20 Years of Climate Change

Hi! My name is Zoe, and I’m a highly respectable person and therefore a climate alarmist.

Humans are causing severe climate change and 99.999999+ bazillion percent of scientists agree. Only a few bad and uneducated people disagree. I will show them with sound reasoning why they are wrong.

Here’s the best evidence that humans are to blame:

First, there was a lot of warming over the last 20 years all over the planet. We can see this in the excellent CERES project data:

Surface Upwelling Longwave Radiation (W/m²)

2001 398.9112
2002 399.1996
2003 399.2499
2004 399.1482
2005 399.2486
2006 399.2572
2007 399.1854
2008 399.1008
2009 399.1028
2010 399.0994
2011 399.0505
2012 399.0608
2013 399.0746
2014 399.1138
2015 399.2117
2016 399.3063
2017 399.3712
2018 399.4171
2019 399.4999
2020 399.5614

Source: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CERES/CERES_EBAF_Edition4.1/citation

Look at that! An additional ~ +0.65 W/m2 coming from the surface. Merely showing warming is proof that humans caused it. But if that’s not enough for deniers like you, let’s proceed further.

We all know that greenhouse gases trap heat and reduce outgoing radiation. Since obviously humans alone have risen the atmospheric CO2 content with their bad polluting, we should expect to see a decrease in outgoing radiation:

Upwelling Longwave Radiation to Space (W/m²):

2001 240.1311
2002 240.3947
2003 240.4664
2004 240.4265
2005 240.4231
2006 240.4333
2007 240.4387
2008 240.3824
2009 240.3761
2010 240.3857
2011 240.3767
2012 240.3637
2013 240.3613
2014 240.3720
2015 240.3935
2016 240.4188
2017 240.4379
2018 240.4397
2019 240.4655
2020 240.4967

Source: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CERES/CERES_EBAF_Edition4.1/citation

See? All good …. Wait …

Adding GHGs didn’t reduce outgoing radiation to space? There was an increase? That’s weird.

Well, surely to raise surface temperatures, the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere must be emitting more to the surface!

Atmosphere Downwelling Radiation (W/m²):

2001 345.9088
2002 345.9536
2003 345.9887
2004 346.0057
2005 346.1214
2006 346.0831
2007 345.9341
2008 345.7438
2009 345.6955
2010 345.7130
2011 345.6133
2012 345.6087
2013 345.6394
2014 345.6938
2015 345.8217
2016 345.9240
2017 345.9850
2018 345.9551
2019 345.9548
2020 345.8976

Source: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CERES/CERES_EBAF_Edition4.1/citation

Hmm … pretty much stayed flat. That can’t explain the warming.

What about the sun?

Incoming Solar Radiation (W/m²):

2001 339.3737
2002 339.3658
2003 339.3230
2004 339.2988
2005 339.2740
2006 339.2524
2007 339.2344
2008 339.2214
2009 339.2109
2010 339.2086
2011 339.2136
2012 339.2217
2013 339.2266
2014 339.2317
2015 339.2379
2016 339.2369
2017 339.2331
2018 339.2290
2019 339.2248
2020 339.2246

Source: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CERES/CERES_EBAF_Edition4.1/citation

Ha ha, solar power decreased. Checkmate stupid deniers.

Hmm, but what could it be? Let me check something else …

Surface Downwelling Solar -
Surface Upwelling Solar =
Net Solar @ the Surface (W/m²)

2001 185.9094 - 23.4757 = 162.4337
2002 185.9978 - 23.4542 = 162.5436
2003 186.0969 - 23.4142 = 162.6827
2004 186.1657 - 23.4145 = 162.7512
2005 186.1106 - 23.3699 = 162.7407
2006 186.1072 - 23.3321 = 162.7751
2007 186.0732 - 23.3219 = 162.7513
2008 186.1493 - 23.3190 = 162.8303
2009 186.1456 - 23.3198 = 162.8258
2010 186.0461 - 23.2820 = 162.7641
2011 186.0331 - 23.2641 = 162.7690
2012 186.0388 - 23.2483 = 162.7905
2013 186.0577 - 23.2634 = 162.7943
2014 186.0882 - 23.2699 = 162.8183
2015 186.1036 - 23.2494 = 162.8542
2016 186.1392 - 23.2089 = 162.9303
2017 186.1627 - 23.1869 = 162.9758
2018 186.2138 - 23.1768 = 163.0370
2019 186.2542 - 23.1582 = 163.0960
2020 186.3039 - 23.1502 = 163.1537

Source: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CERES/CERES_EBAF_Edition4.1/citation

It looks like despite less solar power, there is more sun actually reaching the surface, and less sun reflected back to space. This extra ~0.72 W/m2 seems to cover all the surface warming completely.

I’m starting to see a complete lack of any role of CO2 in warming over the last 20 years.

But that’s OK. I’m a morally superior person, and I will still say that CO2 and humans did it … somehow. No evidence will change my mind because I already know better. It’s just the right thing to do.

— Satire Over —

So, yeah, any serious person going to argue that humans reduced the clouds and made the surface more absorptive?

The facts don’t support the climate change cult.

Any minor thing humans may have done in the last 2 decades is completely washed out by nature.

The warming was completely induced on the solar shortwave side of the equation.

Enjoy 🙂 -Zoe


# Zoe Phin, 2022/06/09
# File: ceres.sh
# Run: . ceres.sh; require; download; show

require() { sudo apt-get install -y nco; }
download() {
    echo go to: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/data/CERES/EBAF/Edition4.1/
    echo download the only file there. rename to: ceres.nc
one() {
    ncks -HC --trd -v g$1_mon ceres.nc | awk -F '[= ]' '{print $2" "$4
    }' | awk 'NR>10&&$2{print $1-L" "$2-$3; L=$1}' | sed 1d | awk 'NR!=1&&NR%12==1{
        printf "%d %.4f\n", 2001+Y++, S/D;
    } NR%12!=1 { S+=$2*$1; D+=$1; }'
pair() {
    one $1_down_$2 > .$1d; one $1_up_$2 > .$1u
    paste .$1d .$1u | awk '{printf "%d %.4f - %.4f = %.4f\n",$1,$2,$4,$2-$4}'
show() {
    echo "Solar"; one solar
    echo "TOA"; one toa_lw_all
    echo "SW"; pair sfc_sw all
    echo "LW"; pair sfc_lw all
    echo "Source: https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CERES/CERES_EBAF_Edition4.1/citation"

Published by Zoe Phin


37 thoughts on “20 Years of Climate Change

      1. Recycled through the Earth’s core by subduction of the sea floor, and out of volcanoes. mostly back into the oceans, BTW, because that is where most of the volcanoes are, not warming the atmosphere and cooling the surface by a small aerosol/dust effect on solar insolation, rather warming the ocean directly with a lot of liquid rock, and where they have c.6.4 times greater output (thinner crust may cause that. No seafloor older than 200Ma, the time it takes to cross the Pacific’ish. etc. PS WE now there are peak emissions at MIlankovitch frequencies, I suggest the effect is sufficiently increased to cause interglacials by the increased volcanism at the 100Ka MIlankovitch cyclic peak (solid tides cause) to cause the sustained warming perturbatuon at that time, before things return to the stable glacial period once the perturbation has dissipated itself. The other two Milankovitch cycles are not energetic or sustained enough to create a fill interglacial. Not since the 41Ka cycle failed 1Ma ago to be replaced by the 100Ka eccentricity cycle.. Probably 🙂


      2. It is a well known fact that CO2
        causes every problem in the world,
        from cancer to warts. It is so deadly
        I feel bad every time I exhale 4% CO2.


  1. This gave me a good smile to start the day here in *cold* melbourne (AU),
    (sure wish we had some of that warming that the media keeps hyperventilating about)
    Reading this post reminded me fondly of the dialogues in Douglas Hofstadters book “Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid” … If you have not already seen it, I am sure you would enjoy it 🙂


  2. And the CO2 warming of oceans ended like this in this research:

    «Attempts to relate directly the curvature of vertical temperature gradient in the TSL («thermal skin layer») and EM («electromagnetic») skin layer, as developed by Wong and Minnett (2016a, 2016b), to changes in the incident IR radiation did not produce a convincing dependence, at least on the time scales of our measurements. Revealing such a relationship will require more sensitive instruments than are currently available.»



    1. Sorry for spamming with more than 2 links, but here is Dr. Antero Ollila work. I’m not scientist, but maybe this is relevant for your post:

      “It’s a change in solar radiation, but since it’s not due to a change in solar activity, I call it shortwave radiation, which has grown sharply specially since 2014. The latest available value is from December 2020, which shows that we are still above 2019 levels, but below 2020.”


      And another one from Ollila, this one also have focus on SW radiation:

      “We have a new climate change factor in the form of SW radiation increase since 2014. We will see in which way the IPCC shall take this matter into account in its coming Assessment Report 6. By knowing the practices of the IPCC, I would not be surprised if this change will be assessed to be anthropogenic by nature. It would be interesting to see, what are the pieces of evidence.”


      He also have his own website at https://www.climatexam.com/home


    1. Oh yeah, I think I left a comments there long ago. The way I look at it now is it’s just heat transfer:

      s*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4)

      If someone wants to say s*T_cold^4 is “backradiation”, I suppose that’s their business. I personally hate that term.

      I’ll look at Johnson’s blog again to see updates. Thank you!


    2. OK, I read his conversation with Gavin.

      I think he’s being too pedantic. I think he’s right, but he admits:

      “Claes: Of course the one-directional SB can be derived from a two-directional version by trivially taking the difference. But that does not say that the two-directional is correct, right?. The one-directional version may be the correct physical law, while the two-directional may still be non-physical.”

      Well, OK.

      My “real steel greenhouse” demonstrates that there is indeed a warming when we switch from:

      E = s*T_cold^4 (= 235)


      E = s*(T_hot^4 – T_cold^4) = s*T_cold^4

      Where E is external emission to space.

      It doesn’t matter if we call s*T_cold^4 in the middle “backradiation” or not, the effect is the same: less heat transfer from hot to cold once cold warms up.


      1. To me, an imaginary flux reflecting the further warming of a hot body due to the insertion of a midrange body as a barrier between a hot body and a cold body, is totally OK. I don’t care that such an imaginary flux can’t be measured, only derived.

        Quote Claes:

        Gross Detector Input = DLR = Net Detector Absorption + Gross Detector Output

        Gross Detector Output = 5.67 x 10^-8 x T_a^4. (False Stefan-Boltzmann Law)

        Evidently DLR = Gross Detector Input critically depends on Gross Detector Output and thus on the formula defining this quantity, which is supposed to be a Stefan-Boltzmann Law for the detector. But the form of the Stefan-Boltzmann’s law used requires the temperature of the radiative surrounding of the detector to be 0 K, which is not the case.

        End quote.

        Apparently he thinks that the way DLR is calculated is false, and secondly that it is unstable (as the difference of two gross numbers can give you anything considering the uncertainty in the numbers, if I understand correctly)

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Don’t know. I think he’s grasping at straws. The parameters are made to fit. They are not perfect and subject to an error range.

          If he has a better way to measure what is attempted to be meaured, he should participate in building it, not just criticizing it.

          He may have a point on some higher abstract level, but I don’t think he’s helping.


  3. THat’s interesting :-). THanks for some component level reality. I suggest it actually easier to understand reality, which is simply that the change we see now is indistinguishable from the natural cycles of change in the past, and the natural control of climate is more powerful than modellers can possibly imagine, more than capable of eliminating the effects of any human perturbations to the natural systems. It has managed the variability of the dominant solar energy on Earth rather well, just for a start. Clue, it’s the oceans that do it.

    As an empiricist and physicist I see several things in the observational record of actual temperatures and the basic control system physics. To summarise, when we have the laws of physics and the observations of nature to guide us, “We don’t need no steenking models”

    1. FACTS: This cycle’s observed warming really peaked in the 1998 El NIno. The observations do not support the theories of further warming, so the theories are wrong. Feynman’s Science 101. A couple of proxy records from Pole and Equator.

    WHY are these highly consistently observed but inconvenient denier observations by NASA’s inconvenient satellites denying the imagined truths we are told are real, and we must believe and be afraid of?

    Modellers are sure the accelerating rise will start happening again, sometime soon. And the World will end due to a 2deg rise at the poles, to where it was during the Minoan period when nothing bad happened and civilisation propered . We should be so lucky. The observations. suggest another truth. The peak reached in 1998 was not only a pause, it was turning point. . Models have been badly designed in multiple ways, so wrong, for the first 30 years of overtly natural cyclic change since we started running them, versus observations. But observational evidence is bad, you should not believe it. Believe the prophecies of modellers..

    2. How Climate is Controlled: A lot of false claims by modellers and activists about how climate is varied and controlled – which is based around a lapse rate set by the barometric formulae any competent climatologist knows, but almost NO activists have ever heard of. Not any Greenhouse effect. Tat is a smallperurbation to the overall lapse rate control. The mechanism is the adiabatic convective cooling of the oceans, mainly by the convective transport of water vapour to the troposphere, that then surrender their latent heat to form the clouds that reflect the sun, hence reducing solar surface insolation. THis energetic effect creates a dominant hence well locked in negative feedback loop that net zeros most small perturbations, as well as large exceptional ones, throughout the 500Ma record,

    Asteroids, caldera collapses, etc..FACTS. The oceans hold most of the surface heat, 1,000 times the atmosphere, and control the climate by setting the necessary equilibrium temperature to maintain the heat balance. At this interglacial moment, it is mainly by the latitudinal range of the Tropical oceans (tropics are wider when its a stronger Interglacial, see Eemian Hippoe in Honiton, Hamburg, etc). No tropical saturated climate during the glacial phase so the oceanic feedback effect is probably more broadly generated?

    3. The natural Reality of the observed past accounts for all the change we currently measure measure in nature. There is no human era anomaly once the prior levels of cyclic change are subtracted from the change we currently observe/measure (versus that the models wrongly predict and doesn’t actually happen).

    The proxy climate records show the current amount of warming to be directly consistent with prior cycles of the same order, a polar 2 deg range, equatorial 1 deg, every 1Ka, with a overall cooling trend for each max and min every 1Ka for the last 3Ka. In particular it is 2 deg colder now than the m Minoan warming/Holocene optimum. A matter of record the IPCC airbrush out with their own science denial of the body of the geological record since 2,000Ka BP, to attribute all natural change to humans, when almost none in fact was, or can be.

    Further the expected turning point in UAH/NASA satellite SSTs is NOW. (I don’t trust wangled and relatively insignificant land records now we have Satellites with comprehensive ocean coverage where the major amount of surface heat is stored).

    Temperatures show no particular increase, still flat lined since the 1998 El Nino. 2016 El Nino was nearly the same, not significantly warmer, as had been the case during the ratcheting up of temperature an El NIno at a time since the 50’s cooling that everyone forgets, while CO2 was rising, etc, – but that’s not important right now. This is:

    4. The Cooling is Coming: The natural cycles, from the clear evidence of nature, suggest cooling is the likely future, at the same rate, period and scale as in the past , so maybe 0.8 deg per century at the poles, 0.4 deg pc at the Equator, for roughly 200 years to the next LIA levels , next warming to a bit cooler than now about 2800AD.

    But that’s the natural cycle we observe. Not the unnatural human effect that is not seen in the frequency analysis of the time series record. Never mind. We must believe the models, and pay to have our cheap plentiful energy supply we depend upon for our prosperity withdrawn, because of the models made up by activists funded by UN with political agendas of transferring wealth around the planet, that forecast degrees above what we measure to support their ends, and predict tipping points that the powerful negative oceanic feedback clearly will not allow to happen. Not now, nor has it for the 500Ma of stability in the egological record.

    What to believe? The careful and repeated observation of nature and the well understood physical control of Earth’s climate at the long term macro level, or the predictions of computer models and their presumptive, unproven and disproven by observation attributions of cause and effect, and reverse our energy dependent WEstern economic progress that depends on using more cheap plentiful energy per capita, in which the US leading the rest of the World by a factor of 2, BTW. Why you are richer there?

    It’s a problem. IF you are delusionally daft. Brian CEng, CPhys, MBA


    1. Uhm ok. Not agreeing, not disagreeing. Will delete later, because it’s got that spammy taste.

      Ppl, first comments should be short. Maybe a link or two, but not this.

      Thank you for the subset of info that is true.


    2. Brian
      You should have your own blog.
      They are free.
      This section is for comments,
      not whole articles!


      1. Thanks you for your comment. I do, its is deconfused.com

        The problem with short comments are that they are overtly without any merit unless supported by referenceable data and physical laws. There is only one truth in science.

        What people think has little bearing on what is real, as this topic shows. Or common sense isn’t, as we say in the UK. or unqualified comment.

        Science is only ever proven by observation, never by opinion or belief. Or models based on the guesses of biased academics with agendas, with no proven physical basis for them.

        I see this blog as being about the scientific reality of climate change, perhaps the scientific and engineering reality of a viable, sustainable, adequate, affordable energy future in its name. Which renewables just aren’t, on so many measures. But that’s another story.

        So I reject your statement and suggest this section must be for debate of the statements made by the author, the initial premise. Where science is involved, that can only be addressed by scientific evidence that others can validate independently, not what people think. Which provided in a simple summary form, not extended.


  4. My ethics teacher wrote the course textbook, Moral RIghts and Political Freedom. Her reductio approach was similarly structured, led to a contradiction requiring change of premises. It made college more of an exciting challenge than a dreary slog for the entire semester. These posts similarly brighten my day.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. You are in the wrong room. Rational logic and scientific method of theory tested by observations are part of their philosophy. They have ideological beliefs to impose through governmet.

    So a reasoned rational approach that addresses their claims of cause and effect is pre failed. You can’t debate that, because authority told you what the answers are, and you must believe what you are told. Deciet is imposed by power and money we don’t have, to profit them, at our expense.


  6. The climate alarmists spend most of
    their time predicting global warming
    in the future much faster than we had in the
    1975 to 2020 period. They never mention
    the global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period,
    but they did “revise it away” from what
    NCAR was reporting in 1975.
    Inconvenient data.
    And science fraud.

    Concerning the current climate, which we
    love here in Michigan, the Climate Howlers
    mainly wait for unusually bad weather,
    and then get hysterical, waving their arms,
    and shouting “man made climate change”,
    like a flock of trained parrots.

    What just happened at the Zoe Blog?
    I practically begged Zoe for a more regular
    publishing schedule, and now she has
    become a writing machine.
    Maybe took my advice?
    First woman who took my advice
    in 45 years! So now that I’m on
    a roll, could could please lose
    that awful black and white
    photo of yourself?
    It’s bad enough
    to scare small children !
    Looks like Zoe the Zombie.
    We like your science.
    We don’t need any photographs.
    Richard Greene
    Bingham Fatms, Michigan


  7. I am one of those who can’t keep up 😉 but I love it! Btw, is this a start of a new trend? We are overwhelmed by graphs that tell everything and the opposite…so tables have a better taste of seriousness and minimalism… don’t they? 🙂 Thanks !

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Um,no. The opposite. Graphs are data. So only one can be right. The data of the other was wrong.

      It is far easier to visualise changes in a graphical presentation than in columns of numbers, because the scale does the scaling of the rate and amount of change/movement for you, and can alter this to be logarithmic, linear, etc. THis shows, but does not prove, possible dependencies between two variables that columns of numbers do not, because they lack the insight graphical presentation brings

      It’s why scientists use graphical representation of their results.

      e.g. For some really cool graphs Hans Rosling dynamic bubble statistics are just great, because they move through time as well as having two variable axes, a point by point by point plot, the third is the point size that represents another parameter, such as population size, all against time. Also colours that identify another, usually country. Sound unreadable? IT isn’t. Here is one. Play it by clicking the play button for 200 years of global wealth vs. life expectancy.

      Wanna know more? You can select your own parameters to plot, the type of scale, countries to include, etc.

      nb: This graph represents 4 data sets at once. Life expectancy, income, and population per countrv, versus time. Click the play button under the graph. Roll your own!



  8. Thanks for this! Some questions on upwelling longwave radiation to space
    1) do you think 2001 looks like an outlier, without that it’s flat 2002-2020 rather than increasing?
    2) Could flat LW radiation to space with increasing LW surface upwelling be a sign of increasing GHG effect? In other words but for the extra GHG, radiation to space would have increased, in fact this could even be true for increasing LW radiation to space?


    1. Solar shortwave completely explains the warming at the bottom. There is no room for CO2 to do anything. If there was a deficit we would have to look more closely, but there is not.


    1. Now CO2 reduces clouds or moves them out of the way. Great. Let’s forget that CO2 was supposed to stir up more water vapor and form MORE clouds. It’s really hard to argue against ideology that changes rhetoric to make it look like it predicted what happened. Look at my latest article. Net Solar at surface seems to be cyclical.


  9. Zoe,

    Thanks for replying.
    Cloud feedback is a separate climate model parameter from Water Vapor feedback.

    See for example here (section 7), where the excellent Brian Rose explains the principal feedbacks that are incorporated into climate change models.


    So it’s not hindsight or something new. Note they were separate parameters even in CMIP3 models (typically dated 2005-2006) – there is no change of rhetoric going on.

    I’m trying not to be negative on your observations though, in particular the two observations you make that challenge climate change models are:

    1) The observation that downwelling LW is flat, this is a surprise, the models forecast increased downwelling LW from CO2 and associated WV feedback.

    2) The observation that surface reflected SW is dropping more quickly than climate change models (23.47 to 23.15); although climate change models show positive albedo feedback, mostly Ice-Albedo feedback, this is way too high for that.


  10. Thanks!

    The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” can be measured as the amount of longwave energy radiated upwards at the surface minus the upwelling longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere.

    If I do that with the data you provide I get an increase in GH effect of 0.28 W/m² from 2001-2020 , so that’s some GHG impact – do you agree or would you dispute this measure also?


    1. Start a campfire … you just increased the local GH effect.

      You didn’t isolate “GHG impact” as the only explanation. You just asserted it.

      The sun (modulated by clouds) made the surface warmer than the atmosphere, and therefore increased LW difference called the “greenhouse effect”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: