprecedented” calamities.
100
Changes to definitions too.
00
Just had a look at the NOAA website. They are keeping this discovery very quiet. Anyway, we’ll see what happens in the near future when this data is shared globally. As for the above comment by liberator; as far as Australia goes, what increase in Tropical Cyclones? The long term average for a summer season is 11 (Source: our friends at the BOM). This year we’ve had 5, only 2 of which actually crossed over to the land (the other 3 drifted off towards the Central Pacific). Only the most recent one was a Category 4, and that only lasted for 24 hours. Yes, wild weather is happening globally, as it has done for billions of years; nothing to do with a few extra CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
90
It’s 4.00 pm.
What happened to Friday?
20
Tinny time came early in WA!
10
It’s quite amazing that after 35 years no one notices the warming. What warming? Where?
Remember this was not any old warming but a world ending catastophe, with ten years to the end of the world. Twenty years ago.
And as the rorts in carbon indulges reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars, there is no change in CO2 whatsoever. It’s continuing on its path regardless of temperature, emissions, windmills, trees.
So why erect 500,000 windmills if they make no difference at all? And why blow up working power stations? And why push up the price of electricity, goods and food to the point where billions will be at risk?
It was all going so well until the UN decided they needed more power. So no more borders, no more food, no more electricity, just the dictatorship of the UN/EU/WEF? It’s not even a conspiracy. It’s happening.
‘
120
It has been the wet dream of the Elite to eradicate most of us since before the days of Malthus. But the groundwork for the current specific elimination program started with the UKUSA Pact in the 1950’s, after the Korean War.
This was initially implemented as Project Echelon in the late 1970’s. Echelon became PRISM with the widespread availability of the internet, in the early 2000’s. PRISM became Five Eyes (referring to the five countries of the UKUSA Pact) with the with the almost universal ownership of smartphones in the early 2010’s. Five Eyes became something else, name unknown, with implementation voice recognition.
“They” know who you are, what you are doing, where you going, and who you are with.
The UN, WHO, the WEF, The Club of Rome, the Bilderbergers, the Ukraine war, contrived pandemics, windmills, solar panels and destroying baseload power, the entire “climate change” scam, and the antics of characters like Bill Gates are all ultimately mere distractions to keep us plebs running around in circles while the REAL plan quietly unfolds uninterrupted at the behest of the REAL planners.
100
The alarmists pivotal argument is “Follow the science” ( as long as it confirms their view. The sceptics just follow the science. Take the politics out and the sceptics win .
90
IIRC, a number of years ago RSS changed their methodology to more closely align with surface temperatures and in so doing caused skeptics to cry foul because RSS (at the time) showed the least amount of warming out of all three major datasets.
I further recall there were predictions by Christy and McKitrick that RSS would change the algorithms and in so doing would erase the lack of warming it was reporting up until that point in time.
I can’t recall where I saw those arguments but it seems as though RSS was manipulated to ensure agreement between the surface temp dataset and satellite measurements and in so doing cast doubt on UAH measurements matching with radiosonde records.
I didn’t dream this, did I? Please … someone confirm I’m not delusional.
60
Yep, that is exactly what happened.
RSS V4 “adjustments” from V3. https://ibb.co/3pWkSZj
In the main post, Jo explains very clearly why RSS.V$ is no longer a viable representation of global temperature.
NOAA STAR now proves that to be the case.
30
AZ1971, and Jo,
Of all those discrepancies I can only recall discussions about the difference between UAH and RSS methods which resulted in RSS matching reported GHCN surface trends more closely. As Jo notes above:
Probably expounded in more detail by one of Jo’s earlier linked blog posts, however just want to note this greater empiricism in UAH corrections versus the RSS use of climate models is not only in “the latest” adjustments. One can find references to this difference much earlier than Jo’s 2017 summary.
e.g. on Roy Spencer’s site:
(see also https://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/)
Although it should be obvious this is a cleaner way to produce the temperatures (no danger of circular arguments between observations and models) it is also nice to hear other authors (now Zhou and co) independently finding new arguments as to why UAH trend is closer to the reality.
That quote above was from 2011. So it has taken over 11 years for publication of this independent support for the lower trends produced by UAH. The problem for Spencer and Christy is that they were right too soon. 😉
20
And, on another front, more failure
“Oops. That climate science isn’t quite as settled…”
Methane and climate revisited – downwards
https://hotair.com/david-strom/2023/04/20/oops-that-climate-science-isnt-quite-as-settled-n545039and climate
Via http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2023/04/21/the-sound-of-settled-science-151/
20
Because man-made climate change is effectively nothing.
No radiative forcing can be dependent on infrared back-radiation. Because the effect of Infrared on the climate is more than 2 orders of magnitude less than climate modellers claim.
Q: How do we know that?
A: Due to the behaviour of the Pirani gauge as explained by Tom Shula here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS55lXf4LZk
The Pirani gauge, invented in 1906, measures vacuum. Because the power required to keep a wire warm falls with vacuum. For example in a hard vacuum, 0.4mW of power are required to keep the sensor wire at a constant temperature (of about 65C). At 1 atmosphere, 100 mW of power are required to keep the same wire at the same constant temperature. The ratio of 100 to 0.4 is 250 : 1. In a hard vacuum all the cooling is due to radiative emission. As the temperature in the wire stays constant, the same amount of IR will be emitted at 1 atmosphere pressure too; but an extra 250 mW of power are also used because air molecules cool the wire via conduction and convection. So the cooling effect of conduction and convection at 1 atmosphere, at earth’s surface, is 250 times greater than the effect of infrared radiative emission. Tom Shula explains it better in his interview above.
20
[…] By Jo Nova h/t Cohenite […]
00
Did the solar eclipse not give people enough thought about how stupid the climate hysteria is?
1 minute without the Sun and the air temperature drops ~5 degrees.
Pretending that CO2 is doing anything important vis-a-vis long term temperature averages is a complete nonsense.
10
[…] 40 years of expert failure: New NOAA STAR satellite temperatures only show half the warming that cli… […]
00