NASA claims proof greenhouse gases drive temperature
On April 2nd, CBS News posted an item on their website claiming NASA now has ‘proof’ greenhouse gases drive our temperature.
The article states in part:
It may come as a surprise, given the extensive body of evidence connecting humans to climate change, that directly-observed proof of the human impact on the climate had still eluded science. That is, until now.
In a first-of-its-kind study, NASA has calculated the individual driving forces of recent climate change through direct satellite observations. And consistent with what climate models have shown for decades, greenhouse gases and suspended pollution particles in the atmosphere, called aerosols, from the burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the lion’s share of modern warming.
In other words, NASA has proven what is driving climate change through direct observations — a gold standard in scientific research.
“I think most people would be surprised that we hadn’t yet closed this little gap in our long list of evidence supporting anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change,” says Brian Soden, co-author of the study and professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
By now it’s common knowledge that the rapid warming of the past century is not natural. Rather, it is a result of the build up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane, much of it from the burning of fossil fuels.
The science behind why the Earth is warming
When sunlight enters the atmosphere some of it is reflected back to space without heating the Earth. The rest is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and atmosphere and re-radiated as heat. Some of this heat escapes back into space, but the rest of the heat is trapped by specific molecules like CO2, methane and water vapor. Simply, the more greenhouse gases the atmosphere has, the more heat is trapped and the more the temperature goes up.
Since the mid 1800s, CO2 in the atmosphere has increased from 280 parts per million to 415 parts per million — a 50% increase — and it is now the highest it has been in at least 3 million years. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at a pace 100 times faster than it naturally should.
At the same time, suspended pollution particles, called aerosols, cool the atmosphere by blocking sunlight. This unintentional side effect of the Industrial Revolution has proven useful in masking some greenhouse warming.
While these particles were effective at helping counteract some of the global warming in the mid to late 20th century, their impact is diminishing, because since the 1980s pollution has been gradually clearing up. While this is great news for health, it is unmasking additional warming in the system.
Together, the change in heat absorbed in our atmosphere because of changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols is called “radiative forcing.” These changes in radiative forcing throw off Earth’s energy balance. That’s because, in order for Earth’s average temperatures to remain steady, the “energy-in” from the sun must be equalized by the “energy-out” from Earth into space.
When those numbers are equal the Earth maintains balance. But when greenhouse gases build up, the energy going out is less than the energy entering the Earth system, which heats up our oceans and atmosphere, creating an imbalance in the Earth’s energy budget.
What NASA has done in this study is to calculate, or quantify, the individual forcings measured from specialized satellite observations to determine how much each component warms or cools the atmosphere. To no one’s surprise, what they have found is that the radiative forces, which computer models have indicated for decades were warming the Earth, match the changes they measure in observations.
New insight from NASA
Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says science has long had an overwhelming amount of indirect evidence of the factors warming the Earth. The predicted energy imbalance illustrated by decades’ worth of computer models has become apparent for all of humanity to see, from disappearing glaciers to more extreme weather disasters to warming oceans.
“We have long had good evidence that the predicted energy imbalance was real because of the increases in ocean heat content. That is very powerful confirmation that the models were predicting warming for the right reasons,” Schmidt explains. He says scientists have also had direct evidence that changes in greenhouse gases have been affecting the transfer and absorption of heat in the atmosphere, but only in localized settings, not a comprehensive evaluation.
Soden adds that science does have solid observational evidence that CO2 has increased over the last century due to the burning of greenhouse gases and that laboratory measurements confirm that CO2 absorbs heat, which theoretically should cause the planet to warm at roughly the rate observed over the last century. However, Soden says that observing the trapping of heat from space is actually quite challenging. This new research solves that challenge.
“This is the first calculation of the total radiative forcing of Earth using global observations, accounting for the effects of aerosols and greenhouse gases,” said Ryan Kramer, first author on the paper and a researcher at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “It’s direct evidence that human activities are causing changes to Earth’s energy budget.”
Specifically, this study has been able to calculate solid numbers for the changes in heat trapped in the Earth system from the individual contributors that influence heat transfer, like radiation, clouds and water vapor, for the period 2003-2019. The researchers did that by analyzing satellite observations and applying what they call “radiative kernels” to disentangle the various components controlling the transfer, absorption and emission of heat inside the Earth system and what is sent back out into space.
Up to this point, satellite observations of Earth’s radiation budget had only measured the sum total of radiation changes, not the individual components.
All emphasis added.
Note the repeated references to computer models, and note that nowhere in the article are these claimed ‘direct observations’ explained. We are just expected to believe on blind faith.
If this had appeared the day before, you might have considered it an April Fool joke, but sadly, these people are deadly serious.
The CBS article is here:
There is a link in the article to the study mentioned, and I quote from it here:
Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space‐based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all‐sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53±0.11 W/m2 from 2003 through 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance.
This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well‐mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.
While there are well‐established observational records of greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperatures, there is not yet a global measure of the radiative forcing, in part because current satellite observations of Earth’s radiation only measure the sum total of radiation changes that occur. We use the radiative kernel technique to isolate radiative forcing from total radiative changes and find it has increased from 2003 through 2018, accounting for nearly all of the long‐term growth in the total top‐of‐atmosphere radiation imbalance during this period.
We confirm that rising greenhouse gas concentrations account for most of the increases in the radiative forcing, along with reductions in reflective aerosols. This serves as direct evidence that anthropogenic activity has affected Earth’s energy budget in the recent past.
All emphasis added.
Notice again there is no description of what these claimed direct observations actually are, and notice again the repeated reference to calculations. The claim that these calculations ‘serve as direct evidence’ is contentious at best.
The study can be seen here: agupubs.onlinelibrary
There was a similar study in 2010 published in Nature, and I quote from it here:
In principle, CO2 forcing can be predicted from knowledge of the atmospheric state assuming exact spectroscopy and accurate radiative transfer. Forcing can then be estimated using radiative transfer calculations with atmospheric temperature, the concentrations of radiatively active constituents including water vapour, O3, CH4, N2O, and less prominent well-mixed greenhouse gases, and changes in CO2.
However, experimental validation of this forcing is needed outside the laboratory because CO2 spectroscopy is an area of active research. Furthermore, the fast radiative transfer algorithms that drive regional and global climate models approximate spectroscopic absorption line-by-line calculations with errors of about 0.6Wm−2, an amount comparable to the forcing by anthropogenic CH4 and N2O.
Specialized atmospheric observations at experimental sites in the midlatitude continental Southern Great Plains (SGP) and the Arctic marine North Slope of Alaska (NSA) sites by the US Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) programme produce the integrated data sets required for an independent diagnosis of the surface radiative effects of CO2.
We used spectroscopic measurements from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) instrument and atmospheric state data at these two sites to test whether the impact of rising CO2 on downwelling longwave radiation can be rigorously detected.
However, AERI spectral measurements and trends are sensitive to many different components of the atmospheric state. To interpret these measurements and attribute specific signals to rising CO2 requires an accurate radiative transfer model that reproduces these spectra on the basis of an independent assessment of the state of the atmosphere. The model must capture instantaneous signals and long-term trends in the spectra to determine the effects of CO2on diurnal to decadal timescales.
We used the Line-by-Line Radiative Transfer Model (LBLRTM), which is continuously compared against other line-by-line models and observations.
All emphasis added.
The 2010 study can be seen here: escholarship.org
We can see that in this study also, no explanation of the claimed direct observations of CO2 forcing is present, and again we see repeated reference to calculations, estimates, and computer models.
To me this is NOT proof of the greenhouse effect, or of carbon dioxide driving the temperature. Computer models can be tuned to produce any desired outcome. That is not proof.
All I see is proof of a continuing effort to mislead the public into believing human activity is causing massive harm to the planet.
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a university graduate in space science and British Principia Scientific International researcher, writer and editor who co-edited the new climate science book, ‘The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap‘
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
GERARD MENY
| #
When “Monsieur” Donal Trump will be back, Biden’s NASA once again will think differently
Reply
Andy
| #
Let’s hope so!
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Perplexing Apollo Questions for NASA” with Dr James Fetzer
https://bitchute.com/video/80GCHBIr6VjS/
Lying about lunar landings for 50 years limits credibility .
Reply
David
| #
Hi Joe,
I too am a sceptic regarding Apollo 11’s moon landing. However the reasoning in your video link regarding the astronaut’s needing to crawl through the engine on the Command and Service Module (CSM) when the CSM actually completes a 180 degree turn and then docks with the Lunar Landing module (LM) allowing the astronauts to crawl safely into the LM, obliterates your credibility on this historically contentious issue. We who remain sceptical of Apollo 11’s success must shoot with all our ducks in a row.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
CO2 really only has three narrow absorption bands in the IR region. First off, all other IR wavelengths pass right through and go to space, talking about upward IR radiation from Earth’s surface.
That said, the equivalent temperatures to these three absorption bands are 800, 407, and -80 deg C.
As nothing on the planet is at 407 deg C, let alone 800 deg C, the only IR that could interact with CO2 is that given off by an object at -80 deg C.
So, CO2 absorbs IR equivalent to -80 deg C, which the planet is doing 24/7 because EVERYTHING is hotter than that. CO2 would be saturated with -80 IR all the time and all it would do is re-emit it. Downward emissions would be reflected because everything is hotter than that and those energy levels would be full and the upward emissions would be sent to space.
During daytime, solar radiation would energize all three absorption bands, because the sun is that much hotter, and re-emit the IR in all directions, actually sending some incoming energy to space. However, this is an undetectable amount of energy.
It is during night-time that CO2, with no solar input, would work avidly to convert energy in the atmosphere to -80 deg C IR, which would be radiated to space or reflected by the surface, which is always hotter and then again lost to space.
There is simply no way that a picket fence with only one picket (-80 deg C) can keep a dog in the yard. The same is true for water vapor—it has a wider absorption region but a large part of it is below 0 deg C down to overlapping CO2 at -80 deg C. And the vast majority of Earth’s surface is above 0 deg C.
The fun part is that scientists have been trying for years to get CO2 to warm and do something useful. Instead, they have discovered that CO2 is a great refrigerant. First off, CO2 sitting idly will always be emitting at -80 deg C, thus constantly depleting the internal energy of the system. And then it has relatively mild conditions that can allow it to undergo liquification and gasification in a refrigeration cycle. Imagine what a cheap, nontoxic, and environmentally friendly CO2 would be—we can simply stop using all the Dupont CFCs and HFCs and Dupont will have to find another venue stream. Mercedes-Benz is already using CO2 in their automobiles’ A/C and a number of new skating rinks are using CO2.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Charles,
Excellent presentation of the reality! A valuable addendum to Andy’s great article.
Now, could you please help me to understand where the CAGW crowd and their associated “scientists” get their version of “reality?”
My guess was that it could have nothing to do with physics, but everything to do with planetary politics, as in: a Warning from the “Oligarchs of the World — Unite!” cabal, AKA depopulate the world now! — movement.
As much as I’d like to see some merit in this, the whole concept is a criminal activity, at best, and a hard-core crime against humanity out-right.
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
Frankly, I quit trying to follow the intricacies of various theories of warming when I finally found the “confirming” data. Discovering that the approximate global average warming since the end of the Little Ice Age has been only 0.01 deg C (and includes intermittent cooling), I realized the rapid warming claims are falsified by the data. No theory to explain a fictitious process is required.
Reply
Ddwieland
| #
… 0.01 deg C per year…
Alan
| #
Well done Charles. That must be one of the clearest descriptions I have seen.
Reply
Macha
| #
Well summarized.
Reply
GERARD MENY
| #
What about N3?
Reply
Andy
| #
N3? Nitrogen?
Reply
S.K.
| #
Here is proof co2 is not a GHG.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/04/01/physicists-lab-experiment-shows-a-co2-increase-from-0-04-to-100-leads-to-no-observable-warming/
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks Andy,we now know for sure because we put kernels in the computer and sure enough everything we told the computer to say it did. They have proven once again that if you tweek a computer program to give you a predetermined answer it will. These people are geniuses at manipulation of computer models but not real good at climate science. They keep making the same claims that go like the last model we built was wrong like all the rest of the models before them were wrong but now you can believe our new model because we don’t lie. For anyone that has followed this it becomes more laughable with every passing article.
Reply
Andy
| #
Cheers Barry, you’re exactly right with your observations.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
What they have proven is that even supposedly smart government employees will say whatever their idiot bosses want them to say, no mater how stupid it is..
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
My question is how can a “GHG” trap heat?
All gasses expand and rise when heated [Hot air balloons]
Yet, these so called scientists insist that CO2 sits there and gets warmer without rising.
And, more CO2 keeps sitting there and getting hotter and hotter, without rising.
If the GHG Theory is true then the earth’s water cycle is false. IMO
We all know that the earth’s water cycle cools the earth.
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
They cannot trap heat, ”heat” is thermalising radiation.
CO2 does not contain ”heat” it absorbs heat, which becomes resident energy until it is re-emitted as heat at -80c which is quite hot if the recipient of said radiation [heat] is at minus 200c…
Heat is an instantaneous transient phenomenon, it isnt a thing that can be measured, only the consequences of its absorption and transformation into ke can measured as a temperature.
Definition of temperature is a measure of resident energy.
You cannot trap heat, as heat isn’t a thing, its a consequence of temperature.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
Object radiate and absorb energy as disturbances in the electric and magnetic fields surrounding them. When an object absorbs energy it becomes internal energy and/or radiated energy of that object. A CO2 molecule will absorb energy creating vibrations across its bonds and motion of the molecule as a whole. All of these motions will create disturbances in the electric and magnetic fields surrounding the CO2 molecule, radiating energy in wavelengths from the C-O bond, the O-C-O bonds, or the velocity of the molecule as a whole. If another object absorbs some of this radiated energy and it becomes internal energy reducing the energy of the electric and magnetic fields we recognize this as heat or the flow of energy from higher to lower. When none of the radiated energy is absorbed to become internal energy there is no change in change in the electric and magnetic fields or heat/flow of energy and the objects are in equilibrium. Temperature is a measurement of the radiated energy of an object (which can only be observed when it interacts with other mater) not the internal energy of the object, and heat is the flow of that energy between objects
You can add radiated energy to a CO2 molecules and if it is unable to radiate that energy, the internal energy will become so great that the molecules are destroyed and becomes atoms, which is what happens to O2 molecules in the upper atmosphere.
Herb.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
This is evidence of deep pathological confusion about the role of water as the source of most of the cooling and all of the moderate warming that takes place on our planet. Thermally the impact of other gases is negligible, other than functioning to make the atmosphere a transport mechanism for distribution of water.
Questions that remain are what is the source of the pathological confusion about H2O.
Does anybody have a hypothesis/theory?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Hydrocephalous?
Herb
Reply
ddwieland
| #
Pathological confusion: Extreme confusion characterized by contradictory notions and non sequiturs, most commonly exhibited by proponents of “green” dogma.
Reply
Moffin
| #
The extra radiative forcing escaped from a laboratory in Wuhan.
Reply
Andy
| #
Haha very good 🙂
Reply
Luís Rodrigues-Coelho
| #
All lies, everything is reversed since actually, what is gradually destroying the earth and gradually killing everything that is organic is HAARP and CHEMTRAILS! Haarp is the biggest weapon of mass destruction, it can create storms, tornadoes, droughts, floods and trigger earthquakes and volcanoes! Climate change is a sophistry created by the Club of Rome in the 1960s!!!
CO2 doesn’t damage anything, on the contrary, trees and plants need it to live and to breath [photosynthesis].
Like the c19 fraud, climate change is a communist agenda with the exclusive goal of CONTROL!!!
Reply
Cris
| #
I don’t know much about the science behind the weather changes that have happened lately but from my observations from a country with 4 seasons there hasn’t been much change in temperatures within the last 20years but a slight delay between extreme seasonal temperatures compared to the seasonal expectations which always cause issues with the crops – again from personal observations- this isn’t particularly causing much food shortage but it facilitates a price increase for basic ingredients such as cereals, oils, vegetables which really acts as a domino effect on the fresh foods markets- increase from which independent growers suffer and end up being put out of business and supermarkets seem to profit/prosper. Not to mention that it offers great opportunity for more gmos and toxic agricultural practices to be to be approved.
Reply
Andy
| #
I don’t believe that is what HAARP is for or capable of, nor do I believe in ‘chemtrails’.
Reply
Roger Higgs
| #
Excellent article, thanks Andy (and thank you John).
NASA is clearly getting desperate now. Good.
“And consistent with what climate models have shown for decades …”. Yup, models show whatever you instruct them to show (see Barry’s comment above). GIGO. Sadly the public does not know this.
“Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says science has long had an overwhelming amount of indirect evidence of the factors warming the Earth.”
Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he? Imagine the salary that this, er, mathematician is on; not to mention the vested interest in his publications on ‘man-made’ climate change. He is soon going to feel very silly.
Truth is unstoppable …
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350726458_Global_warming_and_cooling_for_last_2000_years_mimic_Sun's_magnetic_activity_not_CO2_scientific_literature_synthesis
Reply
Andy
| #
Thanks Roger, I appreciate that 🙂
Reply
Barry
| #
I wrote my line above here before I went and checked out there explanation of what radiative kernels are,talk about circular reasoning. I thought maybe it meant that they could now somehow actually observe where heat on earth comes from as in a particular molecule but no it turns out that it just means another layer in their already flawed models. It truly must seem absurd even to them
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Moffin and hopefully PSI Readers,
If at all possible, a hypothesis/theory should be based upon actually observed (measured) data, which seems to be lacking in the article and the comments.
So take a look!!! (https://principia-scientific.com/record-temperature-result-of-cloud-revised-updated/)
Have a good day, Jerry
I
Reply
Andy
| #
That was exactly the point I was making. I couldn’t have written it any plainer.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
All the names in this post are people who make their living producing worthless science propaganda and whose salary is paid with US taxes:
Specifically, this study has been able to calculate solid numbers for the changes in heat trapped in the Earth system from the individual contributors that influence heat transfer, like radiation, clouds and water vapor, for the period 2003-2019. The researchers did that by analyzing satellite observations and applying what they call “radiative kernels”
The radiative kernel technique is a method used to quantify radiative feedbacks in response to global warming. Radiative kernels are commonly calculated for the water vapor, lapse rate, temperature and albedo feedbacks. Radiative kernels are used to deconstruct the various contributions of feedbacks and forcings to the total change in top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes in climate. To calculate a feedback, a kernel is multiplied by the change in the variable of interest, typically normalized by the change in global mean surface temperature. See ‘Expert Guidance’ for more information.
(PDF, GRL) Pendergrass, A.G., Dani Coleman, Clara Deser, Flavio Lehner, Nan Rosenbloom, and Isla Simpson (2019) Nonlinear Response of Extreme Precipitation to Warming in CESM1. Geophysical Research Letters. doi:10.1029/2019GL084826.
(GRL) Gettelman, Andrew, Cecile Hannay, Julio Bacmeister, Richard Neale, A. Pendergrass, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Jean-Francois Lamarque, John Fasullo, David Bailey, David Lawrence (2019): High Climate Sensitivity in the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). Geophysical Research Letters. doi:10.1029/2019GL083978.
(JClim) Sippel, Sebastian, Nicolai Meinshausen, Anna Merrifield, Flavio Lehner, A. Pendergrass Erich Fischer, Reto Knutti (2019): Uncovering the forced climate response from a single ensemble member using statistical learning. Journal of Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0882.1.
(JClim) Kramer, Ryan J., Brian J. Soden, A.G. Pendergrass (2019): Evaluating climate model simulations of the radiative forcing and radiative response at the Earth’s surface. Journal of Climate, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0137.1
(GRL, PDF) Prein, Andreas F., and A. G. Pendergrass (2019), Can we Constrain Uncertainty in Hydrologic Cycle Projections?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 2018GL081529, doi:10.1029/2018GL081529.
(NCC) Eyring, Veronika, Peter Cox, Greg Flato, Peter Gleckler, Gab Abramowitz, Peter Caldwell, William Collins, Bettina Gier, Alex Hall, Forrest Hoffman, George Hurtt, Alexandra Jahn, Chris Jones, Stephen Klein, John Krasting, Lester Kwiatkowski, Ruth Lorenz, Eric Maloney, Gerald Meehl, A. Pendergrass, Robert Pincus, Alex Ruane, Joellen Russell, Benjamin Sanderson, Benjamin Santer, Steven Sherwood, Isla Simpson, Ronald Stouffer, and Mark Williamson (2019): Taking climate model evaluation to the next level. Nature Climate Change. doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y.
(PDF, GRL) A.G. Pendergrass and Reto Knutti (2018): The uneven nature of daily precipitation and its change. Geophysical Research Letters. doi:10.1029/2018GL080298. Listen to an interview about it on Colorado Public Radio, or read about it in Science Editors’ Choice.
(CCCR) Byrne, Michael P., A.G. Pendergrass, Anita Rapp, and Kyle Wodzicki, 2018: Response of the Intertropical Convergence Zone to Climate Change: Location, Width and Strength. Current Climate Change Reports. doi:10.1007/s40641-018-0110-5.
(PDF, Science) Pendergrass, A.G., 2018: What precipitation is extreme?, Science. doi:10.1126/science.aat1871.
(ERL) Meehl, Gerald, Claudia Tebaldi, Simone Tilmes, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Susan Bates, A.G. Pendergrass, and Danica Lombardozzi, 2018: Future heat waves and surface ozone, Environmental Research Letters. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aabcdc.
(JGR-A) Kay, Jennifer E., Tristan L’Ecuyer, A.G. Pendergrass, Helene Chepfer, Rodrigo Guzman, and Vineel Yettella, 2018: Scale-aware and definition-aware evaluation of modeled near-surface precipitation frequency using CloudSat observations, JGR-Atmospheres. doi:10.1002/2017JD028213.
(JClim) Yettella, V., Jeffrey B. Weiss, Jennifer E. Kay, and A.G. Pendergrass, 2018: An ensemble covariance framework for quantifying forced climate variability and its time of emergence, Journal of Climate. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0719.1.
(PDF) Pendergrass, A.G., Andrew Conley and Francis Vitt: Surface and top-of-atmosphere radiative feedback kernels for CESM-CAM5. Earth System Science Data. doi:10.5194/essd-2017-108.
(Sci. Rep.) Pendergrass, A.G., Reto Knutti, Flavio Lehner, Clara Deser, and Benjamin M. Sanderson, 2017: Precipitation variability increases in a warmer climate. Scientific Reports, doi:10.1038/s41598-017-17966-y.
(GRL) Frey, William R., Elizabeth A. Maroon, A.G. Pendergrass, and Jennifer E. Kay, 2017: Do Southern Ocean cloud feedbacks matter for 21st century warming? Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL076339.
(GRL) Lehner, Flavio, Sloan Coats, Thomas F. Stocker, A.G. Pendergrass, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Christoph C. Raible, Jason E. Smerdon, 2017: Projected drought risk in 1.5°C and 2°C warmer climates. Geophysical Research Letters, doi:10.1002/2017GL074117.
(ESD, PDF) Sanderson, Benjamin M., Yangyang Xu, Claudia Tebaldi, Michael Wehner, Brian O’Neill, Alexandra Jahn, A.G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Warren G. (Gary) Strand, Lei Lin, Reto Knutti, and Jean Francois Lamarque, 2017: Community Climate Simulations to assess avoided impacts in 1.5°C and 2°C futures. Earth System Dynamics, doi:10.5194/esd-8-827-2017.
(PDF) Benedict, James J., Brian Medeiros, Amy C. Clement, and A.G. Pendergrass, 2017: Sensitivities of the Hydrologic Cycle to Model Physics, Grid Resolution, and Ocean Type in the Aquaplanet Community Atmosphere Model. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 9, 1307–1324, doi:10.1002/2016MS000891.
(J. Clim., PDF+) Pendergrass, A.G. and Clara Deser, 2017: Climatological characteristics of typical daily precipitation. Journal of Climate, 30, 5985–6003, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0684.1
(GRL, PDF^) Pendergrass, A.G., Kevin A. Reed and Brian Medeiros, 2016: The link between extreme precipitation and organized convection in a warming climate: Global radiative convective equilibrium simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 43, doi:10.1002/2016GL071285. (See the EOS Research Highlight)
(J. Clim., PDF+) Pendergrass, A.G., Edwin P. Gerber, 2016: The rain is askew: Two idealized models relating vertical velocity and precipitation distributions in a warming world. Journal of Climate, 29, 6445-6462. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0097.1
(GRL, PDF^) Pendergrass, A.G., Flavio Lehner, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Yangyang Xu, 2015: Does extreme precipitation intensity depend on the emissions scenario? Geophysical Research Letters, 42 (20), 8767-8774. doi:10.1002/2015GL065854.
(J. Clim., PDF+) Pendergrass, A.G. and Dennis L. Hartmann, 2014: Changes in the distribution of rain frequency and intensity in response to global warming. Journal of Climate, 27, 8372-8383. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00183.1. (Download code to calculate rainfall distributions and the shift+increase modes)
(J. Clim., PDF+) Pendergrass, A.G. and Dennis L. Hartmann, 2014: Two modes of change of the distribution of rain. Journal of Climate, 27, 8357-8371. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00182.1. (Download code to calculate rainfall distributions and the shift+increase modes)
(PNAS, PDF) Donohoe, Aaron, Kyle C. Armour, A.G. Pendergrass and David S. Battisti, 2014: Shortwave and longwave radiative contributions to global warming under increasing CO2. PNAS, 111, 16700-16705. doi:10.1073/pnas.1412190111.
(See press releases from MIT News, Oceans at MIT, and UW Today, and press coverage at the Daily Mail.)
(J. Clim., PDF+) Pendergrass, A.G. and Dennis L. Hartmann, 2014: The atmospheric energy constraint on global-mean precipitation change. Journal of Climate, 27, 757-768. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00163.1
Reply
MattH
| #
kernel
[ˈkəːn(ə)l]
NOUN
a softer, usually edible part of a nut, seed, or fruit stone contained within its shell.
“the kernel of a walnut” · [more]
synonyms:
seed · grain · heart · core · stone · nut · meat
the seed and hard husk of a cereal, especially wheat.
“the milky kernel of the wheat grain”
synonyms:
seed · grain · heart · core · stone · nut · meat
the central or most important part of something.
“this is the kernel of the argument”
synonyms:
essence · core · heart · essential part · essentials · quintessence · [more]
computing
the most basic level or core of an operating system, responsible for resource allocation, file management, and security.
Matt’s Comment. By introducing a new layer or definition the hypothesis becomes more opaque, cluttered, more easily manipulated, and a tool of deception. The seed of climate change?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Take note of how incredibly creative is this science propaganda. (I just noticed Matt’s comment as I am posting this.)
The researchers did that by analyzing satellite observations and applying what they call “radiative kernels” to disentangle the various components controlling the transfer, absorption and emission of heat inside the Earth system and what is sent back out into space.
The Radiative Kernel Technique
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/radiative-kernels-climate-models
So, in order to combat this in the eyes of the public you would have to untangle this notion of Radiative Kernel Technique–which of course is blatant nonsense–and that would mean you would have to explain to the public how/why this is the nonsense it is.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Andy,
As I suspect you realize, you are preaching to the choir here on this forum. With respect to which, there is a certain naivete about everybody at this forum that the world is going to suddenly wake up to climate fraud. But now most have accepted that that is never going to happen. There are reasons for the complacency of the public. And one way to understand that is through confronting your own complacency about the scientific thinking that underlies climatology.
Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.
In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.
In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority. The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware that climatological conclusions, like global warming, are based on conversation and not empiricism.
Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology:
The Roof Leaks at the Top: Conversation with Edwin Berry Phd.
https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum3/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=446
James McGinn / Genius
PS, Take note of how Dr. Berry (a global warming skeptic) employs the same evasive argumentative tactics of the worst climate alarmists.
Reply
Andy
| #
Hi James, I realise I am preaching to the converted here, but PSI gives me a platform to share my work across social media, where a lot of indoctrinated sheep reside. I am not one who believes the climate lies will be realised by everyone. I think the alarmists will succeed in their aims to rob us of electricity and meat, and regress us several hundred years.
Reply
Val
| #
NASA propaganda. It’s clear, considering astrophysics, that the SUN drives the climate, and CO2 has nothing to do with it. See YT Suspicious Observers videos for the up-to-date science. The NASA exposition on this is totally BS and scientifically inaccurate.
Reply
Val
| #
See THIS article on Principia Scientific, this same website, which illustrates my point:
The Climate Role Of Our Sun Confirmed
https://principia-scientific.com/the-climate-role-of-our-sun-confirmed/?
Reply
yougottaloveme
| #
What is needed I believe, is a published video debate between their best and ours, with a true transcript in print following. This could be done on a video conference medium such as Zoom or Skype, and then published on sites that don’t delete truth.
Alternately, a published in-print debate, with each side stating its case, printed rebuttals by each side, and final statements wrapping up, together with pointing out the other side’s fallacies contained in both their original and rebuttal, if existing.
I’ll end with this: Computer simulations are numeric cartoons.
Reply
W
| #
Garbage data in, garbage results out.
Fauci and his ilk relied on “models” and they all turned out to be false.
Reply
Alan T
| #
I despair when I read about heat being trapped. Heat cannot be trapped by definition. Heat is thermal energy transferring from a high temperature to a low temperature. It could make sense to talk about thermal energy being trapped but it will only be “trapped” when there is no temperature difference anywhere in the universe. This is how ridiculous NASA has become,
Even if the atmosphere is warming, it does not mean that the surface temperature is warming. The surface temperature might stay higher for longer if heat loss is slowed by the atmosphere. There is another fundamental misunderstanding about thermodynamics, which effectively views the atmosphere as insulation. Insulation does not increase temperatures; it only slows down the rate of heat loss. In a house, for example, the temperature across the system, from the temperature of the flame in the boiler to the outside temperature does not change if insulation is suddenly added. Only the temperature profile across the system changes.
Reply
Barry
| #
Hi Alan thanks for your remarks on heat being trapped I’m uneducated but have a basic understanding of heat flow and know when I hear something like heat being trapped there is no need to read further. You would think that trained illusionists like NASA would at least make an attempt to appease people of higher learning but instead are obviously making things up to scare the illiterate.
Have a good day
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Barry,
Why should NASA make any “… attempt to appease people of higher learning…” — do you know how futile would that be? What is the relative distribution of “people of higher learning” and not corrupted by the reality of science for hire in the US of A? Just guess: 0.1%, 0.5%? You see, the publicly funded organizations such as NASA are not required nor prepared to cater to this hopeless and, in reality condemned, minority…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Lit
| #
Alan T:
” There is another fundamental misunderstanding about thermodynamics, which effectively views the atmosphere as insulation.”
Yes, this is a major problem because insulation works in the opposite way of how GHGs relates to heat. Insulation aims to reduce absorption of heat in the surroundings of a warm body, but GHGs enhance heat absorption. This means that GHGs actually cool the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation
“Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of different temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body.”
rather than absorbed
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Alan T and hopefully PSI Readers,
Alan, you began: “I despair when I read about heat being trapped. Heat cannot be trapped by definition. Heat is thermal energy …”
Have you ever read the term ‘sensible heat’. Sensible heat is commonly stored in the ground and in the bodies of water during the during the daytime; however, this energy is not trapped there. For we know that the energy is being continually emitted from the surfaces of the soil and water so that during the nighttime a portion of the sensible heat stored during the daytime is emitted toward space according to the temperatures of the surface just as was also occurring during the day time.
When you wrote: “Heat is thermal energy transferring from a high temperature to a low temperature.”, you are referring to the direction of the ‘thermal conduction’ of energy in matter (solid, liquid, gas).
“Intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Louis Elzevir)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Gary Ashe
| #
More bollocks from Jerry.
”HEAT” is energy on the move from one environ to another environ, heat is what is emitted and absorbed, what jerry refers as sensibly heat is simply resident kinetic energy not heat, heat is an instantaneous transient phenomenon of energy transfer.
Sensible heat is a mode of energy transfer via molecular collision, i.e. none radiative tranfers, slow moving heat transfer.
I don’t know why anybody here gives jerry the time of day, he is a complete head-banger, altho i will say a very polite one.
But make no mistake Alan T was absolutely spot on the money.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Gary. Jerry was just testing to see if you or anybody else knew the difference and would make the appropriate correction which I appreciate that you did. ( I am wearing a cheeky grin )
I really appreciate Jerry’s contributions and I hope that when I am close to 80 years old I still have enough cranial clarity to make some contributions rather than merely drawling over my keyboard with senility and shorting out my computer.
With some of the absolute garbage comments on this site Jerry’s errors are pretty tame and I do recommend he writes his comments on word and sleep on them overnight to check for “clarity” in the morning. This concept was viable when there was only 4 or less articles a day but as PSI now publishes up to 13 articles a day it is important to comment immediately if you want your comment to be relevant and contextual.
Cheers Gary. Have a nice day. (as Jerry would say ) Matt
Reply
Moffin
| #
MattH has had plenty of vaccines containing aluminum as adjuvant so it is likely he will be drawling over his computer when he is 80 years old.
Reply
JaKo
| #
Moffin,
What goes around….
But honestly — you’re safe, it may be irrelevant in time you would hit 80’s. — there would be only cockroaches and some very old rock stars left on Earth then…
Cheers, JaKo
Moffin
| #
Hi JaKo. Many cockroaches are the reincarnation of old rock stars.
Blessed be. Moffin.
Pavel Moore
| #
Whilst I agree in essence, Matt, with your comments re. Jerry, please note that approx.12 hours had passed between his comments and yours which must surely leave enough time to proof read before pressing ‘submit’. I also wonder why he, and others, don’t make use of the available spell & grammar checks on their machines. Is that too much to ask?
Oh; and in case you dispute by using the ‘age’ defence — I’m about a decade older than he is if your inference of 80 is accurate.
Pavel
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Pavel, i am confident you count your blessings when many in their sixties and even late fifties succumb to dementia.
I abhor spell check and gramma as I like to challenge myself on self improvement in the use of written English.
The gentleman of whom we speak has passion and enthusiasm for science mixed with good intention and a lifetime of study. None of that good intention has laid a paving stone to hell and to deny some satisfaction through sharing the fruits of that lifetime of study would be mean spirited.
The only person who has not made errors is a person untruthful.
Best wishes Pavel. Matt.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Pavel,
I missed the fact that you are 90. Sorry! Us young guys just don/t pay attention.
I am curious: How many different experiences did you have and which was the one that produced the greatest magnitude of your knowledge?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Gary,
“Heat” can be both a verb (to add energy to an object) and a noun (the energy radiated by an object)..
In forging blades you can either use a homogenous piece of metal, created from molten metal, that has specific characteristics of hardness and flexibility or make a blade for different types of metals that will have both superior hardness (sharpening) and flexibility.
To make the superior blade you must heat the metals to just below their melt point, then when they radiate heat of the right color you add kinetic energy, in the form of hammering that merges the two metals into one piece with the desired properties of the two metals.You must know not only how much you are heating the metal but also the amount of heat (energy) in the metal
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Pavel and hopefully PSI readers ,
Robert Boyle wrote ’The Sceptical Chymist’, 1661, which; was unfortunately written and published in ‘old’ English. So it has never been translated into ‘modern’ English. But I have read that he seldom proofed his old English so there are many mistakes in this Classic Book that few (including myself) have read more than a very minor portion. Not because of his mistakes but because of his ‘old’ English. So the ‘truth’ is that I do not really try to proofread because when I have, I find obvious mistakes as soon as I submit my comments. And I have written that a reader would not be aware of my too many mistakes if they did not what I intended to write. I just omitted an obvious word. But I caught this mistake and corrected it. But then I deleted my correction to illustrate that which I was writing.
You can Google Robert Boyle and learn about his accomplishments, about which maybe only a few modern chemists are aware. And maybe these modern chemists, who proofread, and publish their writings without mistakes, consider that what he did could not be important to what they now claim to know. Which isn’t that: “For, according to the common saying, sight can teach more and with greater certainty in a single day than can precept even though repeated a thousand times; or, as another says, intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” (Louis Elzevir, 1638, as translated to modern English from Italian by Crew and de Salvio, 1914).
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
I found Robert Boyle’s “wish list” of 24 possible inventions fascinating and endorse Einstein’s comments that intelligence is imagination.
A winter studying Galileo Galilei’s work and described as “paradoxes of the great star-gazer” reveals the great stargazer’s repute.
Compression and expansion of gases described as “the spring of the air” is a nice touch.
I now understand why you stated some of the old alchemists were great scientists.
Thank you for the reference Jerry.
Have a nice day. Matt
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi Barry,
Why should NASA make any “… attempt to appease people of higher learning…” — do you know how futile would that be? What is the relative distribution of “people of higher learning” and not corrupted by the reality of science for hire in the US of A? Just guess: 0.1%, 0.5%? You see, the publicly funded organizations such as NASA are not required nor prepared to cater to this hopeless and, in reality condemned, minority…
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Barry
| #
So true I’m afraid JaKo. They really are just trying to keep the agw afloat in the publics eye. Probably a little jealous of the press covid has been gettin
Have a good one Barrry
Reply
JaKo
| #
Hi John,
This is an example of the comment features NOT WORKING RIGHT!
Reply
Bevan Dockery
| #
Many years back Prof. Murray Salby pointed out that the rate of change of CO2 concentration matched the atmospheric temperature. For daring to contradict the UN IPCC, he was sacked from his University post. My mathematical analysis of temperature/CO2 concentration time series has shown that there is no statistically significant correlation between the two. However it has shown a clear correlation between temperature and the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
The major climate event in the data has been the El Niño event which is a prominent feature in the Fourier Transform of both the atmospheric temperature and the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration time series. This shows that it is the temperature that determines the rate of generation of CO2, not CO2 determining the temperature.
The environment is so sensitive to the temperature changes that the Mauna Loa weekly CO2 data provides Fourier Analysis maxima at 27.2 days, the draconic period of the Moon, and 29.5 days, the synodic period of the Moon. That is, the drop in temperature as the Moon passes between the Sun and the Earth results in a change in the rate of generation of CO2. Other than during an eclipse, we are not conscious of this minor temperature variation.
The fact is that there is no such thing as a Greenhouse Effect except in a garden greenhouse. The UN IPCC deliberately chose to totally ignore the well established Ideal Gas Laws and the gravity induced temperature-pressure gradient in the atmosphere as the source of the Earth’s surface temperature. How much longer will their lie persist, apparently aided and abetted by NASA ?
Details of my analysis may be viewed on my web site by clicking on my name at the head of this comment.
Reply
Mervyn
| #
I just couldn’t stop laughing at this NASA joke. I really couldn’t.
I’d love to see a response from respected German physicist, Dr Gerhard Gerlich and his colleague Dr Ralf Tscheuschner, authors of a scientific paper entitled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics (March 2009 – International Journal of Modern Physics).
Reply
Dan Paulson
| #
This is the same NASA that recently reported “proving” the existence of a parallel universe where time runs in reverse.
Reply