Climate Factors

Climate Crisis Talk Obscures Reality

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Edward Ring writes at American Greatness Challenging the Climate Crisis Narrative.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

The climate crisis narrative ignores real issues like
poor infrastructure and overpopulation, pushing costly policies
that hurt economies while failing to improve resilience.

According to the United Nations, “Climate change is a global emergency that goes beyond national borders.” From the World Economic Forum, “Urgent global action must be taken to reduce emissions and safeguard human health from the multi-pronged negative impacts of climate change globally.”

From every multinational institution in the world, we hear the same message. From the World Bank, “The world is battling a perfect storm of climate, conflict, economic, and nature crises.” From the World Health Organization, “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year from malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and heat.”

A major problem with all this unanimity over this “emergency” is the fact that for at least half of all people living in Western nations in 2025, the UN, WEF, WHO, and World Bank have no credibility. We don’t want to “own nothing and be happy” as our middle class is crushed. We don’t want the only politically acceptable way to maintain national economic growth to rely on population replacement. And with only the slightest numeracy, we see apocalyptic proclamations as lacking substance.

Top Ten Causes of Death Globally 2021

For example, while 250,000 “additional deaths per year” is tragic, worldwide estimates of total deaths are not quite 70 million per year. These “additional deaths” constitute a 0.36 percent increase over that baseline, just over one-third of one percent. Not even a rounding error.

Source NASA

Similarly, an alarmist prediction from NASA is that “Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 270 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.” Let’s unpack that a bit. A billion tons is a gigaton, equivalent in volume to one cubic kilometer. So Antarctica is losing 150 cubic kilometers of ice per year. But Antarctica has an estimated total ice mass of 30 million cubic kilometers. Which means Antarctica is losing about one twenty-thousandth of one percent of its total ice mass per year. That is well below the accuracy of measurement. It is an estimate, and the conclusion it suggests is of no significance.

One may wonder about Greenland, with “only” 2.9 million cubic kilometers of ice, melting at an estimated rate of 270 gigatons per year. But that still yields a rate of loss of less than one one-hundredth of one percent per year, which is almost certainly below the ability to actually gauge total ice mass and total annual ice loss.

What about sea level rise? Here again, basic math yields underwhelming conclusions. The total surface area of the world’s oceans is 361 million square kilometers. If you spread 420 gigatons over that surface (Greenland and Antarctica’s melting combined), you get a sea level rise of not quite 1.2 millimeters per year. This is, again, so insignificant that it is below the threshold of our ability to measure.

These fundamental facts will turn anyone willing
to do even basic fact-checking into a cynic.

What’s really going on? We get at least a glimpse of truth from the above quotation from the World Bank, where they ascribe the challenges of humanity to several causes: “climate, conflict, economic, and nature crises.” There’s value in the distinctions they make. They list “nature crisis” as distinct from “climate,” and at least explicitly, “climate” is not cited as resulting from some anthropogenically generated trend of increasing temperatures and increasingly extreme weather. They just say “climate.”

Which brings us to the point: Conflict and economic crises are far bigger sources of human misery, and we face serious environmental challenges that have little to do with climate change and more to do with how we manage our industry, our wilderness, and our natural resources. And we are face “climate” challenges even when catastrophic climate events have nothing to do with any alleged “climate crisis.”

A perfect example of how the climate “crisis” narrative is falsely applied when, in fact, the climate-related catastrophe would have happened anyway is found in the disastrous floods that devastated Pakistan in 2022. Despite the doomsday spin from PBS (etc.), these floods were not abnormal because of “climate change.” They were an abnormal catastrophe because in just 60 years, the population of that nation has grown from 45 million to 240 million people. They’ve channelized their rivers, built dense new settlements onto what were once floodplains and other marginal land, they’ve denuded their forests, which took away the capacity to absorb runoff, and they’ve paved thousands of square miles, creating impervious surfaces where water can’t percolate. Of course, a big storm made a mess. The weather didn’t change. The nation changed.

The disaster story repeats everywhere. Contrary to the narrative, the primary cause is not “climate change.” Bigger tsunamis? Maybe it’s because coastal aquifers were overdrafted, which caused land subsidence, or because previously uninhabited tidelands were settled because the population quintupled in less than two generations, and because coastal mangrove forests were destroyed, which used to attenuate big waves. What about deforestation? Perhaps because these nations have been denied the ability to develop natural gas and hydroelectric power, they’re stripping away the forests for fuel to cook their food. In some cases, they’re burning their forests to make room for biofuel plantations, in a towering display of irony and corruption.

In California, our nation’s epicenter of climate crisis fearmongering and the subsequent commercial opportunism, the emphasis on crisis instead of resilience has led to absurd policies. Instead of bringing back the timber industry to thin the state’s overgrown forests, the governor mandates exclusive sales of EVs by 2035. Instead of responsibly drilling oil in California’s ample reserves of crude, California imports 75 percent of its oil, and its economy still relies on oil for half the energy that the state consumes.

Worldwide, these mistakes multiply. Biofuel plantations consume half a million square miles in order to replace a mere two percent of transportation fuel. A mad scramble across every continent to increase mining by an order of magnitude to meet the demand for raw materials to manufacture batteries, wind turbines, and solar panels. Denial of funds for natural gas development in Africa, condemning over a billion people to ongoing energy poverty.

Simple truths are obscured by the climate crisis narrative. We need to rebuild our infrastructure for climate resilience because much of it is over a century old, at the same time as the US population has tripled. Floods and hurricanes cause more damage because there are more people, and more of them live in areas that have always been hit by floods and hurricanes.

The truths are as endless as they are repressed. We can’t possibly lift all of humanity into a middle-class lifestyle without at least doubling energy production worldwide, and we can’t possibly accomplish that while also reducing our use of coal, oil, and gas. Renewables aren’t renewable (here’s a must-read on that topic). Offshore wind is an environmental disaster, as is biofuel, as is the explosion of totally unregulated mining to feed the renewables industry. On the other hand, extreme environmental laws and regulations are harming economic growth, freedom, and, in no small irony, the innovation and investment that would give us the wealth we need to better protect the environment. And the prevailing economic, environmental, and cultural challenge in the world is not the climate but crashing birthrates among developing nations at the same time as the population of the world’s most undeveloped nations continues to explode exponentially.

We need climate resilience in order to properly protect a global population that has quadrupled to 8 billion in just the last century, spreading to every corner of the earth. That goal would be easier if once-trusted global institutions would allow for honest debate and practical infrastructure development. Instead, they continue to spew transparently misleading climate crisis propaganda, adhering to a mission that can only be described as repressive on all fronts—culturally, economically, and environmentally.

 

Ocean Warms, Land Cools UAH February 2025

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The post below updates the UAH record of air temperatures over land and ocean. Each month and year exposes again the growing disconnect between the real world and the Zero Carbon zealots.  It is as though the anti-hydrocarbon band wagon hopes to drown out the data contradicting their justification for the Great Energy Transition.  Yes, there was warming from an El Nino buildup coincidental with North Atlantic warming, but no basis to blame it on CO2.

As an overview consider how recent rapid cooling  completely overcame the warming from the last 3 El Ninos (1998, 2010 and 2016).  The UAH record shows that the effects of the last one were gone as of April 2021, again in November 2021, and in February and June 2022  At year end 2022 and continuing into 2023 global temp anomaly matched or went lower than average since 1995, an ENSO neutral year. (UAH baseline is now 1991-2020). Now we have had an usual El Nino warming spike of uncertain cause, unrelated to steadily rising CO2 and now dropping steadily.

For reference I added an overlay of CO2 annual concentrations as measured at Mauna Loa.  While temperatures fluctuated up and down ending flat, CO2 went up steadily by ~60 ppm, a 15% increase.

Furthermore, going back to previous warmings prior to the satellite record shows that the entire rise of 0.8C since 1947 is due to oceanic, not human activity.

gmt-warming-events

The animation is an update of a previous analysis from Dr. Murry Salby.  These graphs use Hadcrut4 and include the 2016 El Nino warming event.  The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

Importantly, the theory of human-caused global warming asserts that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere changes the baseline and causes systemic warming in our climate.  On the contrary, all of the warming since 1947 was episodic, coming from three brief events associated with oceanic cycles. And now in 2024 we have seen an amazing episode with a temperature spike driven by ocean air warming in all regions, along with rising NH land temperatures, now dropping below its peak.

Chris Schoeneveld has produced a similar graph to the animation above, with a temperature series combining HadCRUT4 and UAH6. H/T WUWT

image-8

mc_wh_gas_web20210423124932

See Also Worst Threat: Greenhouse Gas or Quiet Sun?

February 2025 Ocean Warms, Land Cools banner-blog

With apologies to Paul Revere, this post is on the lookout for cooler weather with an eye on both the Land and the Sea.  While you heard a lot about 2020-21 temperatures matching 2016 as the highest ever, that spin ignores how fast the cooling set in.  The UAH data analyzed below shows that warming from the last El Nino had fully dissipated with chilly temperatures in all regions. After a warming blip in 2022, land and ocean temps dropped again with 2023 starting below the mean since 1995.  Spring and Summer 2023 saw a series of warmings, continuing into 2024 peaking in April, then cooling off to the present.

UAH has updated their TLT (temperatures in lower troposphere) dataset for February 2025. Due to one satellite drifting more than can be corrected, the dataset has been recalibrated and retitled as version 6.1 Graphs here contain this updated 6.1 data.  Posts on their reading of ocean air temps this month are ahead of the update from HadSST4.  I posted recently on SSTs January 2025 Oceans Still Cool. These posts have a separate graph of land air temps because the comparisons and contrasts are interesting as we contemplate possible cooling in coming months and years.

Sometimes air temps over land diverge from ocean air changes. In July 2024 all oceans were unchanged except for Tropical warming, while all land regions rose slightly. In August we saw a warming leap in SH land, slight Land cooling elsewhere, a dip in Tropical Ocean temp and slightly elsewhere.  September showed a dramatic drop in SH land, overcome by a greater NH land increase. This month has contrasting warming in ocean air anomalies, especially in SH, somewhat offset by land air cooling especially in NH.

Note:  UAH has shifted their baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 beginning with January 2021.   v6.1 data was recalibrated also starting with 2021. In the charts below, the trends and fluctuations remain the same but the anomaly values changed with the baseline reference shift.

Presently sea surface temperatures (SST) are the best available indicator of heat content gained or lost from earth’s climate system.  Enthalpy is the thermodynamic term for total heat content in a system, and humidity differences in air parcels affect enthalpy.  Measuring water temperature directly avoids distorted impressions from air measurements.  In addition, ocean covers 71% of the planet surface and thus dominates surface temperature estimates.  Eventually we will likely have reliable means of recording water temperatures at depth.

Recently, Dr. Ole Humlum reported from his research that air temperatures lag 2-3 months behind changes in SST.  Thus cooling oceans portend cooling land air temperatures to follow.  He also observed that changes in CO2 atmospheric concentrations lag behind SST by 11-12 months.  This latter point is addressed in a previous post Who to Blame for Rising CO2?

After a change in priorities, updates are now exclusive to HadSST4.  For comparison we can also look at lower troposphere temperatures (TLT) from UAHv6.1 which are now posted for February 2025.  The temperature record is derived from microwave sounding units (MSU) on board satellites like the one pictured above. Recently there was a change in UAH processing of satellite drift corrections, including dropping one platform which can no longer be corrected. The graphs below are taken from the revised and current dataset.

The UAH dataset includes temperature results for air above the oceans, and thus should be most comparable to the SSTs. There is the additional feature that ocean air temps avoid Urban Heat Islands (UHI).  The graph below shows monthly anomalies for ocean air temps since January 2015.

 In 2021-22, SH and NH showed spikes up and down while the Tropics cooled dramatically, with some ups and downs, but hitting a new low in January 2023. At that point all regions were more or less in negative territory.

After sharp cooling everywhere in January 2023, there was a remarkable spiking of Tropical ocean temps from -0.5C up to + 1.2C in January 2024.  The rise was matched by other regions in 2024, such that the Global anomaly peaked at 0.86C in April. Since then all regions have cooled down sharply.  In February 2025, SH rose from 0.1C to 0.4C pulling the Global ocean air anomaly up from 0.3C to 0.5C.

Land Air Temperatures Tracking in Seesaw Pattern

We sometimes overlook that in climate temperature records, while the oceans are measured directly with SSTs, land temps are measured only indirectly.  The land temperature records at surface stations sample air temps at 2 meters above ground.  UAH gives tlt anomalies for air over land separately from ocean air temps.  The graph updated for February is below.

Here we have fresh evidence of the greater volatility of the Land temperatures, along with extraordinary departures by SH land.  The seesaw pattern in Land temps is similar to ocean temps 2021-22, except that SH is the outlier, hitting bottom in January 2023. Then exceptionally SH goes from -0.6C up to 1.4C in September 2023 and 1.8C in  August 2024, with a large drop in between.  In November, SH and the Tropics pulled the Global Land anomaly further down despite a bump in NH land temps. February showed a sharp drop in NH land air temps from 1.07C down to 0.56C, pulling the Global land anomaly downward from 0.9C to 0.6C.

The Bigger Picture UAH Global Since 1980

The chart shows monthly Global Land and Ocean anomalies starting 01/1980 to present.  The average monthly anomaly is -0.03, for this period of more than four decades.  The graph shows the 1998 El Nino after which the mean resumed, and again after the smaller 2010 event. The 2016 El Nino matched 1998 peak and in addition NH after effects lasted longer, followed by the NH warming 2019-20.   An upward bump in 2021 was reversed with temps having returned close to the mean as of 2/2022.  March and April brought warmer Global temps, later reversed

With the sharp drops in Nov., Dec. and January 2023 temps, there was no increase over 1980. Then in 2023 the buildup to the October/November peak exceeded the sharp April peak of the El Nino 1998 event. It also surpassed the February peak in 2016. In 2024 March and April took the Global anomaly to a new peak of 0.94C.  The cool down started with May dropping to 0.9C, and in June a further decline to 0.8C.  October went down to 0.7C,  November and December dropped to 0.6C. February is down to 0.5C.

The graph reminds of another chart showing the abrupt ejection of humid air from Hunga Tonga eruption.

TLTs include mixing above the oceans and probably some influence from nearby more volatile land temps.  Clearly NH and Global land temps have been dropping in a seesaw pattern, nearly 1C lower than the 2016 peak.  Since the ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity as the atmosphere, that cooling is a significant driving force.  TLT measures started the recent cooling later than SSTs from HadSST4, but are now showing the same pattern. Despite the three El Ninos, their warming had not persisted prior to 2023, and without them it would probably have cooled since 1995.  Of course, the future has not yet been written.

R.I.P. Climate Back Radiation

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Beware false and misleading Cartoons.

A brief recent video by Markus Ott explains why the notion of “back radiation” in Earth’s climate should be laid to rest.  I provide a transcript text in italics with my bolds and key exhibits.

Ott/Shula: The second law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect

This is the first of a short series of physics videos. This series is intended to be a follow up to Tom Shula’s presentation in which we can take more time to go into the fundamentals and derivations of our results.  Since Tom and I are attacking the foundations of modern climate science,  it makes sense to start with the thermodynamic aspects of the greenhouse effect.

In this video I will not talk about greenhouse gas molecules. I will look at the Green House Effect from the perspective of classical thermodynamics. Classical thermodynamics describes matter as a continuum and does not care about the atomic or molecular structure of matter.  The laws of thermodynamics have proven to be universally valid hypotheses, and theories that contradict the laws of thermodynamics have always proved to be wrong

In connection with the greenhouse effect, the second law of Thermodynamics is particularly interesting.  There are various equivalent formulations for the the second law of thermodynamics which states that thermal energy cannot be completely converted into other forms of energy.  Rudolf Clausius was the first to formulate the second law in the form that heat does not flow spontaneously from cold to hot bodies.  Later in 1865 he developed on that basis the concept of entropy.

Those who believe in thermodynamics categorize this statement as an eternal truth and therefore find it very difficult to understand how the greenhouse effect is supposed to work.  How can the atmosphere which is mostly colder than the Earth’s surface heat the Surface by means of back radiation, and by as much as 33°C?  Greenhouse effect believers like to refer to Carl Schwarzschild’s 1906 paper About the equilibrium of the solar atmosphere to answer this question.

In order to clarify this question of faith we will take a closer look at this much cited and probably rarely read article which was written in a German adequate to a highly educated man.  I posted a manual translation of the text on my substack page.  Without going into the details of his calculations we will look at how Schwarzschild comes to the conclusion that the sun’s atmosphere not only radiates outwards into space but that a significant proportion of radiation is also directed inwards towards the base of the sun’s atmosphere.

Such an inward or downward back radiation can also be measured at the bottom of the Earth’s atmosphere.  This observation is taken as a reason to postulate a similar radiation equilibrium in the Earth’s atmosphere.  The greenhouse effect is said to be the result of that back radiation.

The starting point for Schwarzschild’s article is the observation that the brightness of the visible solar disc is not evenly distributed.  The brightness decreases towards the edge.  The diagram shows the observed brightness distribution as a blue line. Schwarzschild compares two conceivable mechanisms of heat transport through the solar atmosphere in order to determine the cause of this brightness distribution. Heat transport through radiative transfer which requires a radiative equilibrium in the Solar atmosphere, and heat transport by convection with an adiabatic equilibrium in the Solar atmosphere.

He calculates how the brightness distribution on the solar disc should be for these two cases.  Because his results for the radiative equilibrium Orange Line in the diagram matched the observed brightness distribution Blue Line better than his results for the adiabatic equilibrium Gray Line,  he assumes that a radiative equilibrium prevails in the Solar atmosphere. We will disregard his description of the adiabatic equilibrium here, and restrict ourselves to his description of the radiative equilibrium.

Kirchhoff’s law of radiation plays a central role in Schwarzschild’s model. Kirchhoff’s law of radiation describes the relationship between absorption and emission of a real body in thermal equilibrium.  It states that radiation absorption and emission correspond to each other for a given wavelength. A body that absorbs well also radiates well.  This can be visualized as follows: We consider a body 2 that is located in a cavity of another body 1. Vacuum prevails in the intermediate space.   If both bodies have the same temperature the radiant power absorbed by Body 2 must be the same as the radiant power emitted by it because otherwise the temperature of body 2 would change.  This means that in thermal equilibrium Kirchhoff’s law of radiation represents a kind of radiation energy conservation law for body 2.

The layout of Schwarzschild’s radiative transfer model of the solar atmosphere is quite simple.  An unknown heat source in the core of the Sun generates heat;  a possible liquid outer core transports this heat by convection to the bottom of the solar atmosphere; the heat is then transported outwards into space solely by radiative transfer.  He does not go any further into the properties of the sun’s core.  He only assumes that the core heats the solar atmosphere evenly at its boundary surface.  It is very important that this heating occurs so evenly that convection currents do not form in the Solar atmosphere.

In Schwarzschild’s model the solar atmosphere is assumed to have the following properties:

♦  the solar atmosphere is stably stratified without convection;
♦  temperature and density increase continuously from the top of the atmosphere to the ground
♦  the vertical profile of temperature is smaller than the adiabatic vertical profile;
♦  each layer of the sun’s atmosphere absorbs and emits radiation without loss;
♦  the energy flow which flows from an unknown source inside the Sun through the solar atmosphere into the outer space is in a steady state.

Since a downwelling radiation is also measurable on the ground of Earth’s atmosphere, modern climate science assumes that Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer model is also applicable to our atmosphere.  Now let’s take a look at the applicability of  Schwarzschild’s  model to the Earth’s atmosphere.

It is striking that Schwarzschild has practically constructed his model around Kirchhoff’s law of radiation. He has to make a number of not particularly plausible assumptions in order to create a local thermal equilibrium between the layers of his solar atmosphere.  As mentioned before most of these assumptions serve to prevent convection in his model.  This is critically important because as soon as convection comes into play, the condition of local thermal equilibrium is no longer fulfilled.  The vertical convection currents and the associated turbulence destroy Schwarzschild’s homogeneous stratification of the atmosphere.  Large local temperature jumps occur Kirchhoff’s law of radiation is therefore no longer applicable.

To summarize and formulate this somewhat more abstractly:  In order to create the conditions for Pure radiation transport through the solar atmosphere Schwarzschild must construct an atmosphere with a very high degree of order.  In liquid or gaseous systems even minor disturbances will cause such a state to change into a disordered convective State.  Under convective conditions Kirchhoff’s law of radiation and thus the radiative transfer equation are not valid.

This transition to the convective state takes place with a large entropy gain.  It is therefore spontaneous and irreversible.  Accordingly, there should be no radiative transfer and no greenhouse effect in our troposphere since it is dominated by convection currents.

Look at a volume element under convective conditions such as those that prevail in our troposphere.  The volume element absorbs radiation and converts the radiation energy into heat. Before it can convert the heat back into radiation it is caught by a convection current and lifted.  This causes it to move into areas with lower ambient pressure.  It expands and performs volume work in the process.  It draws the energy for this volume work from its heat content and therefore cools down.  The amount of heat that the volume element has converted into volume work can no longer be converted back into radiation. The conservation of radiation energy is therefore no longer given.

Kirchhoff’s law of radiation can no longer be applied to the volume element. The entropy of the volume element increases, the process is irreversible lifting and acceleration.  Work performed by the volume element derives their energy from the heat content of the volume element and also contribute to the irreversibility of radiation absorption under convective conditions.  Global circulations also affect these processes but that will be discussed in another video.

I would like to point out that radiation absorption and emission are irreversible processes.  In themselves the reemission of radiation from an excited molecule occurs randomly in any direction.  This means that the information about the direction of the previously absorbed radiation is lost during emission The emitted Photon transfers part of its momentum to the emitting molecule. Its energy and therefore also its frequency are therefore different from that of the previously absorbed Photon.  Schwarzschild also excludes these effects through his choice of boundary conditions: steady state radiation flux and frequency independence of absorptivity and emission.

In one of my previous videos I made fun about the fact that the 33° greenhouse effect is calculated by assuming that the solar Radiance is homogeneously distributed over the Earth’s surface with 240 W per square meter. Now with a deeper understanding of Schwarzschild’s model we get an idea about the origin of this rather strange assumption.  In his radiation transfer model the base of the solar atmosphere is heated internally and homogenously by the solar core.  This homogeneous heating is very important since an inhomogeneous heating would cause convection which is incompatible with Kirchhoff’s law of radiation and would spoil his model.  In a rather hapless attempt to apply Schwarzschild’s radiation transfer model, the same is done to the externally and unevenly heated surface of the Earth.

To summarize briefly the irreversibility of radiation absorption in air under convective conditions makes back radiation and thus the greenhouse effect impossible.  This statement seems to be in direct contradiction to the observation that a downwelling atmospheric radiation can be measured at the bottom of the Earth’s atmosphere.  The diagram here shows the measured values from a measuring station near Munich.  In the next video I will show that back radiation is not what most people think of it to be, and how it is compatible with the laws of thermodynamics.

The most important takeaway from this video is that Kirchhoff’s law of radiation presents a kind of radiation energy conservation law, and that this radiation energy conservation is not given under convective conditions.  As far as I know all radiation transfer models assume a universal validity of Kirchhoff’s  law of radiation.  The only exception is at very high altitudes where the air molecules only very rarely collide with each other.  Since the results of the radiation transfer models are based on this false basic assumptions,  they are wrong.

That is not to say that Carl Schwarzschild’s work is nonsense.  His original idea is very applicable to transparent systems without convection; for example in the production of large telescope mirrors. The cooling behavior after the glass mass has solidified can be described very well using radiation transfer methods.

Footnote Regarding Observation of Downwelling IR near Earth Surface

Figure 1. This is a plot of the outgoing radiation spectrum from Earth. Within the normal IR thermometer and scanner range of 7.5 to 14 micrometers, only ozone (O3), which is mostly above cloud level absorbs and emits significant radiation. Within the 15 μm CO2 “divot” nearly all surface emissions are absorbed within 1.5 meters of the surface, at the edges of the divot, emissions are absorbed within 690 meters. There is very little absorption and emission by GHGs in the IR thermometer range in the troposphere, aka the atmospheric window.

From Andy May Beyond CO₂: Unraveling the Roles of Energy, Water Vapor, and Convection in Earth’s Atmosphere

Because the humid lower atmosphere is nearly opaque to most surface emitted radiation that is outside the atmospheric windows, surface emissions are absorbed by GHGs very close to the surface. According to Heinz Hug, at sea level, with a CO2 concentration of 357 PPM and 2.6% water vapor, 99.94% of all surface radiation in the main CO2 frequency band at about 15 μm is normally absorbed in the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere (Hug, 2012). Even at the edges of the deep CO2 frequency band (see figure 1, as well as figures 4 & 5 here) where any increase in the CO2 effect would be observed, 99.9% of the surface radiation is absorbed in the first 690 meters (Hug, 2000).

Heinz Hug goes on to say that is why climate change caused by CO2 cannot be measured directly in the laboratory and can only be modeled. In our opinion, the effect of CO2 is so small it will likely never be measured. In a similar fashion, any “back radiation” that makes it to the surface, outside atmospheric windows, is from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere, the remaining emissions from the lower 10 meters of the atmosphere are captured by other greenhouse gases, almost always water vapor molecules.

Surface emissions in the frequencies that cannot be absorbed or emitted by GHGs, those in the so-called “atmospheric windows” are not captured, these are the frequencies utilized by IR thermometers and scanners, typically 7.5 to 14 micrometers as shown in figure 1. Water vapor is often a very weak absorber and emitter in portions of these windows. Carbon dioxide strongly absorbs and re-emits IR at two key frequencies: around 4.26 μm (microns) and 14.99 μm. The common vanadium oxide (VOx) based microbolometer long-wave infrared detectors cover wavelengths from 8-14 µm range. So, both CO2 absorption bands are outside the range of the common hand-held infrared thermometer/bolometer.

The radiation seen when IR thermometers and scanners are pointed at the sky is surface radiation scattered by atmospheric particles and clouds. The radiation seen by IR thermometers and scanners cannot be emitted by greenhouse gases or clouds because neither GHGs nor clouds emit in frequencies that can be detected by the devices. As noted in van Wijngaarden and Happer (2025) scattered longwave IR originates only in water droplets or ice or other particulates, there is negligible scattering of IR by molecules, especially in the atmospheric windows.

Background Paper with complete discussion

Missing Link in the GHE, Greenhouse Effect, by Thomas Shula – Markus Ott,  USA – Germany
2024.

IR-Active Gases: H2O Potent, CO2 Feeble

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Demetris Koutsoyiannis published this paper in November 2024 Relative importance of carbon dioxide and water in the greenhouse effect: Does the tail wag the dog?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.

Abstract

Using a detailed atmospheric radiative transfer model, we derive macroscopic relationships of downwelling and outgoing longwave radiation which enable determining the partial derivatives thereof with respect to the explanatory variables that represent the greenhouse gases. We validate these macroscopic relationships using empirical formulae based on downwelling radiation data, commonly used in hydrology, and satellite data for the outgoing radiation. We use the relationships and their partial derivatives to infer the relative importance of carbon dioxide and water vapour in the greenhouse effect.

The results show that the contribution of CO₂ is 4% – 5%, while water and clouds dominate with a contribution of 87% – 95%. The minor effect of carbon dioxide is confirmed by the small, non-discernible effect of the recent escalation of atmospheric CO₂ concentration from 300 to 420 ppm. This effect is quantified at 0.5% for both downwelling and outgoing radiation. Water and clouds also perform other important functions in climate, such as regulating heat storage and albedo, as well as cooling the Earth’s surface through latent heat transfer, contributing 50%. By confirming the major role of water on climate, these results suggest that hydrology should have a more prominent and more active role in climate research.

Robin Horsley draws the implications from this and other recent papers.  Transcript in italics with my bolds and added images.

For decades, we’ve been told that human generated CO2 emissions are the single most dangerous threat to our planet. Politicians, celebrities, and the mainstream media have united to amplify this alarm, warning of an impending climate catastrophe unless we act now.

But what if the story’s wrong? What if the very foundation of the theory, the idea that CO2 is the principal driver of global warming, Is flawed? What if the science we’ve been told is settled is actually far from settled?

This week I’ve been digging into this very provocative question looking at an extremely interesting recent report on the subject. And what I found might make you rethink a lot of what you thought you knew about climate change.

What If Everything You Thought About CO2 Was Wrong

For years we’ve been fed a simple story: Humans burn fossil fuels, releasing carbon dioxide – CO2 – Into the atmosphere. CO2 traps heat causing the planet to warm. The Greenhouse Effect as it’s known. The solution? Reduce CO2 to save the planet. But what if this narrative is overly simplistic or even fundamentally wrong?

At the recent international Clintel science conference in Prague leading climate experts gathered to scrutinise the dominant narratives around climate change. One of the most striking contributions came from Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis, a highly regarded climate scientist from the University of Athens. His research challenges the very core of our understanding of CO2’s role in the climate system. Professor Koutsoyiannis presented groundbreaking findings that question the long held belief that rising CO2 levels cause global temperatures to increase.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. ► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. ► Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. ► Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Instead, his research suggests it’s the other way around. Global temperature increases drive higher atmospheric CO2 levels. This isn’t an entirely new idea. For decades, scientists like Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace have pointed to evidence showing that historically rises in CO2 levels have followed, not preceeded, global temperature increases. Ice core data, spanning millions of years, apparently supports this claim.

If true, this challenges the foundation of the mainstream climate narrative.

Why would rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2

But why would rising temperatures cause an increase in CO2 levels? Professor Koutsoyiannis explains that when temperatures rise, the natural world responds. Plants and oceans release more CO2 than they otherwise would. Warmer temperatures lead to a thriving environment.

Now, I think this needs some explanation, because plants absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. Not release CO2, don’t they? Well, yes, plants sustain themselves and grow through the process of photosynthesis, which turns sunlight, water and CO2, which plants absorb, into glucose which enables plants to grow and which produces oxygen as a by-product which we and animals need to breathe.

Figure 22. Annual carbon balance in the Earth’s atmosphere, in Gt C/year, based on the IPCC estimates (Figure 5.12 of [30]). The balance of 5.1 Gt C/year is the annual accumulation of carbon (in the form of CO2) in the atmosphere (reproduced from [5].).

However Plants also release CO2 as part of a process known as cellular respiration during the day, and particularly at night, when due to a lack of sunlight, photosynthesis cannot occur. On balance photosynthesis typically outweighs respiration. So living plants typically absorb more CO2 than they release. But when that increasing number of plants die and decompose, micro-organisms break down the organic matter releasing retained CO2.

Oceans also release CO2 into the atmosphere when the water is warmer than the surrounding air. Warmer water holds less dissolved CO2. These natural processes account for the majority of CO2 emissions.
In fact, Koutsoyiannis argues that Nature contributes 96% of CO2 emissions leaving just 4% attributable to human activity.

Nature contributes 96% of CO2 emissions

Yes, burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the atmosphere. However, the professor’s research suggests that human contributions are a mere drop in the ocean compared to natural emissions. Crucially, his data shows that the dominant greenhouse gases aren’t CO2. But water vapour and clouds. CO2, it seems, plays a much smaller role than we’ve been led to believe.

Additionally, the study challenges the claim that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for thousands of years. Instead, it finds that CO2 is rapidly cycled through the atmosphere oceans and land with an average cycle of just 4 years.

Figure 26: Contribution of (left) the three mechanisms responsible for the cooling of Earth’s surface and (right) the four mechanisms responsible for the warming of Earth’s atmosphere, based on the global energy balance by Trenberth et al. (2009). Koutsoyiannis (2024)

The paper also concludes based on the data gathered over the last hundred years, when the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere increased from around 300 parts per million to just over 400 parts per million, that this increase has had no discernible effect on the greenhouse effect. It’s that small a factor.

If this research is accurate It doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real. But it does suggest we need a better understanding of what drives it.

The professor asks a number of pertinent unanswered questions at the end of his paper. The earth is currently, when viewed over hundreds of millions of years, going through a relatively cool period. What caused the huge increases in earth’s temperature in the past? The professor asks.

It wasn’t industrialisation, was it? These are crucial questions especially as Governments implement sweeping policies in the name of achieving net zero emissions by 2050.  Policies that impact everything from energy prices to housing and transportation. Even the food that we eat.

The global cost of the Net Zero 2050 agenda is projected to be between $100 and $150 trillion dollars by 2050. Meanwhile, the world bank estimates that eradicating extreme poverty globally would cost just three to four trillion.  Universal health care and education, defeating diseases such as malaria on a global basis would cost less.

What if we’re funding trillions into solving something that isn’t actually the main source of the problem? What if we should be spending more on other things that can limit global warming? What if we should instead be spending more money on mitigating the effects rather than trying to prevent it?

Shouldn’t we demand more scrutiny of the science driving these decisions? Could it be that the climate crisis narrative isn’t just about science but also about power, control and profit? Entire industries are heavily invested in the CO2 narrative. And millions of people, and much of the mainstream media are emotionally invested in the quest to reduce CO2 to save the planet.

But is that what we’re actually doing? Science thrives on debate and scrutiny. Science is never settled as such. It’s constantly evolving, particularly in complex areas such as global climate. Yet the CO2 science on which we’re proceeding is decades old, and many of the models on which it is based have failed to make accurate predictions.

Yet those who challenge the mainstream climate narrative are often dismissed as ‘deniers’ or attacked personally. But shouldn’t the truth welcome scrutiny? Shouldn’t we demand transparency and evidence that can stand up to rigorous examination?

This isn’t about denying climate change. It’s about questioning whether we’re focusing on the right solutions. As more scientists speak out, surely it’s time to demand open debate. And consider whether the trillions we’re spending on Net Zero might be better used elsewhere.

Now, I’m not a climate scientist. Perhaps this report is flawed. Perhaps it is complete nonsense even. But the professor who wrote it is not the only one who’s pointing out the first fundamental point that the mainstream narrative is fundamentally wrong, that by burning fossil fuels we’re producing CO2 that is warming the planet.

An increasing number of others are breaking ranks and saying exactly the same thing. That increasing CO2 is largely a consequence of increasing global temperatures not the cause. Yet we’re told that we’re facing a climate emergency. We must cast aside all caution. We must listen to Greta Thunberg, the climate change messiah.

To ask questions is heresy! Really? What do you think? Should we blindly follow the mainstream narrative, or should we dig deeper and ask tougher questions?   Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you for watching.

See Also:

Humans Add Little to Rising CO2 March 2024

Climate Crusade Is a Dead End

Posted on by Ron Clutz

This post presents the main points and exhibits from Professor de Lange’s presentation February 26, 2025.  Most images are self explanatory, with some excerpts in italics lightly edited from captions, and some added images as well. H/T Bud Bromley.

Prof. de Lange demonstrates that there is no credible climate crisis, and that there is much more to climate than CO2 alone. First, he addresses the discrepancy between satellite temperature measurements and results from climate models. Second, he shows the effect of even doubling the CO2 concentration has only minor effects, while it is in fact crucial to photosynthesis. Third, he shows that how the significant lack of experimental data on cloud composition now hampers progress in climate science. Fourth, he demonstrates that there is no convincing correlation between CO2 and temperature on a geological time scale. Fifth, he addresses global future energy supply, demonstrating that renewables are “unaffordables”, just as are untested technologies (batteries, hydrogen), and he concludes that the future has to be based on nuclear power.

1.  Natural Science and Observations versus Models

2.  Atmospheric Physics and Greenhouse Gases

Warm Surface of the earth can be viewed as a radiator in the infrared that radiates Intensity out Into the atmosphere, and again the flow of infrared energy is not interrupted. It is absorbed by the atmosphere and that’s where the clouds turn out to be extremely important. They delay the outgoing energy into the universe. In climate science we balance the yellow incoming solar energy in watts per square meter with the outgoing radiation from the surface and atmosphere. Some is reflected and some is absorbed and emitted as long wave radiation.  The imbalance is shown at the bottom as ~1 W/m2, which is a small difference between two much larger energy flows showing hundreds of W/m2. If for any reason, there is a slight change in either the incoming or outgoing flows, the imbalance would change dramatically.

The fact that Greenhouse gases play very important role in absorbing infrared radiation in the atmosphere is already 150 years old. We shall see that dependence of the temperature of the earth due to greenhouse gases is not linear, the effect on temperature is logarithmic. This is seen in the graph on the left side.

On the horizontal scale we see the frequency scale expressed in common unit in physics in wave numbers. And here we see the continuous Blue Trace results from infrared radiation that would leave the warm surface of the planet if there were no atmosphere at all. The total surface under the blue trace depends on temperature to the fourth power, very temperature dependent.

We see the effect of atmosphere greenhouse gases represented by the black line, which is a bit lower than the blue Trace. The green line shows the where the black line would be, were there to be no CO2 in the atmosphere. The red line shows that there would be little difference from doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm.

The role of water vapor is terribly important.  Water is the most important Greenhouse gas, but when we Go to clouds, he situation becomes much more complicated than in the absence of clouds. So clouds again are the Achilles heel of of climate Science.  As I said an increase in CO2  leads to a little more warming but the increase is logarithmic. meaning less and Less warming at higher CO2 levels.  Doubling CO2 leads to extra forcing of about 1 percent or about 3 watts per square meter.  Since 1850 when temperature measurements really started since, the planet’s surface has warmed up by about 1°C.   That is not very much, and the effect of CO2 can only be very much smaller.

3.  Scattering in Clouds

The post referenced in the exhibit is Clauser’s Case: GHG Science Wrong, Clouds the Climate Thermostat

4. Is CO2 the only and most important culprit of ‘’disastrous’’ climate change, warming in particular?

5. Supplying Energy to a Growing World Population

Solar Activity Linked to Ocean Cycles

Posted on by Ron Clutz

Solar energy accumulates massively in the ocean and is variably released during circulation events.

Thanks to Franklin Isaac Ormaza-González alerting me to this paper Did Schwabe cycles 19–24 influence the ENSO events, PDO, and AMO indexes in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? by Ormaza-González, Espinoza-Celi and Roa-López, all from ESPOL Polytechnic University, Ecuador.  Why is this important? Because warming in the modern era is closely tied to El Niño and La Niña events (ENSO).  For example,

The exhibit shows since 1947 GMT warmed by 0.8 C, from 13.9 to 14.7, as estimated by Hadcrut4.  This resulted from three natural warming events involving ocean cycles. The most recent rise 2013-16 lifted temperatures by 0.2C.  Previously the 1997-98 El Nino produced a plateau increase of 0.4C.  Before that, a rise from 1977-81 added 0.2C to start the warming since 1947.

As shown in the synopsis below, the paper analyzes multiple oceanic oscillations during the years 1954 to 2019 in order to compare with solar cycles of sunspots 19 through 24 occurring during that time frame.  The title is stated as a question, and the conclusion provides this answer (in italics with my bolds).

Finally, did Schwabe cycles 19–24 influence the ENSO events, PDO, and AMO indexes in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? Yes, it has been found a wide range correlation coefficient from 0.100 to about 0.500 statistically significant (p < 0.05) with lag times from few months to over 2 years between the Schwabe cycles and the ocean indices chosen here. These results could be a potential source to improve predictive skills for the understanding of ENSO, PDO and AMO interannual and decadal fluctuations. Better predictive models are imperative given that El Niño or La Niña has vast impacts on lives, property, and economic activity around the globe, especially when dramatic peaks of El Niño occur. The new cycle 25 has started and could have a major oceanic swing follow suit, and the next El Niño would be in around 2023–2024 according to historical events and results presented here.

Given that the paper was drafted before submitting in February 2022, and publication in October that year, the forecast of a 2023-24 El Nino was confirmed in a remarkable way.

To enlarge, open image in new tab.

The cyan line represents SST anomalies in the Tropics and shows the major El Ninos, 2015-16, 2019-20 and 2023-24.  Note all three events included pairs of major NH summer warming peaks. The synopsis below consists of excerpts in italics with my bolds to present the broad strokes of the analyses and findings. (Note: The paper includes detailed analyses and many references to supporting studies, and interested readers can access them by linking there.)

Context

The surface-subsurface layers of the ocean that interact with the lower atmosphere alternately release and absorb heat energy. The work of Zhou and Tung (2010) reported the impact of the TSI on global SST over 150 years, finding signals of cooling and warming SSTs at the valley and peak of the SS cycles. Schlesinger and Ramankutty (1994) report a global cycle of 65–70 years for SST that is affected by greenhouse anthropogenic gases, sulphate aerosols and/or El Niño events, but they did not imply any external forcing such as the SS. There have been other studies on how solar radiation variability could affect temperature; recently, Cheke et al. (2021) have studied those solar cycles of SS that would affect the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) indexes.

There are well known oceanic events that show periodicity with low or high frequencies: 25–30 and 3–7 years, respectively. These include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO),  and Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), as well as El Niño or La Niña.  During El Niño events, the surface and subsurface lose energy to the atmosphere and the opposite occurs during La Niña; these events have a periodicity of 3–7 years. The Interdecadal oscillations have a series of impacts; e.g., the PDO gives rise to teleconnections between the tropic and mid-latitudes, and the effects include:

1) ocean heat content,
2) the lower and higher levels of the trophic chain including small pelagic fisheries (tuna and sardines);
3) biogeochemical air-sea CO2 fluxes;
4) the frequency of La Niña/El Niño.

The interactions between decadal oscillations PDO/IPO and AMO may also affect ocean heat content. All these low and high frequency oceanographic events have a direct impact on local, regional, and global climate patterns, and there is growing evidence from many studies that the driving source of energy is the sun.

Thus, whatever affects the solar irradiation falling on the surface of the oceans, including volcanic eruptions (Fang et al., 2020), and cloudiness for example, it would affect the gain or loss of heat content of the oceans. The cited works tried to find the physical reasons for these connections, but they remained unknown or difficult to explain.

The work reported here investigates how fluctuations of sunspots over time (1954–2019) may cross-correlate with low and high frequency oceanic events such as the sea surface temperature (SST), anomalies (SSTA), Oceanographic El Niño Index (ONI), Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) in the central and east equatorial Pacific Ocean; and PDO, as well as on the AMO in the North Pacific and Atlantic basins. The hypothesis is that even small variations of the TSI can be reflected in these tele-connected indexes.

Discussion

Fig. 1. Behaviour of monthly counts of SS, ONI, MEI, PDO and AMO. The Indexes start at t = 0, 12, 24 and 36 months (panels a, b, c, and d respectively). The SS series starts at t = 0 in the four panels. The left vertical axis gives the values for the Indexes, and SS counts at the right vertical scale. The end of each Schwabe cycle is marked by vertical dashed lines.

Maxima in the PDO, AMO, ONI, and MEI series were offset by 0, 12, 24 and 36 months (Fig. 1, panels a, b, c, and d respectively), with the SS series starts at t = 0 in the four panels. It has been reported that the lag times for responses of some Indexes to SS cycles (SS) are around 12–36 months (see fig. 1 of Hassan et al., 2016), and Fang et al. (2020) have reported that ENSO responds with a 2–3 years of lag time after a major volcanic eruption. From 1954 to the present time, each sunspot cycle from 19 to 24 has occurred with a period of around 11 years (Hathaway, 2015), which is slightly less than the 11.2 years reported by Dicke (1978). The highest SS activity is seen in cycle 19 with around 250 SS/month, followed by <150, and at cycle 21 around 200, before decreasing steadily over cycles 22 to 24 to just over 100 SS/month. Cycle 24 is the lowest contemporary value of SS activity that is comparable only to cycles 12–15 (around 1880–1930) and is the lowest in the last 200 years (Clette et al., 2014).

Fig. 12. Sunspots monthly counts curves per cycle. Red and blue lines represent El Niño and La Niña events. Note that Cycle 24 finished on December 2019 (National Weather Service, 2020).

The SSTA in El Niño 1 + 2 region cross-correlated with SS many times, especially during descending phases of all cycles except SS 22 with cc-ρ up 0.389 (SS 24) and main lag times from 5 to 13 months. The SS cycles (20 and 24) during cold phase PDO showed alternate cross-correlation reaching a maximum 0.389 and negative −0.314 (p < 0.05). During the ascending phase in El Niño 1 + 2 region (blue bars, Fig. 5a) the cc-ρ peaked at 0.393 (p < 0.05). In the cycles 19 and 24 the highest cc-ρ were found, −0.460 and 0.394 (p < 0.05) respectively. These coefficients coincided with the largest (over 2 years) and most intense (<−1.5C) La Niña during 1954–1955, and 2010–2012 (Fig. 12).

It must be noticed that during cycle 21 two big events El Niño (1983–1985) and La Niña (1984–1985) were registered as well as in cycles 23 and 24 with coefficients just around 0.2. The highest coefficients would mean an influence up to 21.2% and 15.5% of the SS on the SSTAs in El Niño 3.4 region. These results would suggest the cross-correlations are stronger in El Niño 3.4 region due to the less dispersing oceanographic-meteorological conditions than in El Niño 1 + 2 region. Also, these findings would suggest that during the cold phase of PDOs (see NOAA, 2016), the cc-ρ in El Niño 3.4 region tends to be higher, as the solar energy reaching the ocean surface increases as the cloudiness tends to decrease significantly during prolonged periods around or over in El Niño 3.4 region (Porch et al., 2006).

The sun cycle 19 is the most intense since the last 100 years, the contrary is the cycle 24 (NWS, 2021). In general, the ascending phase of the SS cycles takes a shorter time than descending phase, therefore the slope of the curve is steeper (Fig. 12); then the increasing change of the TSI influences in a clearer way the studied indexes. It seems that during the ascending phases, El Niño events are prone to develop as TSI increases (as well as UV radiation does, NWS, 2021), while during plunging SS phases, when the TSI tends to diminish (see Formula (1)), could lead to La Niña events, like the 2020–2022 occurrence (Ormaza-González, 2021).

Most of the La Niña events occur during the descending phase or just when approaching or leaving the valley or minimum SS counts (Fig. 12) when the TSI decreases and reaches the minimum (Scafetta et al., 2019). La Niña 2020–2022 is a good example, the lowest SS counts (<2 counts/months) occurred during extended periods when reaching the valley of the SS 24. The valley of SS 24 has had an extended period of close to 3 years, during which there have been weeks and months without sunspots, before the SS 25 started in December 2020.

The weakest sunspot cycle (SS 24) over the last 100 years (NWS, 2021) has had four La Niña events: 2007–2009, 2010–2012, 2016–2017, and 2020–2022 (Fig. 12), it is the only cycle with that number of La Niña events.

Conclusions

Over the studied period 1954–2019, sunspot numbers decreased from a monthly maximum between 225 (SS 21) to a minimum around 20–25 (SS 24). The SS 24 had 913 days without SS counts until December 2019 (Burud et al., 2021), being this cycle the weakest since 1755; and the SS 25 will probably be weaker than or like SS 24 (Ineson et al., 2014; Chowdhury et al., 2021; NASA, 2021a, NASA, 2021b). Thus, the Earth has been receiving slightly decreasing solar energy over this almost 7-decade period.

On the ocean surface the influence of sunspots could chiefly be due to UV energy fluctuation (Ineson et al., 2014) as this radiation penetrates down to 75–100 m depth in the water column (Smyth, 2011). van Loon et al. (2007) suggested that even though SS cycles produce weak changes on the Total Solar Irradiation (TSI) of about 0.07% (Gray et al., 2010), these can still produce decadal and millennial impacts on global thermohaline circulation (Bond et al., 2001; Gray et al., 2016).

The ONI Index showed to be poorly cross-correlated with cc-ρ values <0.100, only twice approached to −0.200. On the other hand, the MEI registered around ±0.200 through all cycles and predominant lag times within 12 months. The SOI showed cross-correlations with SS cycles (19–21, and) averaging a coefficient of 0.200 with lags times range of 9–34 months. The SOI temporal behaviour has also been associated with SS and it could enhance or affect the oceanographic Indexes of the equatorial Pacific (Higginson et al., 2004). [The Multivariate ENSO Index does not only consider the SST Anomaly but also sea-level pressure and other variables.]

The MEI index could have been influenced from 7.3% up to 23%. The MEI correlated in all ascending and descending phases of SS cycles. The SOI had similar cross-correlation coherence to those oceanographic indexes during ascending and descending phases. These results would provide evidence on how SS affects the studied Indexes during the ascending/descending phases of their cycles. In some cycles, the impact will be stronger and in other weaker depending on intensity and behaviour in time of the cycle.

Finally, did Schwabe cycles 19–24 influence the ENSO events, PDO, and AMO indexes in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans? Yes, it has been found a wide range correlation coefficient from 0.100 to about 0.500 statistically significant (p < 0.05) with lag times from few months to over 2 years between the Schwabe cycles and the ocean indices chosen here. These results could be a potential source to improve predictive skills for the understanding of ENSO, PDO and AMO interannual and decadal fluctuations. Better predictive models are imperative given that El Niño or La Niña has vast impacts on lives, property, and economic activity around the globe, especially when dramatic peaks of El Niño occur. The new cycle 25 has started and could have a major oceanic swing follow suit, and the next El Niño would be in around 2023–2024 according to historical events and results presented here.

Sun Rules Earth Climate

Posted on by Ron Clutz

On February 12, 2025, Tom Nelson conducted the above interview with solar physicist Valentina Zharkova: Grand solar minimum is underway. Below is my synopsis  of lightly edited transcript excerpts from the closed captions along with key graphics in her presentation. H/T Chiefio

The full content of the video is:

Time line of segments:
0:00 – Introduction to Valentina
0:35 – Understanding the Solar Cycles
4:25 – Challenges In Measuring Sun
5:10 – Discovering The Background (magnetic fields)
6:00 – Analyzing Magnetic Waves
7:50 – Predicting Solar Activity
14;45 – Grand Solar Minimum
27:25 – Implications of the Grand Solar Minimum
37:55 – CO2 and Temperature Correlation
39:10 – Solar Cycles and Earth’s Temperature
42:45 – Solar Inertial Motion and Climate
48:30 – Future Climate Predictions
1:05:20 – Volcanic Activity and Climate
1:07:30 – Earth’s Magnetic Field
1:12:10 – Concluding Thoughts

Transcript Excerpts

Today we’re talking again about Grand solar minimum but I also speak about a little bit of solar radiation and verification of the new solar activity index we discovered with the existing one which is derived by average Sunspot number.

Understanding the Solar Cycle and Sunspots

The solar activity cycle is about 11 years and on the Sun it occurs that in the start of the cycle on the left image the sun has Southern polarity.  And during the cycle this polarity slowly migrates in the opposite direction and so the next solar minimum you have polarity changed and this happens approximately every 11 years. so basically what is happening the the loops appear in the Solar surface and the occurring as the active region for forming coronal mass injections flares and different fluxes towards the Earth and other planets.

So in the past we were dealing  with the sunspots.  In the 18th century Wolff discovered that this Sunspot appears on this latitude 30° and migrates slowly towards the equator and basically this is the basic Solar activity index using daily average Sunspot numbers.

Why we love sunspots and why we support this for a couple of centuries is because sunspots actually are Roots which are embedded into the Photosphere (the surface layer of the Sun that gives off light).  And we see them from outside with the naked eye but basically they are the places where magnetic Loops are embedded.

The problem with Sunspots is that we see only a few of them.  Even with this Solar maximum there’s only a small part of the solar surface covered with them. Whatever we use to detect them, always the Sunspot index is defined by people manually.  They agree from different observatories what number of sunspots which configuration Etc.  So the Sunspot number changes during 11 year cycle.

Discovering The Background (magnetic fields)

So we decided to look at the background field in which these sunspots are embedded so on the top is the B is the background magnetic field measured at solar observatory in Stanford with orange. So you see clearly that the leading polarity of Sunspot always opposite to the polarity of the background magnetic field in that hemisphere.  It was not only us who detected this it was others as well so it was very encouraging. We decided we can detect solar activity with much better accuracy.

The black curve is our summary modulus summary curve and the red is a  sunspot number and you see that our a Vector summary Eigen vectors will represent this Solar, remembering that our index represents the magnetic field of the background Sun. In 2022 we added Cycle 24 and discovered that our curve still represents Sunspot index.  At the bottom is the summary curve modulus summary curve cycle 25 where we are now,   Here we see our prediction that the maximum will be actually year 23-24 and now there will be a very sharp drop of the activity, and we have two little Maxima before the minimum between cycle 25-26.  Cycle 26 will be have very low amplitude, 70% lower than the previous two cycles.

So how it works.   If you have two waves on the top two black waves which are running with the same amplitude but if the face difference is zero you have constructive interference.   In the cycle 26 we can see the amplitudes are going opposite with the resulting amplitude becoming zero.   This is what we observe on the sun and I teach my  first year physics students how they interact.   There’s no miracle, just basic physics of the waves and this effect called beat effect.

Implications of the Grand Solar Minimum

Now we come back to solar radiance and climate so first we now know that we entered into a grand solar minimum, the temperature started decreasing.  But the problem with the grand solar minimum is that during previous Grand solar minimum, which was the Maunder minimum in 17th century,  the Solar Radiance reduced by 3 watts per square meter approximately. But the temperature during Maunder minimum decreased approximately by one degree maximum.

Different investigations show slightly different variations but mostly they all reconstruct temperatures during and after the minimum to find where the surface temperature was reduced on the the globe. So this is what you see for Northern Hemisphere, this is Europe, very dark blue is reduction of temperature by one degree.   And it is mostly all Europe, Russia and Siberia, and also all Northern America and Canada.

So basically this is probably we are heading towards now.  We have noticed the cold flashes from the drop of the temperature that occurred because drop of abundance of ozone created by solar ultraviolet light in the stratosphere.  If the solar radiation is reduced, this layer abundance of ozone is reduced and it affects planetary atmospheric waves.

In the left image Globe the stable just stream flows somewhere in this path and separate middle latitude from the north Northern latitude, but when ozone layer is reduced it causes giant Wiggles in just stream shown in the right plot called wind from arctics can now penetrate to the southern latitudes as shown on the picture.  It kicks off North Atlantic oscillation and balance between permanent low pressure system near Greenland and permanent high pressure system and the South into Negative PH. It was reported 24 years ago go and it works now.

We are trying now to say that the temperature will be increasing because the sun become closer to us but the sun is very humane it gives us this grand solar minimum for 30 years to sort out our understanding how the heating comes through and then prepare for the next stage of heating which come does no matter what we do on Earth; if we stop using fuels, we crawl to the caves and start using I don’t know what energy.   All people will die still the temperature will increase, it doesn’t matter what we do.

So this prediction of the anthropogenic global warming people is not working.  The temperature will be increasing no matter what we do with CO2 because the increase of the temperature comes from the solar inertial motion.   So this my conclusion: We had this global warming–it is real;  it is not caused by humans because human only contribute 6% maximum of all CO2.  And CO2 is a very good gas because it is mostly absorbed by the plants and not by humans.

Global warming is caused by this Solar inertial motion and gravitation of large planets which drag the Sun from the center Body Center closer to the planets and this causes the increase of the  temperature.  And the temperature as I shown in my book will increase by 2.5-3° by 25-2600 years. This is the end of the story.

TN: Thank you it sounds like we’re due for some cooling between now and 2053 but warming in general between then and 2600.  I’m curious, do you think we’re going to see the temperatures freeze over at all?

Yes, I’m confident it will be freezing from 2031 to 2042 for sure.  This will be the worst period of cold air and cold temperature and not only temps.  Rivers and the ponds will be freezing all right and other dramatic things that might happen.  It’s going to be a lot harder to grow wheat in Canada for example, I would guess during that time absolutely.  In 17th century people heated their houses with their own fireplaces, now we have central heating.  If we don’t have electricity even our Central heating is not working, so you need to have the portable generators run from fossil fuel or have a wood stove in your house.  At that time people grew up something in their Gardens, now people don’t know how to grow up anything, so it will be really really difficult.

See Also:

Zharkova on Solar Forcing and Global Cooling

Good Reasons to Distrust Climatists

Posted on by Ron Clutz

The most recent case of climatists’ bad behavior is the retraction of a peer-reviewed paper analyzing the properties of CO2 as an IR active gas, concluding that additional levels of atmospheric CO2 will have negligible effect on temperatures.  From the Daily Sceptic:

Another important paper taking issue with the ‘settled’ climate narrative has been cancelled following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric ‘saturation’ of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki and appeared on Elsevier’s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million years despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.

Below are some comments responding to a Quora question, text in italics with my bolds and added images:

What are some reasons why some people do not believe in climate change or global warming despite scientific evidence? Is there any additional information that could help us understand their perspective?

Answer from Mike Jonas,  M.A. in Mathematics, Oxford University, UK, 

Good scientists do not lie and cheat to protect their science, they are happy to discuss their evidence and their findings, and they always understand that everything needs to be replicable and verifiable.

When Climategate erupted on the scene, and the climate scientists behind the man-made global warming narrative were found to have lied and cheated, all honest scientists thought that would be the end of it. Instead, what happened was that those climate scientists closed ranks and carried on, supported by a massive amount of government (ie, the public’s) money. One of the first things they did was to deflect Climategate by saying the emails involved had been hacked so should be ignored, but some of the people involved confirmed that all of the emails really were genuine.

It has been about 15 years since Climategate, and study after study has shown virtually all of the components of the man-made global warming narrative to be incorrect, even that none of the computer models used by the IPCC are fit for purpose,

And yet they maintained their closed ranks,
and the government money kept pouring in.

Did you know that the IPCC does not do any research (please do check that, on their web page About – IPCC they state “The IPCC does not conduct its own research”). It is, as its name says, an inter-governmental organisation, and it is run by and for governments. They say lots of persuasive sciency things, but the simple fact is that they cherry-pick and corrupt the science to achieve their ends. Regrettably, almost all the scientific societies are on the gravy train too. This is part of what the highly respected physicist Professor Hal Lewis said in his resignation letter to the American Physical Society (APS):

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.

I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge?
It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

If you want to find out more about this “greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud”, the website Watts Up With That? is a good place to start (the fraudsters absolutely hate it), and it links to many other good websites. It has the full text of Hal Lewis’ resignation letter at:

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society – an important moment in science history

Answer from Susannah Moyer

It’s curious that climate science is the rare scientific field where dissenting scientists, those with contrarian views, are unwelcome and even ostracized.

There are some well known climate scientists that have doubts about the role of CO2 and man made global warming as it pertains to global temperature. They have raised the issue that computer generated prediction models have been inaccurate in predicting temperature patterns because the modeling requires assumptions that have not been shown to be accurate.

Here is a contrarian view from climate scientists who have published climate research results in Nature, which is no small feat:

McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

It is not a known fact by how much the Earth’s atmosphere will warm in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming numbers most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming. The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on many assumptions and engineering to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.

We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was “one-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.” As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years.

“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.

Another questioner, Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama’s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

But—here’s the catch—those questions are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.

Firstly, even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.

A second challenge to “knowing” future climate is today’s poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate’s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.

A third fundamental challenge arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute the climate’s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.

Climate Science Is Not Settled

Another group questioning what some consider “settled science”:

  • Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris;
  • J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting;
  • Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University;
  • Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society;
  • Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences;
  • William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton;
  • Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.;
  • William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
  • Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
  • James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University;
  • Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences;
  • Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne;
  • Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator;
  • Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem;
  • Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
  • Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society (APS), from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue?

There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question
“cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

 

 

 

 

Happer: Cloud Radiation Matters, CO2 Not So Much (2025)

Posted on by Ron Clutz

This month van Wijngaarden and Happer published a new paper Radiation Transport in Clouds.

Last year William Happer spoke on Radiation Transfer in Clouds at the EIKE conference, and the video is above.  For those preferring to read, below is a transcript from the closed captions along with some key exhibits.  I left out the most technical section in the latter part of the presentation. Text in italics with my bolds.

William Happer: Radiation Transfer in Clouds

People have been looking at Clouds for a very long time in in a quantitative way. This is one of the first quantitative studies done about 1800. And this is John Leslie,  a Scottish physicist who built this gadget. He called it an Aethrioscope, but basically it was designed to figure out how effective the sky was in causing Frost. If you live in Scotland you worry about Frost. So it consisted of two glass bulbs with a very thin capillary attachment between them. And there was a little column of alcohol here.

The bulbs were full of air, and so if one bulb got a little bit warmer it would force the alcohol up through the capillary. If this one got colder it would suck the alcohol up. So he set this device out under the clear sky. And he described that the sensibility of the instrument is very striking. For the liquor incessantly falls and rises in the stem with every passing cloud. in fine weather the aethrioscope will seldom indicate a frigorific impression of less than 30 or more than 80 millesimal degrees. He’s talking about how high this column of alcohol would go up and down if the sky became overclouded. it may be reduced to as low as 15 refers to how much the sky cools or even five degrees when the congregated vapours hover over the hilly tracks. We don’t speak English that way anymore but I I love it.

The point was that even in 1800 Leslie and his colleagues knew very well that clouds have an enormous effect on the cooling of the earth. And of course anyone who has a garden knows that if you have a clear calm night you’re likely to get Frost and lose your crops. So this was a quantitative study of that.

Now it’s important to remember that if you go out today the atmosphere is full of two types of radiation. There’s sunlight which you can see and then there is the thermal radiation that’s generated by greenhouse gases, by clouds and by the surface of the Earth. You can’t see thermal radiation but you you can feel it if it’s intense enough by its warming effect. And these curves practically don’t overlap so we’re really dealing with two completely different types of radiation.

There’s sunlight which scatters very nicely and off of not only clouds but molecules; it’s the blue sky the Rayleigh scattering. Then there’s the thermal radiation which actually doesn’t scatter at all on molecules so greenhouse gases are very good at absorbing thermal radiation but they don’t scatter it. But clouds scatter thermal radiation and plotted here is the probability that you will find Photon of sunlight between you know log of its wavelength and the log of in this interval of the wavelength scale.

Since Leslie’s day two types of instruments have been developed to do what he did more precisely. One of them is called a pyranometer and this is designed to measure sunlight coming down onto the Earth on a day like this. So you put this instrument out there and it would read the flux of sunlight coming down. It’s designed to see sunlight coming in every direction so it doesn’t matter which angle the sun is shining; it’s uh calibrated to see them all.

Let me show you a measurement by a pyranometer. This is a actually a curve from a sales brochure of a company that will sell you one of these devices. It’s comparing two types of detectors and as you can see they’re very good you can hardly tell the difference. The point is that if you look on a clear day with no clouds you see sunlight beginning to increase at dawn it peaks at noon and it goes down to zero and there’s no sunlight at night. So half of the day over most of the Earth there’s no sunlight in the in the atmosphere.

Here’s a day with clouds, it’s just a few days later shown by days of the year going across. You can see every time a cloud goes by the intensity hitting the ground goes down. With a little clear sky it goes up, then down up and so on. On average at this particular day you get a lot less sunlight than you did on the clear day.

But you know nature is surprising. Einstein had this wonderful quote: God is subtle but he’s not malicious. He meant that nature does all of sorts of things you don’t expect, and so let me show you what happens on a partly cloudy day. Here so this is data taken near Munich. The blue curve is the measurement and the red curve is is the intensity on the ground if there were no clouds. This is a partly cloudy day and you can see there are brief periods when the sunlight is much brighter on the detector on a cloudy day than it is on the clear day. And that’s because coming through clouds you get focusing from the edges of the cloud pointing down toward your detector. That means somewhere else there’s less radiation reaching the ground. But this is rather surprising to most people. I was very surprised to learn about it but it just shows that the actual details of climate are a lot more subtle than you might think.

We know that visible light only happens during the daytime and stops at night. There’s a second type of important radiation which is the thermal radiation which is measured by a similar device. You have a silicon window that passes infrared, which is below the band gap of silicon, so it passes through it as though transparent. Then there’s some interference filters here to give you further discrimination against sunlight. So sunlight practically doesn’t go through this at all, so they call it solar solar blind since it doesn’t see the Sun.

But it sees thermal radiation very clearly with a big difference between this device and the sunlight sensing device I showed you. Because actually most of the time this is radiating up not down. Out in the open air this detector normally gets colder than the body of the instrument. And so it’s carefully calibrated for you to compare the balance of down coming radiation with the upcoming radiation. Upcoming is normally greater than down coming.

I’ll show you some measurements of the downwelling flux here; these are actually in Greenland in Thule and these are are watts per square meter on the vertical axis here. The first thing to notice is that the radiation continues day and night you can you if you look at the output of the pyrgeometer you can’t tell whether it’s day or night because the atmosphere is just as bright at night as it is during the day. However, the big difference is clouds: on a cloudy day you get a lot more downwelling radiation than you do on a clear day. Here’s a a near a full day of clear weather there’s another several days of clear weather. Then suddenly it gets cloudy. Radiation rises because the bottoms of the clouds are relatively warm at least compared to the clear sky. I think if you put the numbers In, this cloud bottom is around 5° Centigrade so it was fairly low Cloud. it was summertime in Greenland and this compares to about minus 5° for the clear sky.

So there’s a lot of data out there and there really is downwelling radiation there no no question about that you measure it routinely. And now you can do the same thing looking down from satellites so this is a picture that I downloaded a few weeks ago to get ready for this talk from Princeton and it was from Princeton at 6 PM so it was already dark in Europe. So this is a picture of the Earth from a geosynchronous satellite that’s parked over Ecuador. You are looking down on the Western Hemisphere and this is a filtered image of the Earth in Blue Light at 47 micrometers. So it’s a nice blue color not so different from the sky and it’s dark where the sun has set. There’s still a fair amount of sunlight over the United States and the further west.

Here is exactly the same time and from the same satellite the infrared radiation coming up at 10.3 which is right in the middle of the infrared window where there’s not much Greenhouse gas absorption; there’s a little bit from water vapor but very little, trivial from CO2.

As you can see, you can’t tell which side is night and which side is day. So even though the sun has set over here it is still glowing nice and bright. There’s sort of a pesky difference here because what you’re looking at here is reflected sunlight over the intertropical Convergence Zone. There are lots of high clouds that have been pushed up by the convection in the tropics and uh so this means more visible light here. You’re looking at emission of the cloud top so this is less thermal light so white here means less light, white there means more light so you have to calibrate your thinking. to

But the Striking thing about all of this: if you can see the Earth is covered with clouds, you have to look hard to find a a clear spot of the earth. Roughly half of the earth maybe is clear at any given time but most of it’s covered with clouds. So if anything governs the climate it is clouds and and so that’s one of the reasons I admire so much the work that Svensmark and Nir Shaviv have done. Because they’re focusing on the most important mechanism of the earth: it’s not Greenhouse Gases, it’s Clouds. You can see that here.

Now this is a single frequency let me show you what happens if you look down from a satellite and do look at the Spectrum. This is the spectrum of light coming up over the Sahara Desert measured from a satellite. And so here is the infrared window; there’s the 10.3 microns I mentioned in the previous slide it’s it’s a clear region. So radiation in this region can get up from the surface of the Sahara right up to outer space.

Notice that the units on these scales are very different; over the Sahara the top unit is 200, 150 over the Mediterranean and it’s only 60 over the South Pole. But at least the Mediterranean and the Sahara are roughly similar so the right side here these three curves on the right are observations from satellites and the three curves on the left are are calculations modeling that we’ve done. The point here is that you can hardly tell the difference between a model calculation and observed radiation.

So it’s really straightforward to calculate radiation transfer. If someone quotes you a number in watts per square centimeter you should take it seriously; that probably a good number. If they tell you a temperature you don’t know what to make about it. Because there’s a big step between going from watts per square centimeter to a temperature change. All the mischief in the whole climate business is going from watts per square centimeter to to Centigrade or Kelvin.

Now I will say just a few words about clear sky because that is the simplest. Then we’ll get on to clouds, the topic of this talk. This is a calculation with the same codes that I showed you in the previous slide which as you saw work very well. It’s worth spending a little time because this is the famous Planck curve that was the birth of quantum mechanics. There is Max Planck who figured out what the formula for that curve is and why it is that way. This is what the Earth would radiate at 15° Centigrade if there were no greenhouse gases. You would get this beautiful smooth curve the Planck curve. If you actually look at the Earth from the satellites you get a raggedy jaggedy black curve. We like to call that the Schwarzchild curve because Carl Schwarzchild was the person who showed how to do that calculation. Tragically he died during World War I, a Big Big loss to science.

There are two colored curves that I want to draw your attention. The green curve is is what Earth would radiate to space if you took away all the CO2 so it only differs from the black curve you know in the CO2 band here this is the bending band of CO2 which is the main greenhouse effect of CO2. There’s a little additional effect here which is the asymmetric stretch but it it doesn’t contribute very much. Then here is a red curve and that’s what happens if you double CO2.

So notice the huge asymmetry. If taking all 400 parts per million of CO2 away from the atmosphere causes this enormous change 30 watts per square meter, the difference between this green 307 and and the black 277, that’s 30 watts per square meter. But if you double CO2 you practically don’t make any change. This is the famous saturation of CO2. At the levels we have now doubling CO2, a 100% Increase of CO2 only changes the radiation to space by 3 watts per square meter. The difference between 274 for the red curve and 277 for the curve for today. So it’s a tiny amount: for 100% increase in CO2 a 1% decrease of radiation to space.

That allows you to estimate the feedback-free climate sensitivity in your head. I’ll talk you through the feedback-free climate free sensitivity. So doubling CO2 is a 1% decrease of radiation to space. If that happens then the Earth will start to warm up. But it will radiate as the fourth power of the temperature. So temperature starts to rise but if you’ve got a fourth power, the temperature only has to rise by one-quarter of a percent absolute temperature. So a 1% forcing in watts per square centimeter is a one-quarter percent of temperature in Kelvin. Since the ambient Kelvin temperature is about 300 Kelvin (actually a little less) a quarter of that is 75 Kelvin. So the feedback free equilibrium climate sensitivity is less than 1 Degree. It’s 0.75 Centigrade. It’s a number you can do in your head.

So when you hear about 3 centigrade instead of .75 C that’s a factor of four, all of which is positive feedback. So how is there really that much positive feedback? Because most feedbacks in nature are negative. The famous Le Chatelier principle which says that if you perturb a system it reacts in a way to to dampen the perturbation not increase it. There are a few positive feedback systems that we’re familiar with for example High explosives have positive feedback. So if the earth’s climate were like other positive feedback systems, all of them are highly explosive, it would have exploded a long time ago. But the climate has never done that, so the empirical observational evidence from geology is that the climate is like any other feedback system it’s probably negative Okay so I leave that thought with you and and let me stress again:

This is clear skies no clouds; if you add clouds all this does is
suppress the effects of changes of the greenhouse gas.

So now let’s talk about clouds and the theory of clouds, since we’ve already seen clouds are very important. Here is the formidable equation of transfer which has been around since Schwarzchild’s day. So some of the symbols here relate to the intensity, another represents scattering. If you have a thermal radiation on a greenhouse gas where it comes in and immediately is absorbed, there’s no scattering at all. If you hit a cloud particle it will scatter this way or that way, or some maybe even backwards.

So all of that’s described by this integral so you’ve got incoming light at One Direction and you’ve got outgoing light at a second Direction. And then at the same time you’ve got thermal radiation so the warm particles of the cloud are are emitting radiation creating photons which are coming out and and increasing the Earth glow the and this is represented by two parameters. Even a single cloud particle has an albedo, this is is the fraction of radiation that hits the cloud that is scattered as opposed to absorbed and being converted to heat. It’s a very important parameter for visible light and white clouds, typically 99% of the encounters are scattered. But for thermal radiation it’s much less. So water scatters thermal radiation only half as efficiently as shorter wavelengths.

The big problem is that in spite of all the billions of dollars that we have spent, these things which should be known and and would have been known if there hadn’t been this crazy fixation on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. And so we’ve neglected working on these areas that are really important as opposed to the trivial effects of greenhouse gases. Attenuation in a cloud is both scattering and absorption. Of course you have to solve these equations for every different frequency of the light because especially for molecules, there’s a strong frequency dependence.

In summary,  let me show you this photo which was taken by Harrison Schmitt who was a friend of mine on one of the first moonshots. It was taken in December and looking at this you can see that they were south of Madagascar when the photograph was taken. You can see it was Winter because here the Intertropical Convergence Zone is quite a bit south of the Equator; it’s moved Way South of India and Saudi Arabia. By good luck they had the sun behind them so they had the whole earth Irradiated.

There’s a lot of information there and and again let me draw your attention to how much of the Earth is covered with clouds. So only very small parts of the Earth can actually be directly affected by greenhouse gases, of the order of half. The takeaway message is that clouds and water vapor are much more important than greenhouse gases for earth’s climate. The second point is the reason they’re much more important: doubling CO2 as I indicated in the middle of the talk only causes a 1% difference of radiation to space. It is a very tiny effect because of saturation. You know people like to say that’s not so, but you can’t really argue that one, even the IPCC gets the same numbers that we do.

And you also know that covering half of the sky with clouds will decrease solar heating by 50%. So for clouds it’s one to one, for greenhouse gases it’s a 100 to one. If you really want to affect the climate, you want to do something to the clouds. You will have a very hard time making any difference with Net Zero with CO2 if you are alarmed about the warmings that have happened.

So one would hope that with all the money that we’ve spent trying to turn CO2 into a demon that some good science has come out of it. From my point of view this is a small part of it, this scattering theory that I think will be here a long time after the craze over greenhouse gases has gone away. I hope there will be other things too. You can point to the better instrumentation that we’ve got, satellite instrumentation as well as ground instrumentation. So that’s been a good investment of money. But the money we’ve spent on supercomputers and modeling has been completely wasted in my view.

Lacking Data, Climate Models Rely on Guesses

Posted on by Ron Clutz

A recent question was posed on  Quora: Say there are merely 15 variables involved in predicting global climate change. Assume climatologists have mastered each variable to a near perfect accuracy of 95%. How accurate would a climate model built on this simplified system be?  Keith Minor has a PhD in organic chemistry, PhD in Geology, and PhD in Geology & Paleontology from The University of Texas at Austin.  He responded with the text posted below in italics with my bolds and added images.

I like the answers to this question, and Matthew stole my thunder on the climate models not being statistical models. If we take the question and it’s assumptions at face value, one unsolvable overriding problem, and a limit to developing an accurate climate model that is rarely ever addressed, is the sampling issue. Knowing 15 parameters to 99+% accuracy won’t solve this problem.

The modeling of the atmosphere is a boundary condition problem. No, I’m not talking about frontal boundaries. Thermodynamic systems are boundary condition problems, meaning that the evolution of a thermodynamic system is dependent not only on the conditions at t > 0 (is the system under adiabatic conditions, isothermal conditions, do these conditions change during the process, etc.?), but also on the initial conditions at t = 0 (sec, whatever). Knowing almost nothing about what even a fraction of a fraction of the molecules in the atmosphere are doing at t = 0 or at t > 0 is a huge problem to accurately predicting what the atmosphere will do in the near or far future. [See footnote at end on this issue.]

Edward Lorenz attempted to model the thermodynamic behavior of the atmosphere by using models that took into account twelve variables (instead of fifteen as posed by the questioner), and found (not surprisingly) that there was a large variability in the models. Seemingly inconsequential perturbations would lead to drastically different results, which diverged (euphemism for “got even worse”) the longer out in time the models were run (they still do). This presumably is the origin of Lorenz’s phrase “the butterfly effect”. He probably meant it to be taken more as an instructive hypothetical rather than a literal effect, as it is too often taken today. He was merely illustrating the sensitivity of the system to the values of the parameters, and not equating it to the probability of outcomes, chaos theory, etc., which is how the term has come to be known. This divergence over time is bad for climate models, which try to predict the climate decades from now. Just look at the divergence of hurricane “spaghetti” models, which operate on a multiple-week scale.

The sources of variability include:

♦  the inability of the models to handle water (the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not CO2) and processes related to it;
♦  e.g., models still can’t handle the formation and non-formation of clouds;
♦  the non-linearity of thermodynamic properties of matter (which seem to be an afterthought, especially in popular discussions regarding the roles that CO2 plays in the atmosphere and biosphere), and
♦  the always-present sampling problem.

While in theory it is possible to know what a statistically significant number of the air and water molecules are doing at any point in time (that would be a lot of atoms and molecules!), a statistically significant sample of air molecules is certainly not being sampled by releasing balloons twice a day from 90 some odd weather stations in the US and territories, plus the data from commercial aircraft, plus all of the weather data from around the World. Doubling this number wouldn’t help, i.e wouldn’t make any difference. Though there are some blind spots, such as northeast Texas that might benefit from having a radar in the area. So you have to weigh the cost of sampling more of the atmosphere versus the 0% increase in forecasting accuracy (within experimental error) that you would get by doing so.

I’ll go out on a limb and say that the NWS (National Weather Service) is actually doing pretty good job in their 5-day forecasts with the current data and technologies that they have (e.g., S-band radar), and the local meteorologists use their years of experience and judgment to refine the forecasts to their viewing areas. The old joke is that a meteorologist’s job is the one job where you can be wrong more than half the time and still keep your job, but everyone knows that they go to work most, if not all, days with one hand tied behind their back, and sometimes two! The forecasts are not that far off on average, and so meteorologists get my unconditional respect.

In spite of these daunting challenges, there are certainly a number of areas in weather forecasting that can be improved by increased sampling, especially on a local scale. For example, for severe weather outbreaks, the CASA project is being implemented using multiple, shorter range radars that can get multiple scan directions on nearby severe-warned cells simultaneously. This resolves the problem caused by the curvature of the Earth as well as other problems associated with detecting storm-scale features tens or hundreds of miles away from the radar. So high winds, hail, and tornadoes are weather events where increasing the local sampling density/rate might help improve both the models and forecasts.

Prof. Wurman at OU has been doing this for decades with his pioneering work with mobile radar (the so-called “DOW’s”). Let’s not leave out the other researchers who have also been doing this for decades. The strategy of collecting data on a storm from multiple directions at short distances, coupled with supercomputer capabilities, has been paying off for a number of years. As a recent example, Prof. Orf at UW Madison, with his simulation of the May 24th, 2011 El Reno, OK tornado (you’ve probably seen it on the Internet), has shed light on some of the “black box” aspects to how tornadoes form. [Video below is Leigh Orf 1.5 min segment for 2018 Blue Waters Symposium plenary session. This segment summarizes, in 90 seconds, some of the team’s accomplishments on the Blue Waters supercomputer over the past five years.]

Prof. Orf’s simulation is just that, and the resolution is around ~10 m (~33 feet), but it illustrates how increased targeted sampling can be effective in at least understanding the complex, thermodynamic processes occurring within a storm. Colleagues have argued that the small improvements in warning times in the last couple of decades are really due more to the heavy spotter presence these days rather than case studies of severe storms. That may be true. However, in test cases of the CASA system, it picked out the subtle boundaries along which the storms fired that did go unnoticed with the current network of radars. So I’m optimistic about increased targeted sampling for use in an early warning system.

These two examples bring up a related problem-too much data! As commented on by a local meteorologist at a TESSA meeting, one of the issues with CASA that will have to be resolved is how to handle/process the tremendous amounts of data that will be generated during a severe weather outbreak. This is different from a research project where you can take your data back to the “lab”. In a real-time system, such as CASA, you need to have the ability to process the volumes of data rapidly so a meteorologist can quickly make a decision and get that life-saving info to the public. This data volume issue may be less of a problem for those using the data to develop climate models.

So back to the Quora question, with regard to a cost-effective (cost-effect is the operational term) climate model or models (say an ensemble model) that would “verify” say 50 years from now, the sampling issue is ever present, and likely cost-prohibitive at the level needed to make the sampling statistically significant. And will the climatologist be around in 50 years to be “hoisted with their own petard” when the climate model is proven to be wrong? The absence of accountability is the other problem with these long-range models into which many put so much faith.

But don’t stop using or trying to develop better climate models. Just be aware of what variables they include, how well they handle the parameters, and what their limitations are. How accurate would a climate model built on this simplified system [edit: of 15 well-defined variables (to 95% confidence level)] be? Not very!

My Comment

As Dr. Minor explains, powerful modern computers can process detailed observation data to simulate and forecast storm activity.  There are more such tools for preparing and adapting to extreme weather events which are normal in our climate system and beyond our control.  He also explains why long-range global climate models presently have major limitations for use by policymakers.

Footnote Regarding Initial Conditions Problem

What About the Double Pendulum?

Trajectories of a double pendulum

A comment by tom0mason at alerted me to the science demonstrated by the double compound pendulum, that is, a second pendulum attached to the ball of the first one. It consists entirely of two simple objects functioning as pendulums, only now each is influenced by the behavior of the other.

Lo and behold, you observe that a double pendulum in motion produces chaotic behavior. In a remarkable achievement, complex equations have been developed that can and do predict the positions of the two balls over time, so in fact the movements are not truly chaotic, but with considerable effort can be determined. The equations and descriptions are at Wikipedia Double Pendulum

Long exposure of double pendulum exhibiting chaotic motion (tracked with an LED)

But here is the kicker, as described in tomomason’s comment:

If you arrive to observe the double pendulum at an arbitrary time after the motion has started from an unknown condition (unknown height, initial force, etc) you will be very taxed mathematically to predict where in space the pendulum will move to next, on a second to second basis. Indeed it would take considerable time and many iterative calculations (preferably on a super-computer) to be able to perform this feat. And all this on a very basic system of known elementary mechanics.

Our Chaotic Climate System