Wrong, Phys.org, Faulty Thermometers Aren’t Evidence of a ‘Climate Roller Coaster’
+++++++++++++
December 15, 2025 10:20 am
We are warming the coldest places in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere the most, especially during the coldest times of year. Warming the lower latitudes by much less. This has decreased the meridional temperature gradient and has DECREASED the temperature swings from fronts that cause the biggest changes.
We have warmed the nights much more than the days which has DECREASED the diurnal temperature changes.
This is based on the physics of greenhouse has warming that includes models that are using legit physics and meteorological principles.
This is based on all the observations and empirical data of the real world since the mostly beneficial, modest global warming started.
And this indisputable law will continue to rule as our climate OPTIMUM for life continues.
+++++++++++++++++++
Reply to Mike Maguire
December 15, 2025 3:06 pm
The warmer nights are mostly in UHI impacted areas.
+++++++++++++++++
Sparta Nova 4
December 15, 2025 10:35 am
“across low- to mid-latitude regions”
But, CO2 is well mixed in the atmospheres, so this affect should be all latitudes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Reply to Sparta Nova 4
December 15, 2025 3:49 pm
Thanks, Sparta!
True that CO2 is well mixed in the global atmosphere.
However, one of the most interesting facts about CO2 and H2O as greenhouse gases is that some of their radiation absorption bands overlap and there is a maximum amount of radiation that can be absorbed at each band.
Turns out that in warm, HUMID places some of those bands are already saturated by H2O absorption. It doesn’t matter how much CO2 you add in those regions, there’s no more radiation in those saturated bands left to absorb!
That’s one of the reasons the coldest, driest regions of the northern hemisphere are warming several times faster than the lowered latitudes.
This is also why the warming is much greater in those locations at the coldest, driest times of year. Hard to call warming the most dangerously frigid air masses the most, anything but beneficial to most life on this planet.
Deserts, because of the dry air, have not saturated the long wave absorption bands from H2O and have an elevated warming from the increase in CO2, especially at night.
The tropics have the least warming for the same reason.
The result has been to reduce the meridional temperature gradient.
Cold fronts have less extreme intensity. A weaker temperature gradient means slightly weaker jet streams and less violent tornado numbers in areas that experience that type of weather.
Observations confirm around a 40% drop in the most violent tornadoes.
Actual REPORTS for ALL tornadoes have increased the past 3 decades because of technology.
Reply to Mike Maguire
December 15, 2025 4:00 pm
The term “greenhouse gas” is basically scientific nonsense.
Scientifically, H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere are “radiatively active” gases due to their atomic structure.
Only H2O acts remotely like a greenhouse, in that it slows the natural convection rate.
CO2 has no effect on the natural convection rate, and any possible theoretical radiative effect is so small and so overwhelmed by natural air movement, as to be totally irrelevant.
++++++++++++++++
Michael Flynn
Reply to bnice2000
December 15, 2025 7:49 pm
You can’t make thermometers hotter by adding either CO2, H2O, or any other gas at the same temperature to air.
Sad fact of life, I guess, that GHG believers just refuse to accept. Ignorant, gullible, or just quite mad – who knows?
+++++++++++++++++=
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to bnice2000
December 16, 2025 8:03 am
H2O has a molecular dipole moment due to its structure and interacts with EM fields gaining kinetic energy. It is this phenomenon that is the basis for radar ranges (aka microwave ovens).
CO2 does not have a molecular dipole moment. The dipole moments formed by the C-O bonds are in equal and opposite directions and cancel at the molecular level.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to bnice2000
December 16, 2025 8:12 am
CO2 has no effect on the natural convection rate, and any possible theoretical radiative effect is so small and so overwhelmed by natural air movement, as to be totally irrelevant.
+++++++++++
bnice,
This is completely ignoring the indisputable atmospheric physics and science. Not just theories but proven with all studies using empirical data/observations.
“Decadal variation of longwave downwelling and net radiation as observed at the surface with implication for climate sensitivity: Based on pyrgeometer and pyranometer measurements”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950630124000036
I’m not sure why this idea that CO2 is not contributing to the warming has spread this anti-science bunk to so many people but it destroys all credibility from those that profess this as science.
The authentic science also shows us that the modest warming from CO2 is BENEFICIAL warming for most life on our planet(that would be ok with a little more) and CO2 increasing to DOUBLE the current amount would be massively beneficial during the current climate OPTIMUM.
However, make no mistake, at least half of the warming the past 150 years has come from the increase in CO2 from around 290 ppm to the current amount of near 430 ppm.
++++++++++++++++
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to Mike Maguire
December 16, 2025 9:03 am
A single paper. It correlates downwelling IR to increasing temperature and claims the cause of the downwelling IR is due to CO2. It is laced with unstated assumptions.
It ignores the sun, treating solar EM as a constant.
It is an interesting study, but not nearly as conclusive or authentic as you claim.
Any change in atmospheric temperature due to CO2 is the changing concentration chances the specific heat capacity (Cp) which is also affected by a variety of other factors.
Claiming CO2 is responsible for xx% is not defensible given the number of know factors added to what we do not know.
You are, in effect, defending CO2 as the “control knob.”
+++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to Sparta Nova 4
December 16, 2025 9:00 pm
Thanks, Sparta!
What you stated doesn’t even make sense.
This study was an actual measurement of the real changes from the increase in greenhouse gases, SOLAR RADIATION and albedo using the actual empirical data.
In this study, they used pyranometers to measure the amount of short wave radiation from the sun(that you claimed they ignored) as well as pyrgeometers to measure the long wave radiation from greenhouse gases(mostly CO2 and H2O).
The increase in long wave radiation that they measured was the indisputable increase in long wave radiation from greenhouse gases.
Not maybe, not possibly but it was the scientifically, accurately measured, indisputable empirical data that measured the increase in (mostly) CO2 and H2O forcing.
This is what they found:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950630124000036
During the same period (1998–2021), the net radiation at the surface increased at all sites, except at the South pole. The average annual rate of net radiation was ＋0.312 Wm−2/a, for which longwave downwelling radiation, shortwave global radiation and the decrease in albedo contributed 61%, 30%, and 9%, respectively.
The accurately measured empirical data/observations are ALWAYS the metric that tells us conclusively what happened.
Not models or theories, THE EMPIRICAL DATA.
Authentic science does not dispute the accurately measured empirical data. If you want to believe in something else, it’s NOT authentic science.
+++++++++++
Every legit scientist, including skeptics ACCEPT the physics of greenhouse gas warming. There is disagreement on the exact forcing amount but the physical laws are irrefutable and the increase in CO2 is very likely contributing at least 50% towards the beneficial warming.
Here’s a handful of the very high credentialed and widely followed scientists with a small sample of their work with greenhouse gases, mainly CO2.
(I’m an atmospheric scientist but nobody cares about my work:
Death by GREENING!
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/)
++++++++++++++++++
ON CLIMATE SENSITIVITY
by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
with review assistance from Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/On-Climate-Sensitivity.pdf
A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate
++++++++++++++++++++++=
Reply to Mike Maguire
December 17, 2025 5:00 am
What “increase” in temperature are you talking about? Tmin? Tmax? Both?
“modest warming from CO2” does nothing but show that using temperature as a proxy for “heat” doesn’t work. The higher the surface temperature goes the greater the heat loss from surface radiation.
*HEAT* is the metric that is of interest, not temperature. Yet climate science is absolutely adamant about not changing over to modeling heat instead of temperature. Ask yourself why that is. They’ve had the data for at 45 years to do enthalpy instead of temperature. By now we should have a complete set of literature focused on enthalpy. But we don’t. Hmmmmm……
++++++++++++++++++
Reply to Tim Gorman
December 17, 2025 10:42 am
Thanks, Tim!
I understand your point. However, science needs tools, methods and ways to express ideas that are practical, while at the same time not destroying the meaning and in fact assisting in the understanding.
We could decide to express H2O as how many molecules of H2O, which would be different for ice, liquid or vapor but it’s much easier to record liquid water in rain gauges and use a ruler to measure snow in inches……even though some snow, in warmer air has more molecules worth of H2O in it than other snows in colder air.
John Power
Reply to Tim Gorman
December 17, 2025 4:14 pm
‘*HEAT* is the metric that is of interest, not temperature.’
From the point of view of classical thermodynamics, understanding the behaviour of the global climate system requires us to hold three metrics to be of primary interest, namely: Temperature, Enthalpy and Entropy. Without taking accurate coincidental measurements of all three of these fundamental variables at frequent and regular intervals, we don’t have a hope of being able to understand the system’s thermodynamic behaviour, let alone of being able to build and evolve predictive models of it. At the present time we are simply not technically capable of taking such measurements, even with satellites, and so it looks to me as though we are currently swimming in a boundless sea of possibilities in regard to the global climate system’s near-term, mid-term and long-term trajectories.
++++++++++++++++++
Sparta Nova 4
Reply to Mike Maguire
December 16, 2025 8:00 am
NASA has reports that show CO2 is not “well mixed” in the common sense definition of the word. There are swirls and eddies. CO2 is higher in urban areas than rural per measurements.
Well mixed infers an equilibrium state, which does not exist.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Reply to Sparta Nova 4
December 16, 2025 9:04 am
Thanks, Sparta!
I agree with that.
CO2 levels are seasonal too.
During the Northern Hemisphere’s Winters, with most plants in the mid/high latitudes dead or dormant, CO2 emissions EXCEED CO2 consumption by plants. So there is a surplus that accumulates and increases the concentration in the atmosphere.
During the growing season of the northern hemisphere, active plants and photosynthesis gobble up more than the emissions and we actually observe a DROP in the concentration but not below the amount that accumulated during the Winter.
The seasons in the Southern Hemisphere have less impact because that hemisphere is dominated by more water compared to the Northern Hemisphere that has more land and plants.
Some of the CO2 is also sequestered in other ways, including being absorbed by the oceans but the indisputable law of photosynthesis which uses CO2 as the building block for all of life is what takes full advantage of these increasingly beneficial amounts of atmospheric CO2!
There were several points in that exchange.
One of them, which has been gathering steam at WUWT is that CO2 is not having any impact on warming the planet. This is a 100% proven wrong belief. I provided the actual empirical data from pyrgeometers that measured the INCREASE in long wave radiation from the INCREASE in CO2 and H2O, the 2 main greenhouse gases.
We know with certainty that planet earth's temperature is MUCH warmer because of greenhouse gases.
Since so many people have this wrong, let's use this thread for educational purposes.
I'll repeat the smoking gun, absolute proof using empirical data and measurements here:
“Decadal variation of longwave downwelling and net radiation as observed at the surface with implication for climate sensitivity: Based on pyrgeometer and pyranometer measurements”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950630124000036
+++++++++++++++
I'm having to sort thru numerous sources because its impossible to find any objective ones that tell the truth about the benefits of CO2's warming or that don't have bs editorial, anti science comments about how human emissions of CO2 are causing a climate crisis or destroying the planet.
I'll end up having to use some of them anyways to teach/demonstrate the legit aspects of the atmospheric physics of greenhouse gas warming.
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Earth_Temperature_without_GHGs
Without the influence of the greenhouse effect on our planet, the average surface temperature would be 255 Kelvin - which can also be expressed as -18°C or 0°F.[1] If this were the case, water on Earth would freeze and life as we know it would not exist. This is a significant temperature drop in comparison to the approximately 15°C average temperature on the Earth with the greenhouse effect.
The temperature for the Earth if the greenhouse effect is not taken into account can be derived from the expression called the Stefan-Boltzmann law. By accounting for the surface area of the Earth and the power from the Sun reaching the Earth, the equation is as follows:[3]
S=eσT4
Where:
With accepted values in this equation, the theoretical average temperature of the Earth is:
238.7Wm2=(5.67×10−8Wm2K4)T4
T=(4.22×109K4)1/4=255K=−18°C
The greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s climate liveable, but human activities have increased the amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the air, warming the planet and changing our climate.
+++++++++++++=
metmike: Here's a blatantly misleading statement from this source (typical of most of them) that vilifies a beneficial gas causing the current climate optimum for most life that includes a booming biosphere and greening planet with CO2 levels LESS THAN HALF THE OPTIMAL LEVEL FOR LIFE!
"The carbon dioxide concentration today is much higher than the natural range of 172 to 300 ppm that existed for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact, carbon dioxide concentrations are now likely to be the highest they have been in at least the past 2 million years.
Scientists can tell what past greenhouse gas concentrations were by taking measurements of air trapped in Antarctic ice. These measurements show that for the past 800,000 years, carbon dioxide concentrations remained below 280 ppm."
metmike: The actual graph of CO2 levels below, shows that our planet was just barely above the "red line of death". Below that level, photosynthesis (which was already shutting down) could no longer exist and most life on our planet WOULD DIE! We are still at less than half the optimal level for life.
Death by GREENING!
52 responses |
Started by metmike - May 11, 2021, 2:31 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/69258/
By metmike - June 7, 2025, 4:56 p.m.
Human emissions of CO2 have rescued the planet from CO2 starvation!
The current level of 430 parts per million is still LESS THAN HALF of the optimal level of life.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/140-million-year-trend-of-dangerously-decreasing-co2/
Explore our extensive library of facts and detailed data to empower yourself with knowledge, educate friends and family, and join us in our love for CO2.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/
Here's another source that takes the same anti life, anti science, anti biology, anti authentic climate position. I didn't go looking for sources that said stuff like this because they were unavoidable and are the vast majority out there when searching for legit information to enlighten readers with the authentic scientific principles/truth.
https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-do-greenhouse-gases-actually-warm-planet
“The climate emergency demands action from all of us. We need to get to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and everyone has a role to play,”
+++++++++++++++++++++
I'm an atmospheric scientist that knows the difference and find it almost impossible to locate educational sources that don't have this complete bunk in them.
It's called INDOCTRINATION using fake climate crisis propaganda! The message gatekeepers have almost complete control of the information available for the human population to find out anything on this topic. Unless you have a degree in atmospheric science and are not part of the fake climate crisis cult(which includes plenty of tunnel visioned, biased and corrupt atmospheric scientists) and you actually understand the authentic, honest science.........you are likely to be convinced by the very convincing reading/sounding climate/science propaganda and become another casualty of STOLEN INTELLIGENCE.
Climate science has been very effectively hijacked for political agenda and crony capitalism. Climate history was even rewritten by the IPCC(who's reports are climate crisis gospel in the climate crisis bible for the climate crisis religion). The IPCC completely removed the long accepted Medieval Warm Period from climate history that happened 1,000 year ago because it contradicted their false narratives of this current warming.
Here's the evidence of that:
Re: Re: Climate Crisis-7-25-25
By metmike - July 25, 2025, 2:25 p.m.
Here's an accurate description with the evidence of how they hijacked climate science then REWROTE CLIMATE HISTORY for their agenda. Seriously, they completely eliminated the MedievalWarmPeriod, (proven by 100 studies and long accepted by climate scientists) from climate history!!
Re: Poisoning the minds of young people
By metmike - Aug. 14, 2023, 9:34 p.m.
++++++++++++
Science corruption (IPCC)
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
