No Greenhouse Effect Here

In a previous article, I determined the average surface temperature of Earth without an atmosphere using a collection of equal-area pieces of our planet. What’s interesting is that many places, on average, are hotter without the so-called greenhouse effect than with it! And it’s not a small amount of places!

The following are latitude bands and the amount of area (km2) that have higher shortwave input than longwave output:

$ . ; lats

+1.25 540799
-1.25 1390626
-3.75 2081970
-6.25 2320620
-8.75 2555916
-11.25 2786508
-13.75 2856622
-16.25 3793286
-18.75 4958656
-21.25 6501264
-23.75 7253134
-26.25 7659135
-28.75 7587944
-31.25 7734300
-33.75 8095815
-36.25 8432349
-38.75 8445865
-41.25 8211184
-43.75 7806290
-46.25 7617951
-48.75 7182576
-51.25 6887621
-53.75 6502608
-56.25 5873052
-58.75 4387233
-61.25 2404670
-63.75 538307

$ . ; lats | awk '{A+=$2}END{print A}'


A latitude band is the latitude shown +/- 1.25 degrees.

The total area is 142,406,301 km2, which is nearly 28% of the entire Earth !

Data for all 6596 cells can be downloaded here. Where 3rd column is positive is what I’m discussing.

Common sense tells us that if the radiation-based greenhouse effect doesn’t work for nearly 28% of the planet, it probably doesn’t work anywhere at all.

Nearly the entire anti-greenhouse effect shown here is in southern hemisphere oceans.

That’s all. Enjoy 🙂


# Zoe Phin, 2022/07/06
# File:
# Run: . ; download ; short | avg ; long | avg

grab() { wget -qO- $1 | od -An -tf4 -v -w4 --endian=big; }
download() {
    wget -O grid
    grab "" >
    grab "" >
    grab "" > sw.dn
    grab "" > sw.up
    grab "" > lw.up
avg() { awk '{S+=$1;N+=1}END{printf "%.5f\n",S/N}'; }
short() { 
    paste sw.dn sw.up | awk '!/*/{
        printf "%.5f\n", ($1*(1-$3/$2)/$4/5.670367E-8)^0.25
long() { awk '{ printf "%.5f\n", ($1/5.670367E-8)^0.25}' lw.up; }	
compare() {
    short > .sh; long > .lo
    sed 1,2d grid > .ta
    paste .sh .lo .ta | awk '{
        printf "%.3f %.3f %+8.3f %d %+6.2f\n", $1, $2, $1-$2, $10, $8-90
lats() {
    compare | sed \$d | awk '$3~/+/{L[$5]+=$4} END {for(l in L)print l,L[l]}' | sort -rn

Published by Zoe Phin

136 thoughts on “No Greenhouse Effect Here

  1. The greenhouse gas effect is *not* defined as the difference between shortwave input to the surface and longwave output by the surface. I have no idea why you think this post is relevant.


    1. Do you believe the surface would be warmer (averaged day/night) with an atmosphere filled with GHGs than without?

      Well, this doesn’t work at 28% of places.

      Yes, the GH effect has two different definitions/contexts. When one is debunked, it’s switched to the other.

      The other definition is so stupid, that one can also call the top kilometer layer of dirt the greenhouse effect. Why? Because there is a temperature difference between 1km below and the surface.


  2. What you are looking at is the result of advection. It has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.

    Advection is the ceaseless horizontal transport of energy, by the ocean and the atmosphere, from the tropics where most of the energy enters the planet, to the poles where it is much freer to leave the planet. Here’s a graphic of the locations.

    The amount of energy involved in this flow is stupendous. It is a constant flow of about 20 petawatts. This is about 1,000 times the flow of primary energy consumed by humans.

    Tom’s point is correct. “The greenhouse gas effect is *not* defined as the difference between shortwave input to the surface and longwave output by the surface.”

    You are looking at the greenhouse effect as modified by horizontal advection of stupendous amounts of energy. That’s something very different.



    1. Oh, as if I didn’t know this lame argument wouldn’t be used.

      You didn’t even look at MY data: 98%+ Southern Hemisphere Oceans.

      “You are looking at the greenhouse effect as modified by horizontal advection of stupendous amounts of energy.”

      No. The horizontal advection can explain it all. You’re just getting the GH effect involved for NO reason.

      The GH effect should work everywhere. Look at its design. Who cares if there is horizontal heat transfer? You have constant access to GHGs for your back radiation heating. How do they fail to not enhance every place as compared to not having an atmosphere?

      Now be productive and demonstrate how lateral heating COULD explain surface temperatures without needing GHGs. Can you pursue your own anti-thesis? A real scientist could.


    2. Look at the moon, Willis. The average hottest places are Rocks and dirt next to rocks. The rocks are performing horizontal heat transfer to the dirt all around. And all this without letting themselves be colder than the sun could make them. If the rocks disappeared it would be colder in that spot.

      Does that help?


    1. Willis, what is missing from your research is a valid model of the Earth with an atmosphere but not GHGs. Can you construct such a model?

      You should remove the GH effect of water vapor in this model and see how much advection alone can explain.

      Best regards, -Z


  3. In areas with inverted lapse-rate, the greenhouse-effect purportedly leads to cooling. Antarctica is not on you list…. another indication that the greenhouse effect may indeed be very feeble???


      1. The poles are where the ocean warms the world. It’s also where the ocean is warmed.
        When poles are covered in thick polar sea, the frozen ocean doesn’t warm the world, but since ocean isn’t dumping heat into the polar region, the ocean is cooled a lot less and other factors which warm the ocean [which include oceanic geothermal heat] the average temperature of ocean increases.

        And when ocean warms enough {warms back again] and with Earth orbital changes [Milankovitch cycles]] which cause Ocean surface waters to become warmer [low angle of sunlight on surface ocean waters]. it melts the polar sea, and again warms the polar region. And destroys land glacial ice with lots of rain. And rain melting snow, causes flooding, We had a lot flooding because we have a lot glacial ice. This massive flood also effected global climate, but it did cool the ocean, much. But would have had large affect upon global air temperature.


        1. I thought Antarctica was chlorine-spewing volcano-dotted land–not ocean–under all that ice and snow. I also find graphs that sea level rises linearly as rivers wash uranium-bearing silt into them, the way they do behind dams. It all seemed so real… either that or the sockpuppet is unreal.


  4. There is no greenhouse effect on Venus, either.

    The only thing interesting about Earth is why is it so cold- lately.
    Lately in terms of last few years, lately in last couple of centuries, and lately in terms of
    last couple million years.
    The last couple million of years has been called an Ice Age.
    But this was just the coldest period in longer Ice Age, which is called
    the Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
    Ice Age or ice house global climate which defined having have a polar ice sheet and a cold ocean
    and in last couple, Earth’s largest Island, Greenland also got a ice sheet.

    So, now we have ice sheet in both polar regions. And related what called the Milankovitch cycles
    we have glacial and interglacial periods.
    And the previous interglacial periods have been warmer than interglacial period we are in, called
    Holocene period.
    Anyhow, we in the latter part of Holocene, and it was warmer in the earlier part of Holocene, and we have
    had about 5000 year trend of gradual cooling- with many centuries long dips and rises.
    With last dip called the Little Ice Age.

    Of course our polar bear was around when Earth was much warmer and these warmer periods lasted
    many thousands of of years {with there being no polar sea ice]. And during summer time in early part of
    Holocene, it also no sea ice. And lasted few thousands years. And also Sahara Desert was green during
    this time. Or our green Sahara disappeared about 5000 years ago.
    And it always greens when in the warmest time of interglacial period.


    1. No matter if we found the answer to why it is cold now, we are still left with the question: would it be colder still, had we not increased the amount of CO2 from 280ppm to 415ppm.


      1. The increase from 280 to 415 ppm has been an immeasurable amount. Some are very confident it’s been .2 C or more.
        But there are so many factors which can change air temperature.
        It is said more than 90% of global warming is warming the entire ocean and entire ocean average temperature has increased by about .05 C over last 50 years.
        So, our ocean has been said over our average temperature is about 3.5 C and so it’s increased to about 3.55 C.
        But we have not really measured the temperature of ocean, it could be it’s 3.4 or 3.6 C.

        But terms of heat, the ocean holds 1000 times the heat per 1 C change than the atmosphere or .05 C amount of warming ocean is equal to 50 C increase the atmosphere in terms heat added to Earth global climate.
        But as some have said, the heat is “lost in the ocean”.
        But rather than lost, I think the ocean average temperature is global climate’s temperature.
        Or an ice house global climate has cold ocean, and a cold ocean can ocean which has average ocean temperature of 6 C or more.
        But a 6 C ocean is suppose to be the end of the world, we probably have not had a 6 C ocean in the last 10 million years.
        It is claimed that warmest part of past interglacial periods, had a ocean of 4 C or more.
        If our ocean was 4 C, it would mean a ice free polar sea ice in the summer and the Sahara desert would be more green.
        Many think of it the other way around, IF the Sahara desert was made green [add water to the desert] it could increase global air temperature by more than .5 C.
        We have already greened deserts, California desert produce a lot food. LA was and is desert, Southern and Central California has been greened. And many people resent that this has happened, or against adding even more water to desert. It’s kind of like the book, Dune.. Or more dams are bad.
        Or California is example recent land changes which have some effect upon global air temperature {and might have made some small immeasurable effect on average ocean temperature}

        But we no where close to an ocean which is about 4 C. It takes a very long time to warm the ocean buy .5 C.
        But early in our Holocene, many thousands years, our ocean could been close to being 4 C.
        Or everyone knows we have past our peak temperature, and some people, imagine increased Co2 level could give
        the Holocene a “double peak. And it doesn’t look like that is happening.
        But if it did, I think it would be good thing. Or greening Sahare should increase global air temperature, but that seems to me, it would be a good thing.
        But I think there could cheaper way to warm our world than greening Sahara with lots of water added, or nature can add a lot more water than humans could cheaply do.
        But it would take a long time to warm ocean which in turn, greens the Sahara desert- and just adding water could be done faster.


        1. I have many weird ideas of how to warm our ocean.
          And in addition [and related to weird ideas] that we should make ocean settlements.

          And due to our mad man, Elon Musk wanting a city on Mars. An direct effect of this scheme,
          is it will cause there to be ocean settlement. Or if Musk does 1/2 the stuff he wants, we will have
          ocean settlement. And ocean settlements could be almost as important as a city on Mars.

          But since that kind of future can be seen, I think it would better to start on ocean settlements, now.
          Or get ahead of the curve, so to speak.
          Or waiting for Musk, might seem quite odd, but we don’t have to wait for this to happen.


  5. “Do you believe the surface would be warmer (averaged day/night) with an atmosphere filled with GHGs than without?”

    Obviously. Do us all a favor and calculate the following from your model. Total shortwave energy absorbed in a day. Total longwave emitted in a day. Average global temperature.

    This is the case if ALL LWR emitted by the surface is able to travel directly to space. If there is a resistance to that free flow of radiation from the surface to space then the surface must warm in order to pass the same amount of LWR out.


    1. Zoe’s “evidence” in this post is that energy into surface from shortwave is not all returned by surface as long wave. But she is reporting on real Earth, whose surfaces are not in equilibrium. So obviously and empirically as Willis described, much of the absorbed energy is distributed to matter below the surface skin—notably the oceans’ vast depth and breadth of water, since shortwave penetrates rather deep. That quantity of energy will not be radiated out of surface, because it is not excess of equilibrium. So Zoe’s “evidence” has zero relevance to the existence of the greenhouse gas effect.


    2. Alex, my reply to you was in addition to your excellent point that the surface is ejecting as long wave, not just the energy it gets from shortwave, but also energy it gets from long wave coming from greenhouse gases. The sum of those of course is larger than just the incoming from shortwave. My additional point is that even that total LW + SW absorbed will not all be emitted by the surface, as long as the surface has sub-skin matter at lower energy than the skin.


      1. Tom, you know that doesn’t explain what I show. What I show is that it’s colder in some places with having an atmosphere, specifically mostly the southern oceans. Willis’ calculation is actually completely differrent – something I knew and could’ve done long ago.


        1. Zoe, your claim literally is “The following are latitude bands and the amount of area (km2) that have higher shortwave input than longwave output.” If you mean something else you need to explain it there.


        2. This is what Willis essentially shows:

          Notice that mine is completely different? I have a deficit running from roughly the equator to the antarctic circle.

          I presumed people would be smart enough to see the difference from this well known phenomena!


        3. “It’s colder in some places.” Of course there is drastic local variation across the Earth. In no way does that mere fact undermine the existence of the greenhouse gas effect.


        4. Zoe, you persistently dodge the initial, and critical, fact that your evidence of SW > LW out in a planet that has sub-skin energy lower than skin energy, has nothing to do with demonstrating the existence of greenhouse gas effect.


        5. No I have not delved into a different topic. SW in > LW out as evidence against the existence of the greenhouse gas effect is literally your entire claim of this post of yours above all the comments. Your claim is false as in “not even wrong.”


        6. The opposing side hasn’t presented anything but affirming-the-consequent fallacy: this is happening and we have GHGs.

          Here’s a “good” argument you could have used:

          On Venus, your calculations would fail everywhere. It’s always warmer with the atmosphere. On Earth, we don’t have enough GHGs, so some places are actually colder with their presence.


        7. Again you dodged the fact that your SW into surface > LW out of surface is entirely irrelevant as evidence of whether a greenhouse gas effect exists. You seem to be barely comprehensibly claiming it is evidence against your own novel and bizarre straw person claim “Greenhouse gas effect emits enough LW that is absorbed by the surface so that, when combined with the SW absorbed by the surface, that total absorbed energy 100% compensates for the absorbed energy that is distributed from the surface’s skin to matter below that skin, and it does that so for 100% of the Earth’s surface 100% of the time, so that LW out from surface is equal to or greater than SW in to surface for 100% of the Earth’s surface 100% of the time.” Congratulations on being original. I have never seen that particular bizarre claim by anyone ever. There is zero reason for anyone to claim that straw person claim to be true. So you have knocked down your own bizarre, unique straw person. You have done nothing that in any way is evidence regarding the existence of the greenhouse gas effect that scientists actually claim, and you have done nothing that in any way is evidence regarding even the magnitude of the greenhouse gas effect that any scientist anywhere ever has claimed.


  6. “This is the case if ALL LWR emitted by the surface is able to travel directly to space.”
    It said 40 watts of 240 watts, goes directly to space.
    If there was same amount water vapor and same average temperature, but there was zero CO2
    how much of increase would go to directly to space?
    I think the 40 watt would increase to 45 watts.

    And water vapor prevents more than CO2.
    Or we have about 40,000 ppm of water vapor in Tropics compared +400 ppm of CO2.
    And if they was 400 ppm of water vapor [dry mars has 210 ppm of water vapor, btw} then
    with equal amounts, water blocks more than CO2, And the rest of world average of water vapor
    is about 3000 ppm- or no where in world do we have less than 400 ppm of water vapor.
    Anyhow my number is 45, what you say it would be?
    Of course everything without CO2, animals and plants would die and lowest level of CO2 which has occured
    has been 180 ppm, which barely enough to feed plants. And which occurred about 20,000 years ago.
    Or we in an ice house global climate which has low levels of CO2 and 400 ppm is a low level of CO2.

    Another question if our CO2 was 800 ppm how much lower would amount going to space directly be, then about 40 watts on average. Less than 38 watts per square meter [again assuming water vapor remains about the same.
    Related to this, is how much effect weather and amount water vapor in the air, effect seeing infrared objects in space.
    Or Telescope look in IR, go to top of mountain to see better.
    And obviously in orbit is much much than anywhere on the Earth’s surface.


  7. This analysis depends on the quality of grid temperature data.
    In fact. there is too little grid data.
    Data are defined as accurate measurements.

    What actually exists are mainly adjusted data.
    After adjustments, data no longer exist.
    What you have are numbers that have been changed
    by humans guessing what the data would have been
    if measured correctly i the first place.

    In addition, there are a significant number of grid cells
    that contain some or all guesses — infilling.

    Considering the low quality of the existing surface temperature data
    and the perceived integrity of the people collecting
    those data, and doing the infilling, this analysis proves nothing.

    Real science starts with an analysis of data quality, and whether
    that quality is sufficient to answer the question being studied.
    No data quality analysis here.


  8. Zoe-I’m arguing with some clown on Twitter who’s only response to your posts is “no science credentials”. Obviously if they could refute your data “credentials” would be irrelevant. I saw somewhere where you listed them. Could you repeat? Thanks


    1. My physics credentials? Not much. And it was a long time ago:

      Got a perfect score in SAT Math. I got a 5 in AP Physics C. Got 28 AP credits at a top 5 university. Took 5 physics and astronomy courses at university while getting my Economics degree. 1 course shy of a minor.

      Graduated magna cum laude overall in only 3 years.

      I don’t remember everything in physics, as I went to work on wall street. The literal street itself.

      Work paid for a masters degree in computational finance from a top 30 university.

      I’m good at programming. I’m great at predicting the market. I’ve done a ton of research on various industries, including energy.

      I left wall street and started my own businesses.

      I kept this brief.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. This is Zoe’s blog and I’m surprised no one mentions geothermal heat may be part of the equation … 🙂


      1. Heat can be “lost” in the ocean for thousands of years.
        Over a thousand years of time it is not small.
        Or for more than 50 years, more than 90% of global warming has been “lost” in ocean and it’s an .05 C of ocean warmth. It seems one lose .5 C of ocean warmth for a thousand years.
        Also ocean has kinds of ocean waves. And ocean completely covered by a few meters polar sea ice, doesn’t have waves. And without convection heat transfer, ocean water or any water is very good insulation.
        And with a still solar pond with salt gradient, 80 C water can under 30 C water. Or solar ponds can useful to “trap a lot of heat”.
        Anyhow, above the frozen surface of a ocean, air temperature can be -50 C. But that is not possible if surface of ocean is liquid. Or liquid ocean prevent air above it to get very cold and frozen ocean doesn’t warm or lose heat to atmosphere.
        Or glacial periods are when oceans near polar regions lose heat for thousands of years. Geothermal heat is one part of what warms the oceans. And 1 degree change in ocean average temperature has huge effect upon global climate- as compared to atmosphere 1 C of ocean is equal to heat of 1000 C atmosphere.
        And is why one can massive “global warming” when Earth is the coldest depths of glaciation period.
        It’s magical trick. Global climate is about how warm the average temperature of the ocean. and ocean can be the warmest when land in covered in ice.
        Or Snowball Earth is impossible because of oceanic geothermal energy. Though also not possible because 40% of Earth is tropics and tropics get more than 1/2 of sunlight reaching 100% of earth surface. But if more 1/2 of ocean surface was sea ice it increases effect of geothermal heating.
        [[And if more than 1/2 ocean were sea ice, it would wreck surfing]]


        1. ‘Or for more than 50 years, more than 90% of global warming has been “lost” in ocean”

          Accurate ocean temperature measurements began with ARGO floats
          about 20 years ago. Not 50 years ago. 90% must be a wild guess.


  10. Some work came in and I am behind on the arguments. There is a huge difference between the northern and southern hemispheres which is relevant to claims that coolant and hairspray gases, not volcanoes, eat ozone where only 1/9 of humanity lives. Now that Petr Beckmann is dead, mainly Zoe and Tony Heller tie their arguments to measurements–physics–and generate charts to illustrate specific context. I need to search out the episode I missed.


  11. “Throughout Earth’s climate history (Paleoclimate) its climate has fluctuated between two primary states: greenhouse and icehouse Earth. Both climate states last for millions of years and should not be confused with glacial and interglacial periods, which occur as alternate phases within an icehouse period and tend to last less than 1 million years.There are five known Icehouse periods in Earth’s climate history, which are known as the Huronian, Cryogenian, Andean-Saharan, Late Paleozoic, and Late Cenozoic glaciations.”

    So, we are in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age which started 33.9 million years ago.
    What is an Age:
    A period in the history of the earth, usually shorter than an epoch.
    The Ice Age.
    What is an epoch:
    A unit of geologic time that is a division of a period.
    (geology) A subdivision of an era, typically lasting from tens to hundreds of millions of years, see Appendix: Geologic timescale.

    When will the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, end?
    No one knows.
    But Late Cenozoic could end and the Ice Age could continue:
    Wiki: The Cenozoic [‘new life’} “is Earth’s current geological era, representing the last 66 million years of Earth’s history. It is characterized by the dominance of mammals, birds and flowering plants, a cooling and drying climate, and the current configuration of continents. ”
    So AI could be a new [and significant] lifeform. Or dinosaurs could regain dominance. The world could become less dry and cold- or more than 1/3 of total land area is desert. So if we only had 1/10th of land area being desert and remained this way. That would be significantly less dry and less cold. Also an aspect of dry and cold conditions are having grassland instead of forests. So maybe 1/6th of total land being desert and 3 or 4 times as much forests area.
    And/or reduction of scrub forests which are replaced by tree forests.
    This happens during interglacial periods, or when the Holocene was in it’s warmer period: Holocene Climate Optimum. Wiki:
    “The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period that occurred in the interval roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years ago BP, with a thermal maximum around 8000 years BP. It has also been known by many other names, such as Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Megathermal, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, Hypsithermal, and Mid-Holocene Warm Period. ”
    The Sahara Desert was green- mostly grassland with forests, river, and lakes [which no longer exist] .
    And great forest, the Northern forest: “The Russians traditionally call it “Taiga”. Was much larger.
    But interglacial period are relatively short warm period and most last 2 million years has more frozen wasteland and more desert conditions.
    Though 20 million ago was ice house climate {in an Ice Age] which was much warmer “all the time”, they we are now and during the Holocene Climate Optimum.
    Anyhow, short answer is our ocean average temperature is 3.5 C and it would have become about 10 C.
    And only way that could happen within say 2000 years is if Humans cause it. And humans would need to do more than simply having higher CO2 levels. They would have attempt to warm the ocean.

    People claim human have warmed the ocean by about .05 C in last 50 years, at rate {if that is actually true] it’s going to take a lot more then 2000 years.
    And to quote NASA: “In fact, more than 90 percent of Earth’s warming during the past 50 years has gone into the ocean. ”

    But for “end of world warming”, or CAGW type stuff, an increase of ocean by .5 C [ ten times more than .05 C}
    would be dramatic- ice free polar sea ice and a lot of greening of Sahara and the Taiga growing bigger.
    Or .5 C will make us a lot less of a dry world. But everyone one knows we going back to glaciation period. The .05 added will not make much of different, though .5 C added will add thousands of years.


  12. Another excellent analysis and conclusion! Would it be possible to get the following conc the hotter 28% of earth surface:
    • the average calculated temperature
    • the average (W/m^2) solar insolation and corresponding surface albedo.
    • the average percentage air albedo?
    I ask you because in my own analysis based on a point estimate using intersecting ortogonal cosinus curves latitudinally and longitudinally, I estimated an average insolation of almost 833 W/m^2 as for +/- 30° N to S (approx. 50% of earth surface area) during daytime (12 hours, nearly correct), before air albedo, using 1370 W/m^2 at TOA. Using your data it would be possible to calibrate my own estimation of daytime potential average warming from the sun.


  13. The classic bait-switch move when alarmists say GHG, mainly CO2, traps heat. Then when it’s shown not to, they switch the definition to hotter-than-otherwise be. Thus allowing any temperature anywhere to be proof of trapped heat.


  14. “I think you are confused about insulation versus a heat sink”

    Must be the biggest confusion ever to mix up two opposite effects.

    Anyway. The belief that GH gases act as insulation seems pretty hard to back up. The infamous experiment by Al Gore and Bill Nye was a fraud as everybody should know. One can show that CO2 absorbs IR. But to me, it seems like the rest is just theory. They say that the effect must neccesarily be real because 1: There is a lapse rate, and 2: More CO2 increases the height where radiation escspes to space.

    So, adding up two and two in theory will surely be applicable to the way nature really works…. well. I wonder how many times leading scientists have though so and been mistaken. Endlessly more times than they have been right I’m afraid…

    As someone put it: if the CO2 alarmism was true, then the proponents of it would lead by example. They say that it is an existential threat, yet they have a carbon footprint almost unimaginable to an ordinary man. Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, Obama, Prince Charles, every celebrity activist and every head of state in the entire world. Plus, all the scaremongering fails to manifest itself. Again and again and again they say the famous words; now we only have 2 years left to save the planet. And they say, this and that horrendous weather could only have been made possible by the burning of fossil fuels. Yet, as we can all discover, is totally flooded with old news articles that proves this utterly wrong. Come on… keep it real.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s quite a dance you did there. If you’d like to discuss radiative heat transfer then let’s do that. Understanding what radiative insulation is is an important step in avoiding straw man arguments. Understanding the first and second laws of thermodynamics is an important first step.


      1. Keep up your good writings, I like it.

        You may know a lot about radiative heat transfer, of which I know practically nothing. What I do know, however, is that even experts on it, assumes that the GHE is real simply because they have been taught so, and do not think for themselves. Even the expert Will Happer very recently revealed that he had a misconception about how a pyrgeometer works. He thought that, (probably because everybody else believes so), that a pyrgeometer measures radiation intensity. It does not. The very instrument that people refer to when they ridicule those who question the GHE. They say: “just buy a pyrgeometer and point it towards the sky, and you will measure DLWR.


        1. “You may know a lot about radiative heat transfer, of which I know practically nothing.”

          That was becoming rather obvious.

          “What I do know, however, is that even experts on it, assumes that the GHE is real simply because they have been taught so”

          You don’t know what you think you know. Experts know that the GHE is real due to experimental observations that show it is real.


  15. “Experts know that the GHE is real due to experimental observations that show it is real”

    Yes, and experimental observations led earlier scientists to believe that the sun went in orbit around the earth. I am sure they argued that it was real.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. You’re in over your head Jarle. If you admittedly do not understand science, then why are you trying to argue about it?


      1. Let us leave science for a moment. And please don’t speculate in my scientific training of which you know nothing about. I know what a hypothesis is, and that is what GHE is. You invited me to discuss radiative heat transfer. Sorry, I can’t do that.

        You seem to be intelligent. So I know that you know what is the problem is in climate science. And you should ask yourself why this problem arises if the GHE is all thst it is said to be.

        Let me share a tiny story from Norway. A story that repeats itself everywhere in the world (whenever climate science it touched upon)

        Dag og Tid (Ed. Day and Time – newspaper) says that Statistisk Sentralbyrå (Ed. Statistics Norway) refuses to publish research from its employee for several decades, the internationally known statistician John K. Dagsvik.

        Reason: Together with Mariachiara Fortuna and Sigmund Hov Moen, Dagsvik has been bold enough to carry out a statistical investigation of historical data for climate variations, to see if there was any systematic change in temperatures over the past 70 years. They could not demonstrate anything of the sort. The statistics therefore show that the warming may have been accidental – and natural. Dagsvik tells journalist Jon Hustad: “Thus, we did not find that the rise in temperature in the post-war period was systematic or deviated from temperature fluctuations in the last 300 years. To me, that is an interesting discovery.”

        But for SSB (Ed. Statistics Norway) this was not interesting, but rather frightening. Although none of Dagsvik’s colleagues at SSB have had professional objections to the research, publishing such results would be a burden too big. Thus, it is argued that “Dagsvik is not a climate scientist”.

        But do you have to be a climate scientist in order to carry out statistical analyzes of climate data?? SSB conducts such analyzes of data within schools, medicine, energy, immigration, etc., without the researchers necessarily being teachers, doctors, power plant owners or UDI (Ed. Norwegian Directorate of Immigration) employees. Dagsvik says to Dag og Tid: “.. in statistics education you don’t learn anything about medicine, physics or biology, nevertheless we can comment on what different researchers and research fields use and believe to have found.”

        Fortunately, Dagsvik gets the research published in an internationally recognized journal, which does not have as much anxiety about Norwegian “green” authorities or about its reputation in the environmental movement.


  16. “Let us leave science for a moment.”

    No thanks. That’s all I am here to discuss.

    “And please don’t speculate in my scientific training of which you know nothing about.”

    I’m not speculating. You are the one who admitted, “You may know a lot about radiative heat transfer, of which I know practically nothing.”


  17. There is no author of the Greenhouse Effect, and without author there is no theory.
    There are various ideas about the greenhouse effect, and various people have said that Earth
    atmosphere act like greenhouse. People saying this more than century ago, and to use the expression, there had be greenhouses for analogy to make sense to people. And to have a greenhouse one would have to able to get a transparent window panes.
    –The concept of greenhouses also appeared in the Netherlands and then England in the 17th century, along with the plants. Some of these early attempts required enormous amounts of work to close up at night or to winterize. There were serious problems with providing adequate and balanced heat in these early greenhouses. The first ‘stove’ (heated) greenhouse in the UK was completed at Chelsea Physic Garden by 1681. Today, the Netherlands has many of the largest greenhouses in the world, some of them so vast that they are able to produce millions of vegetables every year.

    The golden era of the greenhouse was in England during the Victorian era, where the largest glasshouses yet conceived were constructed; ones with sufficient height for sizeable trees were often called palm houses. These were normally in public gardens and parks. These were a stage in the 19th-century development of glass and iron architecture, which was also widely used in railway stations, markets, exhibition halls, and other large buildings needing a large and open internal area. —
    So term was used when greenhouse were in fashion and many people knew what were- and it was due to industrial revolution that became more common.
    It is said widely that there is greenhouse theory but there is not author to any theory. It is commonly said Earth without greenhouse effect would be cold, and said without greenhouse gases Earth average temperature would be 33 C colder. And greenhouse gases are gases which made Earth warmer or cause more “greenhouse effect”.
    But an actual physical greenhouse does not work because of radiant effects. Plants need sunlight to grow and a transparent window allow the radiant energy of sunlight to provide the light which make plants grow. A house can be kept warm, but for plants to grow they need ultraviolet light from the sun [or other source] to grow. Anyhow there various ways to kept greenhouse warm and they don’t involve blocking longwave light from leaving the greenhouse.
    Generally whenever a greenhouse effect is describe, it will be mentioned that actual constructed greenhouse doesn’t work like the greenhouse effect.
    But don’t normally mention what acts like a actual greenhouse in our world, A loss of heat from a greenhouse is related to convectional heat loss. And obviously at edge of space there is not convection loss.
    Or any planet with any kind of atmosphere will end at edge of space and like a actual greenhouse
    prevent convectional heat loss. Or one say planet with atmosphere are vast greenhouses, and this due to gravity of planet keeping the gases on the planet.
    But a car with it’s windows rolled up is like greenhouse. With windows rolled up, warmed air can’t leave the car. A car with it’s window up, can be quite dangerous. And part of reason is because cars are fairly small. Or large greenhouse doesn’t get as hot, because it has more convectional heat loss.
    And Earth being much bigger than any greenhouse you could make, has even more convectional loss. One could say the Earth surface is “all” about convectional heat loss.
    But there many factors which can prevent convectional heat loss on the Earth surface and such is the topic of global climate.
    The highest air temperature ever officially record was from somewhere fairly close to where I live, in Death Valley, and more specifically, Furnace Creek: “Currently, the highest officially registered temperature is 56.7C (134F), ” wiki
    But anyone get this temperature in a parked car with the window rolled up- but this not how one gets an ” officially registered temperature”.
    One also get water to heat up to 80 C in a solar pond. A solar pond which occur in nature
    [but are also constructed made them better] are very similar to the effect of greenhouse, by which I mean they block convective heat loss. But was also known that one can use water to make greenhouse work better as greenhouse. Or one can add thermal mass to a greenhouse and water is
    a cheap and easy way to add thermal mass to a greenhouse.
    [I would make solar ponds on Mars. And there are solar ponds in Antarctica].


  18. It is not the GHE hypothesis in itself that is unscientific. It is the treatment of it.

    A hypothesis is supposed to be subjected to a unrelentless effort to disprove it.

    The case is not so. Actually, it is the opposite. Those who wish to put it to the test are ridiculed, called climate deniers. We are talking about deliberately scorning them, to shut them up.

    THIS is what is unscientific about GHE.

    This fact, along with numerous other highly questionable state of affairs, strongly suggest that the climate science is totally corrupt, and thereby unscientific.

    So, we can be pretty sure, that the GHE is not all that it is said to be. (Why guard so aggressively against efforts to falsify, if there is nothing to hide). And why do the ones who claim to truly know the utter severity of increased CO2 not lead by example)

    It is all rotten to the bone. I can say this, and still have the door open to the fact that the hypothesis may in fact correct.

    Sadly, the proponents of it seems to have their door totally shut to the possibility that the hypothesis is false. I.e., they are unscientific. They do not have the correct scientific attitude. (Or they are not allowed, by their employer).

    The climate industry is immensly powerful. Biden just granted them another 740 billion dollars.


    1. And I can also mention, that NRK. The governmental broadcaster (radio, TV, Internet) in Norway made an official statement (abut 2-3 years ago) saying that they will not allow people who question the narrative of GHE to speak up. At least one other MSM channel followed up.

      This is how low it goes.

      Sorry for deviating from discussing the natural science of it all.


    2. “A hypothesis is supposed to be subjected to a unrelentless effort to disprove it.”

      For all intents and purposes the GHE has been scientifically verified to such a high degree that it has reached the status of a scientific fact.

      To attempt to claim otherwise demonstrates ignorance of both what the GHE is and what a scientific fact is.


      1. By GHE i do not mean merely enhancement of temperature (or accumulation of enery) due to presence of so called climate gases. You know the narrative. 280ppm->560ppm= unreversible climate catastrophy. It is a big lie. The corruption strongly suggests this.


        1. You need to learn appropriate terminology and how the scientific method works.

          The GHE is an established scientific fact. Your prior claims about testing the GHE are nonsense. Those who question the existence of the GHE are deserving of ridicule in the same way that those who claim the Earth is flat are mocked.

          If you have a problem with some “narrative” then that is likely not a problem with the actual science. You should learn the difference.


      2. If I’m not mistaken, James Hansen said back in 1988 that Manhattan would see a sea level rise of 3meters the next 40 years. I belive we are counting something like 6-7cm now. Sea level to rise 293cm the next 6 years. Not a chance. SO, can you please explain to me, how this sound and well founded science of yours can be so utterly wrong about what happens in the REAL WORLD?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I’m guessing that you have taken Hansen’s statements out of context. I could be wrong, but if you were honest then you would provide the full context. He certainly has gotten some thing wrong here and there, but he did correctly predict the amount of surface warming that the planet has seen today back in the late 80’s I believe it was.


        2. I’m not sure if you are being purposefully dishonest or are just ignorant of the facts. So, for the sake of other readers what Hansen was asked was to speculate on what might happen if CO2 were to DOUBLE from pre-industrial levels to ~560ppm in the next 40 years. So he made a speculation with running any simulations. He made a guess and we will never know if it would have been right or wrong because we won’t be hitting ~560ppm by 2028.

          Back in 1988 Hansen did make predictions, using simulations, about the warming that we would see today under different emissions scenarios. He essentially got it right for the level of GHG forcing that we have produced.

          So it appear that the one “utterly wrong” is you … again.


    3. “It is not the GHE hypothesis in itself that is unscientific. ”

      There is not a GHE hypothesis nor are there many GHE hypothesis.
      There is not one author of a GHE hypothesis nor are there many authors of
      many GHE hypothesis.

      What is indisputable is we are living in an Ice Age.
      One could say calling an Ice Age, an Ice house global climate is better term.
      We are in an ice house global climate which has going on for 33.9 million years and
      in the last few million years, it has been the coldest time of the 33.9 million years.
      An ice house global climate has a cold ocean and a low global CO2 level.
      We have a cold ocean [average temperature of about 3.5 C} and we have a low
      level of CO2.
      There are a few hypothesis of why we have low levels of CO2, some have been adequately disproven.
      No one disputes that we have low CO2 levels.
      There have been many ice house global climates, and there has been many greenhouse global
      climates. It is also claimed earth has had or could have a global snowball climate.
      I don’t think there has ever been a snowball global climate. I have argued against this, and
      demand any evidence of it. In my opinion the evidence so far given, is weak evidence.


  19. To your info. Mr. Hansen, keen to scare people, went on stage again in 2011, I believe it was, this time claiming up to 5meters by the end of the century. One has to assume that this time he had done the proper calculations? Good choice to use 2100, when he is no longer around…..

    I see that it has now been removed from the NASA GISS website. Maybe someone found out that the “science” was far too wrong?

    Click to access inpress_Hansen_Sato.pdf


    1. “I believe it was, this time claiming up to 5meters by the end of the century”

      Under what emissions scenario? Again, you are being entirely dishonest.

      1) You are not providing the full context of Hansen’s statements.

      2) If Hansen’s statements are not based on sound science, then that is not an indictment of the science, but rather on Hansen. I can give you an example. Hansen once claimed that the Earth was capable of a runaway GHE. The best science showed he was wrong in that claim. Hansen then admitted his error.

      You really are in over your head.


    2. “One has to assume that this time he had done the proper calculations?”

      Calculations of what scenario? If he had done calculations for a given scenario then what aspect of those calculations are you objecting to?

      Oh right, you have no idea because you don’t understand climate science.


  20. Ok. Resort to such claims. I previously showed how low climate science and its charade can go. This is also part of it.

    Climate science is all about how much one can scare people. Continue to dismiss every indication of how big the lie is.


    1. “I previously showed how low climate science and its charade can go.”

      Actually you haven’t. What you have done is to misrepresent scientific facts and cherry-pick statements without providing the appropriate context. So you have shown how low you can go in order to reaffirm your world-view.

      Your arguments are rather pathetic. They certainly have no scientific basis.


      1. You accuse me of flailing. The truth is that climate science is flailing. As I said. It is all about scaremongering. Why do you think these so-called serious scientist use the word “accidification” when what the really mean is “ever so slightly less basic”. By the way, how is it going with the Great Barrier Reef? How is it going with the polar bears? How is it going with the Maldives? And how is it going with the man who said the reef would be just fine? All rhetoric questions that you need not answer. I could go on endlessly about this. But I don’t think Zoe would appreciate it. So, for now. This is it from me.


        1. You are flailing.

          “It is all about scaremongering.”

          So how do you explain the fact that Hansen predicted the correct amount of warming that we would see today back in 1988?

          “Why do you think these so-called serious scientist use the word “accidification” when what the really mean is “ever so slightly less basic”.”

          Isn’t that obvious? It’s a simple matter of language. “Accidification” is far simpler that “debasicification”. Why deniers get so hung up on this word is truly strange. A decrease in pH is acidification. Why is that so difficult to understand?

          So indeed, you are flailing. I don’t ever expect that you will get up the courage to actually learn about the science so that you can discuss it intelligently.


  21. I informed you about what Dagsvik found. I also informed you about why SSB refused to publish his result. If you don’t remember, they rejected his work, not because it lacked professionality or anything like that, but because they were afraid, because they could not allow it. So they came up with the stupid excuse that he was not capable enough. Intelligent discussion? Well, sorry for not buying into this shit. Sorry for my lack of critical intelligence.


    1. “If you don’t remember, they rejected his work, not because it lacked professionality or anything like that, but because they were afraid, because they could not allow it.”

      You have presented no evidence of that. That’s your biased interpretation. I have to wonder if you have even read the paper. I’m rather confident that you don’t possess the expertise to understand it.

      “Intelligent discussion?”

      Indeed. Your ability to intelligently discuss this topic would require you to understand science.

      “Well, sorry for not buying into this shit.”

      No apologies needed. You simply have not provided a scientifically based rationale for why you refuse to “buy into it”.


      1. And I suppose you are also familiar with the Wegman report?

        Climate science is fraudulent. Al Gore is a proven liar, and he fucking got the peace price. Michael Man is a proven liar, and he fucking got god-like status.

        In fact, who in this business is honest men? President Obama just installed a propane tank at one of his properties, able to store as much energy as 700 Tesla batteries. Why did he not install 700 Tesla batteries instead? The very man who said that continued use of fossil fuels will render the planet uninhabitable.

        As I said earlier. Keep it real, for gods sake.


        1. You know what I think? Obaba didn’t want to spoil his property with solar panels needed to charge the Tesla batteries. Nor did he want to spend the extra cost compared to propane. Yet he expects the litle people to do as he says.

          Private jets, palaces and yachts. That is what these fraudulent people are enjoying. Wake up. Don’t be blind.

          It does not surprise me at all that the god Michael Man gets white washed.


        1. That doesn’t matter. They don’t overlap perfectly in those few periods, AND the proxies don’t exhibit hockey stick after they are discarded. They either stay flat or drop, regardless of all the attempts to cherrypick the best to serve the narrative.


  22. You know what? You have already deemed me more or less unworthy of having a discussion with. So why do you continue? It seems to me that my little “dance” got you off balance. You started off so good, asking sharp and relevant questions, using your expertice. Don’t let me get in your way.


    1. “You know what? You have already deemed me more or less unworthy of having a discussion with. So why do you continue?”

      To point out the weakness in your arguments. I also am holding out for the possibility that you might take the opportunity to educate yourself on some of the basic science.

      “It seems to me that my little “dance” got you off balance.”

      Not really. I’m standing still watching you try to dance around still.

      “You started off so good, asking sharp and relevant questions”

      Indeed, and you avoid providing cogent answers. Thus the continued dancing.


        1. “You know that there is only critical thinking to gather from me.”

          So far I have seen no evidence that you are capable of critical thinking.


        1. Don’t think I just read the skeptical side.

          I recommend you to look up from science. Look at the real world. Not only the world as in the weather and such. Look at what is going on in the world. Notice who says what and who does what. Good night.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Tom, you’re really annoying. Everyone here is already aware of your sources. You think you are teaching, but you’re actually refusing to learn.


        3. The sun shines on small portion of Earth and about 80& of the total amount the sunlight is absorbed by the ocean. And a lot this energy cause evaporation which causes a lot kinetic energy.
          When it’s commonly said the storms have a lot energy [equaling some number nuclear bombs] that energy is kinetic energy.
          Because Earth spins at 1000 mph at the equator [a general region where most energy is absorbed by Earth, the spot is enlarged over a time of hour by 1000 miles. Or over 24 period the sunlight is distributed global mostly along the tropical zone, And related to axis angle over a year of time the spot move north and south of equator.
          And the tropical ocean engine kinetically heats Earth’s entire atmosphere, and warmed water is transported [kinetically] poleward. Sunlight is radiant energy transfer, but earth surface is mostly kinetic transfers of energy {which generally call various convectional transfers of heat].
          Or we measure the kinetic energy of air, which has average global surface temperature of about 15 C.


        4. Most of warming of ocean water by sunlight mostly warms the top 2 meter ocean.
          If you had swimming pool which was 2 meter deep and water was cold when added
          it can take many days of sunlight to warm up the pool.
          Or a day of sunlight does warm the ocean water by much.
          It should be noted this is a lot different than blackbody surface, and ideal blackbody
          surface would heat instantly and radiate instantly.
          Therefore if you imagine Earth as blackbody surface {which isn’t] one has imagine how one could
          have uniform temperature. This can be done by imagine super conductive of surface. Which is what an ideal thermal conductive blackbody sphere is.
          And in terms being in vacuum this would passively cooled refrigerator or it the maximum way to dump heat into space.
          But Earth is also a pretty good refrigerator.
          When people imagine earthlings as a high tech species [which it currently isn’t] one imagined
          limitation is related an imagined huge problem of getting rid of waste heat.
          Or getting rid of heat in the Moon is problem. And having something like an Ideal thermally conductive blackbody would wonderful solution to this problem. Unfortunately we don’t have the tech
          to make such a thing. Or at least not a cost effective manner.
          Anyhow Earth doesn’t have this problem because Earth is in an Ice Age.
          But our solar system is suppose to have far more water than Earth has- probably has more ice cubes
          than mass of our ocean plus more liquid freshwater than our salty ocean.


        5. @Zoe – I am interested in learning if we can start from a common ground on the simplest possible radiative transfer problems and build up to include more complexities? I think that the first step is to start with idealized blackbody objects (even though we know no such thing really exists, although there are close approximations). Let’s say that you have a spherical ball with surface area 1 m^2. It is floating (no gravity) in a vacuum with surroundings kept at a constant absolute temperature of T0. There is a power source inside the ball that generates a constant q Joules every second (not sure what this might be but let’s assume we could figure it out and that it lasts long enough to get close to a steady state).

          How do you calculate the steady state temperature of the surface of the sphere?


        6. @Zoe – What is the k(T) function? The problem is a blackbody in a vacuum interacting with its surroundings?


        7. @Zoe – If the SS temperature was T0 that would mean that there is no heat being transferred from the sphere to its surroundings. Since the sphere has a constant internal heat supply that would mean that the internal energy of the sphere would be increasing. Hence that temperature cannot be the steady state solution.

          Does that make sense?


        8. OK, that’s fine. The steady state temperature after the source fails will be T0. That’s the first point that we have reached agreement on.

          So my second question is, what is the steady state temperature that the sphere approaches if the source could last forever?

          Is my question clear? Like I said, we can add the complications of reality as we build up agreement. We agree there are no black bodies and there are no inexhaustible energy sources. There are also no perfect spheres. So I am asking you to humor me and let’s see if we can reach agreement on this idealized problem statement.


        9. If you show me a picture of your theoretical unicorn, then I can provide you with an answer to the angle of its horn.

          I am asking you a theoretical question to see if we can agree on the governing principles. Once we reach such agreement then we can add complications.

          I think that the problem statement is clear and that this is one of the simplest problems possible in radiative heat transfer.

          Can you please provide your solution to this problem?


  23. I don’t understand why you need a picture of q. I have provided you with the information that the source provides a constant level q. Since it has been specified as constant that means it does not fail.

    That information is sufficient to answer the theoretical question. A picture would provide no additional information.

    Do you understand the parameters of this idealized problem? If so, can you provide a solution?


      1. It’s a theoretical construct. If you insist on requiring that the source will fail then you can still answer the question. Prior to the source failing it will approach a certain steady state solution associated with an idealized source that never fails.

        The question is, what is that steady state solution that the source is approaching prior to it failing?

        Do you understand that question? Do you know how to answer it?


        1. Sorry, I meant to say what is the steady state temperature that the sphere approaches prior to the source failing.


        2. It’s not about the source suddenly failing. If it’s a planet, the nuclear fuel density or accreation energy will decrease. q will always be going down GRADUALLY. It will go down to a point where there is ZERO NET flow between surface and it’s environment, at which point the surface temperature will be STEADY at T0.


        3. Again, this is a theoretical construct. The geometry of the sphere can be such that steady state can be approached rapidly by making the wall of the sphere thin. An resistive heater can be placed inside that provides a constant q such that the idealized steady state can be approached.

          There is a solution for the idealized steady state for this system. Do you know how to solve for it?


      2. “It will go down to a point where there is ZERO NET flow between surface and it’s environment, at which point the surface temperature will be STEADY at T0.”

        Yes, we are in agreement that when the source has failed. I have asked you for the solution to the problem as it is approaching steady state prior to the failure of the source.

        Can you address that question?

        If you would like we can attempt to specify a reasonable source heat input as a function of time and thermal capacitance of the sphere and then we can look at the full time dependent solution of that problem.

        Is that a problem that you would be willing to address?


  24. @Zoe – I see that you have already solved a similar problem to what I am asking here elsewhere on your blog. There you did not seem to have any objections to providing a steady state solution for an internal source without considering its failure. Why are you objecting here?


      1. I had not seen that solution. If you felt I was pestering you then why didn’t you just point out that you had already solved it? Or why didn’t you just provide your solution again?

        Also, if you did not have a problem with non-failing sources in your prior solution, why were you acting like you had a problem with them now?

        In any case, I agree with your solutions. So as you can see from your solutions, adding a blackbody shell between the sphere and 0K surroundings allows the source to be significantly reduced in order to maintain the temperature of the surface of the sphere at approximately the same level as without the shell. Conversely, if the energy output of the source were held constant at the prior level then the temperature of the surface of the sphere would increase considerably after the shell is added.

        So your solution procedure to these problems is in agreement with mine, which is the standard procedure.


  25. I was reading somewhere that tropical clouds are more powerful than hurricanes.
    But I didn’t bookmark it. And problem was what read didn’t give an easy to remember metric.
    Or one could say there a lot tropical clouds but one say cat 5 is named and has knowable boundary – region which has some wind speed.
    Anyhow tropics has many powerful weather, so wanted a quantity, and looked and I didn’t get my quick answer, but:
    –The Long and Rich Life of Tropical Clouds
    Understanding environmental conditions that help tropical clouds flourish–

    ” Results: Scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory uncovered another clue as to how tropical clouds live long and prosper. Moisture from the middle layer of the atmosphere, both before and after the clouds begin forming, is the determining factor for the lifetime of these cloud systems. When the researchers compared clouds of equal lifetime that initiate over land and over water, those over land were more intense than those beginning over the ocean, especially during the early stages. Contrary to previous studies, they found that wind shear—the change in wind speed and direction—has no discernible effect on the lifetime of the tropical cloud systems.

    Why It Matters: Tropical cloud systems are the primary drivers of the global atmospheric circulation—a huge cycle of atmospheric energy and moisture transported around the Earth affecting both weather and climate. Some environmental conditions and interactions sustain tropical storm systems, others hurry their demise. Understanding how these clouds interact with their immediate environment and the processes that sustain them is fundamental to understanding the global climate system.


  26. Humans are not a space faring civilization.
    I would guess there about 1000 space faring in our galaxy and of hundreds of trillions citizens
    of space faring civilization, less than 1000 are aware of our civilization and aren’t particularly
    interested in us. Many could be interesting and observe us, but it’s unlikely any could actually travel
    to Sol. It would be expensive and not have much value related to doing it. And likely a crime to do so.
    And doing it, in terms it being an accident, can only seen as a failing to understand how big space is.
    It seems human would a space faring civilization when they are mining about 1 trillion ton of water in space. And this could happen within the next hundred years.
    India or China use about 1 trillion tons of water per year. US uses about 600 billion tons of water per year.
    Mars might have more than 1 trillion tons of water which mineable . Our Moon probably doesn’t. We imagine the Moon has millions of tons of water. And most of this water is worth about $10,000 per ton. Or billions of dollars of water on the Moon. If there was billion of tons of water which can mined within 100 years, the value of water most of water mined would be about $1000 per ton or about 1 trillion dollars of water. There could be more than a billion tons of water which mineable on the Moon and therefore most of water could worth less than $1000 per ton. And given enough time, the Moon could import more than billion tons of water from space.
    The current assumed value of lunar water is about $500 per kg or $500,000 per ton. Lunar water is
    ONLY worth $500 per kg if more lunar water can mined AND is sells for cheaper price than $500 per kg within a time period of about 10 year. More water must able to be mined and water has to cost less in the future. Roughly speaking it similar to computers, or it’s value is largely dependent of future growth, or it’s a growth market.
    If you mining lunar water you want to get to point of mining 10,000 tons of water per year, as soon as possible, which might be within 5 years after starting. So you might start with 100 ton per year and doubling production and getting better at mining more and more water.
    Any new business, always has a learning curve. One makes mistakes, and you fix the mistakes as fast as you can. And major problem is lack demand of water, so any business, grows their market demand. And this should show why no government can do this. Or there is no government on Earth that has ever done this in any fashion, regarding anything. And business does this all the time- with generally, government trying to stop it. Or this is regarded as evil, by many many idiots.

    Since Mars is suppose to have a lot more water than Moon, Mars water starts at cheaper price, and if it can be cheap enough there will a large demand, and Mars will make far more money in shorter time period selling cheaper water.
    Mars is dry cold desert world, and are worlds with far more water than Earth has water.
    A space faring civilization will have water as cheap as water on Earth is, and become far cheaper.
    The Moon is a place to start, maybe, depending results from exploring it’s lunar polar region.
    And Mars exploration could indicate that Mars is habitable. It is assumed it is, but assumptions can be wrong- can be very wrong. Mercury might be more habitable. I would bet on Mercury, but Mercury is far too hard to get to, at the moment. But in terms of time it takes, Mercury is 105 days from Earth- it’s the closest planet to Earth and it’s closer to most of the water in our solar system. Venus is less close, but easier orbit of any planet to reach from Earth. And Mercury could have 10 times more water than our Moon. Unlike our Moon, it has been long thought it has had water in it’s larger polar region.
    In terms of Earth’s climate, if you are space faring one can control Earth’s climate, and we might like that Earth enters it’s next glaciation period. Or having a mile high of ice on North America can consider profitable and wonderful to such a civilization- or not vaguely like the end of the world.
    Or one can’t imagine one has any kind water shortage and skiers will be thrilled.
    But you could stop it, if you wanted it stopped.


  27. *** The 1990s discovery of multidecadal variability (see Part IV) showed that the science of climate change is very immature. The answer to what was causing the observed warming was provided before the proper questions were asked. Once the answer was announced, questions were no longer welcome. Michael Mann said of a skeptical Judith Curry:

    “I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility”
    (Mann 2008)

    But as Peter Medawar stated:

    “the intensity of a conviction that a hypothesis is true has no bearing over whether it is true or not.”
    Peter Medawar (1979)

    Scientists’ opinions do not constitute science, and a scientific consensus is nothing more than a collective opinion based on group-thinking. When doubting a scientific consensus (“just like you’re supposed to doubt,” as Feynman said) becomes unwelcome, the collective opinion becomes dogma, and dogma is clearly not science. ***

    Calling it a hypothesis was always a bit too optimistic.


  28. “What’s interesting is that many places, on average, are hotter without the so-called greenhouse effect than with it! And it’s not a small amount of places!”
    The global greenhouse effect is about creating a more uniform global surface air temperature.
    Earth doesn’t have a very uniform global surface air temperature.
    One could say that Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t have much greenhouse effect.
    But what controls Earth’s global climate is not it’s atmosphere.
    Earth global climate is controlled by it’s oceans.
    Our ocean has been cold for 33.9 million years. We are in 33.9 million year Ice Age.
    A ice house global climate is an Ice Age.
    If our ocean was warmer, we would be in a greenhouse global climate.
    A greenhouse global climate has a more uniform global surface air temperature.
    This uniformity of surface air temperature is caused by the ocean.
    A greenhouse global climate has ocean which has average temperature of the entire
    ocean of about 10 C.
    We currently have average ocean temperature of about 3.5 C.
    A cold ocean would be ocean which is colder than about 6 C.
    Our ocean has not been as warm as 6 C at any time within the last 10 million years.
    Within last 1/2 million years during warmest times of interglacial periods, the ocean
    has had average ocean temperature of about 4 C.
    And last couple millions years, it has been the coldest period in our 33.9 million year ice house
    global climate- which is called: The Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
    Before this colder period, Greenland didn’t have an ice sheet.
    Greenland ice sheet is younger than Antarctica ice sheet. To get older ice cores, you get them
    from Antarctica, and Antarctica ice core indicate Earth has getting colder and as well as other temperature proxies, such ocean sediment cores- and all other temperature proxies
    which can measure more than a million of years ago.
    For example for 5 million years:

    It also has one for 65 million years.
    Our ocean has a fairly uniform temperature, currently- as should in earlier times.
    And if ocean had average of say of 4 or 5 C, Earth would have more uniform global air
    temperature. And if 10 C, even an more uniform global temperature.
    Anyhow, global warming is not about hotter air temperature, rather it’s about more uniformity
    or global average surface air.
    An aspect of our tropics is day and night and seasonal uniformity of air temperature.
    The definition of tropical includes having a more uniformity of air temperature.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Increasing Earth’s atmosphere mass, say by 50% or 2 or 3 times, does increase the surface temperature on Earth, but it can cause global warming in the sense of increasing the uniformity of Earth average surface temperature.
      Increases the mass of Venus atmosphere makes Venus surface hotter. Venus is heated in it’s upper atmosphere [cloud deck]. Adding more mass to Venus atmosphere will likewise in uniformity of it’s rocky surface temperature. But Venus surface temperature very uniform now, so it slightly make more uniform.
      The uniformity of Earth surface temperature is largely with it’s ocean temperature.
      Earth average global ocean surface temperature is about 17 C, and Earth average land surface temperature is about 10 C, and global surface average temperature is around 15 C.

      My rule: ocean warms and land cools. If you add more atmosphere to Earth, Land temperature will not warm up and cool down as fast.
      The ocean surface warms up and cools down very slowly and adding more atmosphere doesn’t effect it much, doesn’t warm and cool down, much slower.

      We are in an ice house global climate. An ice house climate is an Ice Age. We in an Ice Age because our entire Ocean is cold. Our average temperature ocean temperature is about 3.5 C.
      Adding more atmosphere “might” increase this average ocean temperature so it’s above 3.5 C.
      If you increase our ocean temperature of 3.5 C to 4 C, it causes “massive” global warming- or causes
      far more uniformity in global average surface temperature.

      It is said by “everyone” that more than 90% of all global warming we have had in last 50 years has been warming our 3.5 C ocean. And it’s been about .05 C increase to 3.5 C.
      So if we *actually* accurately measured our ocean and it was 3.5 C, we could say it’s now 3.55 C.
      But our ocean is about 3.5 C, and it’s been about 3.5 C for the last 5000 years.
      Or it’s been said, that the Little Ice Age cooled our ocean by about .1 C and lowered sea level by inches.


      1. I said: “Increasing Earth’s atmosphere mass, say by 50% or 2 or 3 times, does increase the surface temperature on Earth,”
        Meant to say: Increasing Earth’s atmosphere mass, say by 50% or 2 or 3 times, does NOT increase the surface temperature on Earth,

        Or doesn’t immediately warm surface, it would immediately lower temperature.
        But as I later said, it “might” warm the entire ocean, and if it did, it would/could cause “massive” global warming. But massive global warming is not hotter, rather it a more uniform global average temperature.
        And “massive” global warming is a global average surface temperature of say 20 C rather than 15 C. Or Russian average surface temperature is about – 3 C. Russia average temperature could be warmer than 5 C.
        Russia could be as warm as Europe is. Europe has been a 9 C.
        And Europe could get warmer than the continental US, which is about 12 C.
        And US might get average surface air temperature of 15 C.
        India average surface temperature is about 25 C. India could cool a little bit. But India is quite small so Net is an large increase in global air temperature.

        Another way of looking at it, is a larger atmosphere, should have a more massive tropical ocean heat engine.
        But a larger atmosphere, “could” cause a colder and more uniform surface air temperature and not warm the ocean by much or even cool the ocean.
        Or it seems clearer to me, that less atmosphere should cause a warmer ocean and a land which heats up and cool down, faster. And higher daytime high air temperature.
        And land will cool less and ocean does not warm land as much.


  29. I think I might cause cognitive dissonance:
    “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioral decisions and attitude change.”
    I am reminded of this:
    specifically, here:

    I don’t agree with this, completely. I disagree [strongly] that God is or could be disappointed with
    humans, for example.
    And generally, I think we living in the best of times. And I am not a conservative.
    But I listen to them. How crazy would you have to be, not to listen.
    But one could say it’s just cognitive dissonance- which one could call cognitive dissonance.
    Of course, it seems there is a lot cognitive dissonance “out there” in our world-
    how can lot cognitive dissonance exist and we living in best of times, belong together?
    Well, to make simple, their is a lot of evil in the world and we live in the best of times.
    This doesn’t mean evil is nothing or Evil = Good.
    Rather in the best of times, one can see more Evil.
    What you do about evil, could be said to be the hard part.
    North Korea is about evil as one can get- sort of- or easiest to see.
    Or maybe the easiest to fix. Or there would appear to be obvious things
    to do about it. Or how can God allow North Korea to exist.
    Or is God disappointed by the Nation of North Korea.
    I think God might be bored with North Korea, As in this typical boring stuff humans
    have doing since the beginning of time. But I don’t think God is disappointed or
    Well, I would say, humans have not arrived, nor will ever ever arrive.
    Or humans in Heaven will not have arrived. Conservative might imagine
    that they have arrived if they go to Heaven.
    Where do they get that crazy idea?


  30. Maybe North Korea is evil. But as someone also said; “The whole U.S. government is a rotten and corrupt
    organization, designed just to get all the tax money they can out of people, to manipulate their minds, to keep them amused with sporting events and silly TV sitcoms”


  31. Well US govt might be the reason, humans become a spacefaring civilization.
    And if we find any space aliens, they probably going be a vast pit of evil.
    Space is Heaven- but Heaven doesn’t have shortage of Evil.
    Evil that humans have never had.
    If there are space aliens, the last place you want to be stuck on, is the surface of Earth.

    Of course it could be painless like the Hitchhiker’s guide to Universe.
    Vogons didn’t have enough time or interest to read Earth it’s poetry.

    So, for reference, something like Kamala Harris, but much longer and worse-
    and obviously, with no lively bongo drums lessening the pain.
    Though the bongos may only work if it’s a short period of time.
    Longer periods of Harris with bongos might cause vomiting,
    and any kind drumbeat thereafter, could make you sick.


  32. I’m not so optimistic. Risk associated with radiation and micrometeorites must be solved first. We must invent a new propulsion technology to launch the super heavy spacecrafts needed for such protection. The chances that we will fuck up our basis of existence a long time before we invent such technology is very big. Regardless, I don’t think any civilization anywhere in the universe has ever or ever will develop to be space faring. Every place where intelligent life exists there must necessarily be a nearby “sun”. Suns frequently send out powerfull solar storms that will destroy the electronics of such a civilization before the necessary technological level is achieved, and then they must start all over, and when they once again develop to be semi-advanced, a new solar storm will hit, and so on. There is no rationale for saying that if it will be achived, it will be achieved by those who live in the geographical region representing todays USA.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The thing about US, is it might explore space.
      There are problems with becoming a spacefaring civilization.
      If we don’t become a spacefaring civilization is seems one could be hopeful that we harvest energy in space for people living on Earth. Or space can solve all problems related a finite supply of cheap energy one might have if confined to this planet.
      The exploration of Space would be about finding if there was anything of value regarding space other than just using Earth orbit.
      Or the satellite market is extremely important, and exploration is about seeing if there could more markets in space other than satellite market.
      We could get other markets relate to space without space exploration.
      Such as the idea of using suborbital travel.
      Or if Spacex starship can’t be used to start a city on Mars, it might just be used for suborbital
      travel {it could do both of course}.
      One problem with becoming spacefaring is we don’t know if humans can survive for long periods {years] with Mars gravity. And related we don’t know if artificial gravity is the same as “real” gravity in terms of allowing humans and other creatures to live.
      All US has to do is find mineable water on the Moon. The moon does not have problem of Mars in regard to matters of gravity. Human could work on the Moon without leaving Earth. And one can easily go quickly to and from the Moon- and cheaply if Moon has mineable water.
      The reason I think NASA should explore the Moon and then explore Mars, is related to number if issues. First NASA has been obsessed with exploring Mars. Second exploring Mars [and then settlements on Mars] would make the Moon more mineable. Third a mined Moon, make Mars settlement more viable.
      The Moon has always been seen as the gateway to solar system- and Mars is part of the solar system.
      But a natural hub of solar system is NOT Earth. Venus is a better hub of our solar system.
      Venus orbit. Venus planet has similar problem Earth has- a large gravity well.
      But I have long thought of the planet of Venus as military fortress or planet Venus is a planet which can defend against a space military force [or space aliens} and Earth is not vaguely a fortress. Even by using our deep oceans it’s not good.
      Anyways Mars settlements need to use Venus orbit. And though NASA does not seem to be planning to use Venus orbit to explore Mars, I think they should,
      The other reason NASA should explore Mars, is that US Congress has ordered NASA to do it.


Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: