Atmospheric Temperatures Plummeting At A Record Pace

Earth’s atmosphere is cooling at the fastest rate since satellite records began in 1979. Since February, temperatures have cooled nearly half a degree centigrade – the largest three month drop on record.

2016-06-04-09-20-15

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

2016-06-04-11-23-39

Government climate experts say that the record cooling is actually record warming.

2016-06-04 13 57 07 2016-06-04 13 56 54

Global warming taking place at an ‘alarming rate’, UN climate body warns

They are wrong, like they are about everything else.

CfrluvmWcAAXcJC

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

131 Responses to Atmospheric Temperatures Plummeting At A Record Pace

  1. Friar Geschwind says:

    All I see is an El Nino coming back down as they always do.

    And why start at 1996.5 which leaves out 18 years worth of data?

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Ha ha,

      you completely ignore the “other” chart that shows an unusually deep drop in temperature.Deepest drop on record already erasing almost .50C in just three months,which make clear that CO2 is not driving temperatures up at all.

      Not only that you warmists share the same defect in ignoring the many climate models the IPCC publishes,that says it is supposed to warm .30C per decade in this century,but Tony showed in the first chart,it didn’t even warm half that in NINETEEN years!

      Just .10C in nineteen years.

      You are dumb as hell.

    • David McMahon says:

      “All I see is an El Nino coming back down as they always do.”

      So the rate it is coming down is irrelevant when the temperature is decreasing, but if it was the fastest forming El Nino on record with rising temp you would be telling us this is evidence of climate change.

  2. Robertv says:

    Sure the heat went hiding in the deep ocean.

    • Jim says:

      It is, apparently, a new law of thermodynamics. Hot substances separate themselves from the cooler substances, and mysteriously make their way into deep, dark hiding places, only to reemerge with a vengeance later, just in time to rescue the reputations of diehard warmers.

  3. Sparks says:

    I said this a few years ago, it was forecast (by planetary and solar calculations) that this year after the suns polarity reversed that there would be a positive ENSO and that the screams of man made global warming would be defining, and the fact that there has been doctored graphs to show a temperature rise, this would all come to bite them in the ass, and yes I actually said it, this will be the greatest cooling event ever recorded in history, or something to that effect lol

    Anyway, the way these complex patterns play out, we can expect some awesome sunny clear sky days and nights locally here with some major cooling events.

    All this fake man made “heat” it’s confusing! temperature differences cause massive storms, hurricanes violent weather patterns, so where is it?

    The fake global anomaly contradicts itself on so many levels, I’m astounded by the sheer amount of pure crap

    • Andy DC says:

      We are approaching 11 years with the unprecedented major US hurricane drought and are over 4 years into a US tornado drought as well. We have now gone nearly 28 years with only one major corn belt drought. In the 1930’s there were four major droughts in 6 years.

      Whatever we have been putting into the atmosphere must be very good for US weather, so why stop now?

      • Sparks says:

        Andy have you ever heard of the calm before the storm? it’s a very powerful saying.

        Our planet can equal out, which appears to be happening, then when cooling happens there will be hurricanes and storms, it’s like the reverse of warming but it has the same result… all natural though. we know when and where these patterns occur and the safety of people is the highest priority.

  4. Sparks says:

    And just for the interested, The next positive ENSO event will be in another 22 years, it’s a solar driven event… good luck.

  5. Friar Geschwind says:

    Sparks:

    “temperature differences cause massive storms, hurricanes violent weather patterns, so where is it?”

    As for the weather during winter time the temperature differences are mostly in the Arctic region which is 10, 15 even 20 degrees warmer than the rest of the planet. That difference in temperatures causes a chain reaction of weather events to the south.

    • tonyheller says:

      The Arctic is 15 degrees warmer than the rest of the planet?

      Twilight Zone music …

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        That is not what I’m saying. I may not have phrased it right so here I go again. This is an anomaly map not an absolute temperature map.

        Let me flesh that out a bit:

        The Arctic region is 11.4 degrees (20.52 Fahrenheit) higher than it’s baseline of 1951-1980. The others areas have a lesser temperature INCREASE than the Arctic.

        • AndyG55 says:

          For ONE or TWO months.

          And its GONE….. Lost to space.

          And the people up there LOVED that brief respite from -40C to -30C

          Do you even know what “transient” means…

          apart from your park bench address !!

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            This El Nino did definitely not last a mere 1 or 2 months.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Look at the graph at the top, you dopey git.

            The main release.. there and gone.

            Maybe you should sit on it.. see how pointy it is.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          “… the Arctic region which is 10, 15 even 20 degrees warmer than the rest of the planet.”

          You may not have phrased it right?

          Keep digging, keep digging …

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            “That difference in temperatures causes a chain reaction of weather events to the south.”

            Bwahaha! Give the man another shovel …

    • AndyG55 says:

      roflmao….

      Warmer than the rest of the planet, by still well below freezing..

      Poor Friar Blow-wind.. just showed everybody just how THICK he really is. !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        OOPS…. That graph was not meant to be there.

        But it shows UAH global temperature from 1980 to the beginning of the 1998 El Nino.

        NO WARMING.

        SO may as well look at the period between the end of that El Nino in 2001, and the start of current one in 2015.

        Oh Look NO WARMING !!

        • Friar Geschwind says:

          Your chart is typical of all Skeptic charts in that they only include a cherry picked date. 60 to 70 years worth of data shows that there have been three “pauses”

          1950-1979 GISS
          1979-1998 UAH
          1998 to present UAH

          At no point do temperatures come back down to the level of the previous “pause”

          Global Warming is going up in a staircase fashion (or escalator if you wish).

          • AndyG55 says:

            GISS is meaningless.. massively mal-adjusted CRAP.

          • Jack Striker says:

            Hey, how do you embed images? I want to blow you the fuck out in style.

            You want no cherrypicking? How about 65,000,000 years of data? Or maybe 400,000 years of data? Fucking paid shill.

            http://i.imgur.com/WTqsLXN.png

            http://i.imgur.com/fWZSLxt.png

          • Jack Striker says:

            Oh! There’s a direct upload.

          • Jack Striker says:

            lol, AGW morons.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Notice that the further in a thread stack the smaller the graphs come out.

            Maybe better to start a new stack rather than use “reply”, if you want your pic to display so people can see it.

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            Jack Striker says:

            “Hey, how do you embed images? I want to blow you the fuck out in style.

            “You want no cherrypicking? How about 65,000,000 years of data? Or maybe 400,000 years of data? Fucking paid shill.”

            First off. Your gross lack of professionality and foul language would get you banned on any AGW site EVEN if you were on their side.

            As for your typical “Oh, why aren’t you looking at umpteen million years?” argument the response is:

            1) What happened back then usually took place over periods of thousands of years which would have given us time to adapt had we been there at the time.

            2) We are civilized now and our civilization requires a steady and reliable source of food from intensive agriculture. This style of food production requires stability, not abrupt an change.

            Back when we were hunter-gatherers if the climate wasn’t to our liking we could pick up our spears and gathering baskets and move elsewhere.

            We do not have that luxury now that there are billions of us because of our dense populations.

            Any rapid change in the environment – decades instead of thousands of years – will disrupt our agriculture and urban infrastructure leading to a collapsing civilization.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Another dishonest comment from Friar the liar,who likes to make it appear that skeptics deny all warming since the mid 1800’s.

            Here from a long running “skeptic” Jo Nova pointing out that ALL three warming periods since the 1860’s per decade are nearly identical,based on what Dr Jones said in reply to Roger Harrabin questions:

            Shock: Phil Jones says the obvious. BBC asks real questions.

            “A) This recent warming trend was no different from others we have measured. The world warmed at the same rate in 1860-1880, 1919-1940, and 1975-1998.”

            http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/shock-phil-jones-says-the-obvious-bbc-asks-real-questions/

            A lot more in the link showing there is no obvious AGW signal in them.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            Friar,

            The BBC interview you never read:

            Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

            http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

            Ha ha……..

          • Paul says:

            Hi Friar, I apologize for the attitude of many of my fellow skeptics here, I don’t think that represents us as a group.

            We are used to being treated poorly by those on the more alarmist side of the debate, and so lashing out isn’t uncommon. I doubt they mean any offense. I also doubt your goal is to take over the world through climate change.

            What I will say however, is that rapid changes in Earth’s temperature of the magnitude we have witnessed have occurred plenty of times before. As recently as the Medieval warm period, the Roman Climate Optimum, and Holocene Climate Optimum, all show very rapid increases to temperature.

            Now our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere may enhance this warming slightly through the greenhouse effect, but clearly the net feedbacks are negative, as we are not seeing any extreme warming trend at all.

            Furthermore, for what warming we have seen, it does not appear to have had any negative effects on agriculture. In fact the opposite is happening likely due to increases to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, plant life is thriving and crop yields are increasing.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Let’s also have a look at the North Pole this century, before the big El Nino spike.

        Look No warming.

        The ONLY events causing any warming have been the El Ninos, and the ocean oscillations.

        The El Nino is GONE

        the AMO is heading downwards.

        If you live anywhere up towards the Arctic.

        …… BUY MORE BLANKETS

        • Friar Geschwind says:

          Yet another temperature chart that shows less than two decades worth of data instead of the full temperature chart.

          As far as your global cooling delusions are concerned let me bring this up. Skeptics use three different and contradictory arguments.

          1) There is no global warming.

          2) The Earth is cooling.

          3) Oh sure there is global warming but it’s natural.

          All three have been used by the same individuals in their attempt to ignore what’s happening.

          • AndyG55 says:

            There is only one group using NON-CO2 forced El Ninos to show a warming trend.

            As I have shown time and time again.

            Take out the El Nino.. NO WARMING.

            So you see, there is ABSOLUTELY NO CO2 WARMING SIGNAL IN THE WHOLE OF THE SATELLITE DATA.

            That’s just the way it is… live with it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You even ADMITTED that the El Ninos were the only thing causing warming.

            “Global Warming is going up in a staircase fashion ”

            El Ninos are SOLAR and WIND forced.

            Nothing to do with CO2.

            The hole you are digging for yourself is now way over your head and each spade of crap you shovel keeps coming back onto your head.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Jack, you’d think this twit could also use an introduction to reading comprehension and elementary logic but I’m afraid it wouldn’t do him any good.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Dear Friar Geschwind, it is advisable to not post and comment on graphs one doesn’t understand.

      ”Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.”

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Friar,

      Your chart is dishonest and misleading since it was well below freezing in most of the Arctic at the time in February. Above 80 Degrees north,it was around MINUS 10 below zero at the time.

      You are using ANOMALY temperature data not actual temperature data,which you know shows deep freezing in the region at the time.

      You are pathetic.

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        It is irrelevant since I was talking about anomalies not absolute temperatures. Those warmer than average temperatures drive the weather system regardless of whether you find them cold.

        You on the other hand are confusing warmer with warm and colder for cold. “Warm” and “Cold” has to do with physical comfort, not with atmospheric phenomenon.

        So, are you saying that temperature differences (anomalies) do not affect the climate?

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Ha ha,

          you make clear you indeed dumb as hell because it actually REDUCES the temperature difference between the pole and the Equator actually reduces storminess due to smaller temperature gradient.

          You need to drop this insane CO2 infatuation and start thinking rationally.

          • rw says:

            Exactly. The hitch in his reasoning that you point out is very intriguing to someone interested in vagaries of human thought. It makes his argument a kind of tossed salad of relations – or a kind of Escher diagram – as opposed to a coherent organization. To be charitable, I suspect the good friar was too eager to make a counter argument to the post to put his thoughts in order properly (a case of overreach leading to overlooking inconsistencies).

          • AndyG55 says:

            @rw….

            A two year old’s first attempt at spaghetti, would be a more apt description.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          You on the other hand are confusing warmer with warm and colder for cold. “Warm” and “Cold” has to do with physical comfort, not with atmospheric phenomenon.

          Geschwind, you made a total ass of yourself by posting a graph of temperature anomalies and writing this idiocy:

          ”As for the weather during winter time the temperature differences are mostly in the Arctic region which is 10, 15 even 20 degrees warmer than the rest of the planet. That difference in temperatures causes a chain reaction of weather events to the south.”

          Now every half-bright troll would crawl back under the rock for a while and hope that people will forget by the time he shows up again. You are dumb enough to stay and claim you were misunderstood because you “may not have phrased it right”.

          I like it because it gives more space to parade your ignorance but you may want to take a hint. Your contributions here have cerebral disconnect written all over them.

          Be crafty once, Geschwind and verschwinde!

    • AndyG55 says:

      And here is a more realistic map, that doesn’t hark back to massively cooled mid century GISS data

  6. Friar Geschwind says:

    Sparks says:

    June 4, 2016 at 5:04 pm

    “And just for the interested, The next positive ENSO event will be in another 22 years, it’s a solar driven event… good luck.”

    El Nino occur roughly every 5-10 years; the solar cycles every 11 years. When you compare El Ninos to temperature charts you will find no correlation.

    Compare:

    C:\Users\user1\Documents\Todo\AGW\Wood for Trees\Wood for trees solar PMOD composite 1979-2016.png

    with:

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1979/plot/rss-land/from:1979/trend

    Solar trends and atmospheric temperatures are going in opposite directions with no correlation with each other.

    • Friar Geschwind says:

      And here is the temperature chart for the same period:

      • AndyG55 says:

        Here’s the reality and why there is a cooling trend coming

        • Friar Geschwind says:

          Can you tell the difference between the red line and the yellowish one ALL the way to the right?

          The yellow one is going up but the red doesn’t even show data up to the end of the yellow.

        • Sparks says:

          TSI isn’t a cause it’s a result, I’m looking at different versions and other data, for some reason I don’t trust this kind of data the graph makes my hair stand on end like I have goosebumps lol only joking it’s fine.

          I’m so confused? lol

    • Sparks says:

      Think about it Friar Geschwind,

      ENSO is measuring a planetary ocean, this ocean is conductive, a polarity induction on a planetary scale occurs in relation to our planet and the sun on average every 22 years.

  7. Friar Geschwind says:

    OOPS I inserted the wrong chart. Here’s the right one:

  8. AndyG55 says:

    RSS for May now available.

    DOWN 0.232 to +0.525

    Rapid cooling !

    The “PLATEAU” may return much quicker than we thought….

    … then rapidly extend.

    Here are the comparisons of the El Nino 1998/2015 temps

    Big question is… where will we be by year’s end.

  9. AndyG55 says:

    NEARLY ALL GONE

    a very transient El Nino..

  10. Friar Geschwind says:

    AndyG55:

    “a very transient El Nino..”

    Actually all El Ninos last about a year. You will also find a so called “rapid” cooling EVERY time an El Nino goes into a La Nina or a more neutral phase.

    • AndyG55 says:

      The main peak.. as even a moron like you can see, is a VERY transient event.

      Now go back to your park bench.

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        Bottom line, there is no distinction between this El Nino and the last one as far as duration (or “transience”). The only difference is that this one is even higher – warmer – than 2010.

  11. Billy Liar says:

    Perfect conditions for mountain biking in Greenland:

    http://summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

  12. AndyG55 says:

    The Sun has cured its acne problem..

  13. AndyG55 says:

    Not a good sign..

    Warming would be FAR more preferable. !!

  14. Friar Geschwind says:

    To those who claim that our temps are linked to El Ninos alone let me emphasize the following.

    El Ninos and La Ninas are both intensified by global warming. As the satellite chart below shows the troughs before 1998 (except for Mt Pinatubo in 1993) are lower than the troughs after 1998. The peaks before 1998 are also lower than afterwards.

    Also, as I brought up before, both solar luminosity charts (Sunspot and PMOD) do not correlate with El Ninos in the same time period. We were on a low solar luminosity period simultaneous with a high temperature spike.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Also, as I brought up before, both solar luminosity charts (Sunspot and PMOD) do not correlate with El Ninos in the same time period.”

      No reason why they should.

      El Nino is ocean energy storage… It will release when it feels like it.

      Trouble is, after this latest release.. there is not much coming in to recharge,

      Unlike the last couple which were driven by a Grand Solar Maximum.

      I hope you live somewhere that is cold and going to get colder….

      …. but I bet you choose somewhere warm. ;-)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Now show us how El Nino steps ( which are the ONLY warming in the satellite data)….. correlate with CO2 rise..

      …especially considering that so-called CO2 back-radiation can not heat the oceans.

      Dig deeper, you poor ignorant little AGW troll…

      … you are burying yourself quite deep, and its hilarious to watch. :-)

    • Latitude says:

      Friar, you are saying “El Ninos and La Ninas are both intensified by global warming”…global warming is temperature and nothing else.
      If the temperature has not gone up since 1998…how did global warming make the peaks higher and troughs lower?

      Temperature stayed the same….

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0URp_7LsY3w/VfbcryjIYGI/AAAAAAAAD4c/2tqoEV5Z2Z0/s1600/Fig_C%2BNASA%2BSept2015.jpg

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        Global warming is more than just temperatures, it is a process that affects temperatures.

        The way the ocean absorbs and releases its heat is complex and could take decades. What could be said with certainty is that there is a time delay aspect where temperatures do not necessarily rise immediately after the Carbon Dioxide.

        Human caused global warming does not increase in a gradualistic manner as CO2 does. The time between CO2’s immediate release and impact on our temperatures could be several decades.

        • AndyG55 says:

          The oceans CANNOT absorb heat from CO2, even if there was any.

          You truly have got the BRAIN-WASHED IGNORANCE down pat, haven’t you.

          “The time between CO2’s immediate release and impact on our temperatures could be several decades”

          What a load of unsubstantiated meaningless gibberish !!!

        • Latitude says:

          So you’re saying that CO2 is a bit player…and other things can override it.
          If the time between CO2 rising..and temps rising…”can” be several decades…..then you don’t even know if you are measuring a temp change from CO2.

        • Latitude says:

          The time between CO2’s immediate release and impact on our temperatures could be several decades.
          ====
          If I put fertilizer on and plant..
          …and that plant did not change for several decades

          I would not be stupid enough to give the fertilizer credit.

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            The whole system, Ocean, land, ice and atmosphere is far more complex than something as simple as fertilizer and its effect on plants.

          • Latitude says:

            fertilizer and plants is extremely complex.

            CO2 raises air temperature….for all of those other things you claim….the air has to get warmer first.
            Air temps did not change in the time period you claim.

        • AndrewS says:

          Wow, just wow. Let me elaborate, this is the first time I’ve seen ‘Global Warming’ defined as a process that has an effect on temperatures, and not merely describing an observation[or belief, or fact] that planetary averaged temperatures are rising or have risen. The now reclusive Al Gore gave us that inane phrase when he published his political manifesto loaded with bad science: ‘Earth in the balance.’
          There is ‘Global Warming’ and there is ‘Global Cooling.’
          You have two other things wildly wrong in your comment above:
          “What could be said with certainty is that there is a time delay aspect where temperatures do not necessarily rise immediately after the Carbon Dioxide.”
          You’ve got it backwards, Irrespective of human emissions, Rises in temperature are what cause a rise in CO2, and conversely, decreased temperatures cause a decrease in CO2. And yes, there is a time lag, of as much as a couple of hundred years. And…:
          “The time between CO2’s immediate release and impact on our temperatures could be several decades.”
          The modest increase of CO2 to 400ppm above the dangerously low levels at which plants will cease to function is wholly beneficial to the planet. In assisting atmospheric warming, the additional CO2 has already done its job. Any additional amounts added to our atmosphere will have little to no effect, you could double or quadruple it, but with no additional warming being caused. The absorption bands for CO2 are already saturated. At high altitudes CO2 sheds its latent heat to space(cooling), while at low levels it warms, but these effects are roughly equal and cancel each other out. So CO2 causes no net warming, no change in atmospheric temperatures either way. How can you explain that CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm and the Earth has not fried? For the majority of Earth history, CO2 has been at levels much higher than today, and has been through several Ice-ages in spite of that fact.
          So to sum things up, wow.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5WvKc3Ct2E

          • AndrewS says:

            There are other things besides temperaure directly, that will decrease CO2. Look at the massive plant growth in the Carboniferous, and how it affected atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

          • AndyG55 says:

            AndrewS,

            What many people don’t seem to realis is that for most varieties of plants, 250ppm is basically starvation point.

            If aCO2 is much less than that.. they just don’t grow.. period !!!

            There was a nice little experiment done a few years ago. On a very calm day CO2 levels were measured above a crop.

            In the morning it was some 600ppm CO2, but by midday, it had dropped to around 250ppm.. and went no lower.

            The plants had effectively run out of food for the day !!

            Plant life has actually been on pretty close to subsistence levels of CO2 for a very long time.. some plants (C4’s) have even evolved to cope with this dangerously low level.

            Mankind, and his small release of accidentally sequestered carbon , has quite probably allowed the world’s plants to at least start breathing properly again.

            MUCH MORE atmospheric CO2 is needed though, before plants can reach their full potential…

            Certainly more aCO2 will be needed to continue feeding the world’s growing population.

    • Sparks says:

      el idiot says:

      “El Ninos and La Ninas are both intensified by global warming”

      That’s like saying there is a discernible difference between the CO2 produced by a Millionaires family and a poor family.

  15. Friar Geschwind says:

    Andy G55:

    “The oceans CANNOT absorb heat from CO2, even if there was any.”

    They don’t absorb heat from CO2 directly. The rising levels of CO2 retains more temperature which gets transferred over to the oceans.

    Latitude:

    “So you’re saying that CO2 is a bit player…and other things can override it.”

    Not in our time period. Increased CO2 is responsible for the extra flow of energy throughout Ocean – 94%, land 2%, melting of ice (Mostly Arctic Sea ice) 2%, and
    finally our atmosphere another 2%.

    • Latitude says:

      CO2 does not make some magical extra flow of energy…

      It can only warm the air….if the air temperature does not rise….nothing else happens
      It’s not hiding behind a cloud.

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        Latitude:

        “It can only warm the air….if the air temperature does not rise….nothing else happens”

        Some of the energy that is released by the ocean at night time gets bounced back by the CO2 warming up ocean AND air.

        CO2 doesn’t absorb heat it retains it.

        • Latitude says:

          Friar, CO2 has to warm the air first….making the air warmer is the only thing CO2 can do.

          It air temperatures are not rising….nothing else is warming.

        • AndyG55 says:

          “CO2 doesn’t absorb heat it retains it.”

          roflmao..

          Junior high science FAIL !!!

        • Latitude says:

          Some of the energy that is released by the ocean at night time gets bounced back by the CO2 warming up ocean AND air.
          ===
          and somehow it didn’t warm the air in the process…

        • AndyG55 says:

          “Some of the energy that is released by the ocean at night time gets bounced back by the CO2 warming up ocean AND air. ”

          Yet another load of tainted kool-aide driven fantasy GIBBERISH. !!

          Are you getting your materials from the granddaughter of Bros Grimm or something ?

        • Sparks says:

          So the Global warming laser theory returns> My god man how can you say things like “extra flow of energy” with a straight face?

          • AndyG55 says:

            He’s a Friar… Global Warming is his religion.

            Any explanation, NO MATTER HOW STUPID will do for them.

            That’s how far things have progressed in that religion…
            ….. the had their priests, now they have their friars.

        • Sunsettommy says:

          Friar,

          CO2 doesn’t warm up ocean,the SUN does that.

          CO2 is NOT a heat source,it only absorb a small amount of a small part of the IR window.

          CO2 is not a molecular cage that holds onto a IR photon either since they are always moving nearly the speed of light the whole time,which is why there is near saturation on what CO2 can absorb in the atmosphere.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “only absorb a small amount of a small part of the IR window.”

            Not only that, but its re-emittance time in the lower atmosphere is several magnitudes SLOWER than its collisions with other molecules. That mean it immediately passes that tiny amount of energy onto the other 99.96% of the atmosphere where it is dealt with but the normal actions of convection and conduction just like any other energy .

            There is NO MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS FOR CO2 WARMING of the open atmosphere.

            It is a MYTH and a LIE.

            CO2 does NOT trap heat in the atmosphere, nor does it cause back-radiation in the lower atmosphere.

            In fact it does not re-emit until some 11km, and thus acts, like other radiative gases, as a method for cooling the atmosphere.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “They don’t absorb heat from CO2 directly. The rising levels of CO2 retains more temperature which gets transferred over to the oceans.”

      What a load of arrant BULLSHIT !!!

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Increased CO2 is responsible for the extra flow of energy throughout Ocean ”

      FANTASY LAND.. here comes Friar Gets-wind.

      Weird weed you must be on Friar, that is FOR SURE.

    • Sunsettommy says:

      Ha ha,

      no it doesn’t even come close since CO2 absorbs so little of the outgoing IR in the first place. You leave out a lot of things…….

      Here is another presentation for you to learn about how energy leaves the planet at a greater rate than CO2 can warm force it:

      The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

      “The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up. The reasons behind this are the wavelengths of energy that are transmitted by the Earth, but it can simply be shown by looking at the energy loss increase that has taken place over the past 25 years.”

      http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/05/the-science-of-why-the-theory-of-global-warming-is-incorrect/

      Read the link where he has charts and full explanation about his conclusion.

  16. Rud Istvan says:

    FG, a gentle suggestion. You have made it abundantly clear you do not know what you are talking about. Oceans are heated by insolation, not back IR. Basic physics. Posting TSI uncertainty charts just above, with 0.6 +/- 15 shows you do not understand statistical significance. Neither El Nino nor La Nina are in climate models. They are assumed to be transients that average out, even though the Trenberth upward stairstep you cite above proves they don’t.
    The suggestion. Up your knowledge game, or leave the playing field. First Army rule of holes. When in one and want out, first thing is to stop digging. Stop digging. You might find my last two ebooks of some help in that process.

    • Friar Geschwind says:

      I know what insolation is but without CO2s ability to retain heat we would all be frozen popsicles. Are you saying that there is NO increase of temperature with extra CO2?

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Are you saying that there is NO increase of temperature with extra CO2?”

        WELL DONE !!!!

        The friar takes his first step to enlightenment.

        • Friar Geschwind says:

          Do you believe that there is no such thing as a “greenhouse” gas? What about methane and others?

          • AndyG55 says:

            You need to do some research, bozo.

            A LOT of research. !!

          • Latitude says:

            What about methane and others?
            ====
            would still warm the air first

            air don’t warm….ain’t happening

          • AndyG55 says:

            “others”… you mean H2O, correct?

            The only atmospheric molecule capable of affecting the lapse rate.

            You seriously need to do some research , and keep off the Friar’s “medication”

          • AndyG55 says:

            1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino.

            2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.

            3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.

            4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.

            5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002

            6. No warming in Japan surface data for 20 years.

            7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.

            8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015

            9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930s as now, maybe slightly lower

            10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 2005, then cooling …

            11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016.

            That is DESPITE a large climb in CO2 levels over those periods.

            There IS NO CO2 WARMING signal in the ENTIRE satellite record..

            NONE WHAT-SO-EVER.

            The ONLY warming has come from El Nino and ocean circulation effects, totally unrelated to CO2

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            AndyG55 says:

            ““others”… you mean H2O, correct?

            “The only atmospheric molecule capable of affecting the lapse rate.”

            So why is it that scientists have been saying that Carbon Dioxide and Methane gases have greenhouse affect?

            This knowledge dates back to the 19th century.

          • Latitude says:

            Friar, you seem to be confused about this.

            CO2 is a greenhouse gas…but it effect is logarithmic not linear

            https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/350-vs-388_logarithmic_co2.png

          • AndyG55 says:

            “This knowledge dates back to the 19th century”

            You have no idea what that knowledge means though.. do you..

            They were not called “greenhouse” gases back then.. they have another name, based on what it actually does.

            Until you have at least a vague idea what you are talking about, …

            …you really should stop digging..

            you are burying yourself.

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            Latitude:

            “CO2 is a greenhouse gas…but it effect is logarithmic not linear”

            I’m aware of that but how far will massive quantities like, let’s say 800ppm, take us?

          • AndyG55 says:

            800ppm CO2 will make basically ZERO difference to world temperatures.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            CH4 is a far less an IR absorber than CO2 is which is also quite small.

            You really that ignorant about how little CO2 and CH4 actually absorb OUTGOING IR?

            Here is a simple presentation from an Atmospheric Physicist:

            “As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the “heat” passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don’t account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits – so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth.”

            http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

          • Steve Keohane says:

            You realize that 95% of the mislabeled ‘Greenhouse’ effect is water vapor, the remaining 5% is about half CO2 a tad of methane and others. Since humans add 3-4% of the CO2 released every year, AGW can be confined to less than 4% of 2.5% or 0.1% of any warming from CO2.

        • AndyG55 says:

          they use 1200ppm in greenhouses because plants love it.

          They did after-all develop when CO2 was much higher.

          Or didn’t you know that either. !!

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Ha ha,

        Rud, has you pegged well about your poor statistical understanding.

        Here is a presentation showing that CO2 adds only a dribble to the “heat” budget,meaning that without CO2 warm forcing the world will still be warm:

        What would the temperature of the Earth be without CO2 in the Atmosphere?

        “My approach was to determine the total net energy that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere. I used Kiehl-Trenberth 1997 and 2008 and others. While slight differences existed the overall result is that there is 120 W/m^2 of energy transferred to the atmosphere by the Earth’s surface. This is 71% of the total energy that is absorbed by the surface from the Sun.

        I then broke down each transfer mechanism. Here is the end result as shown in my book.”

        http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/what-would-the-temperature-of-the-earth-be-without-co2-in-the-atmosphere/

        You should heed his advice about digging holes…….

    • Latitude says:

      You might find my last two ebooks of some help in that process.

      +1

  17. Friar Geschwind says:

    AndyG55 says:

    “8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015”

    Response:

    • Latitude says:

      put trend lines on there….Andy’s right

      • Friar Geschwind says:

        Latitude says:

        “put trend lines on there….Andy’s right”

        Why is he splitting his chart in half and omitting 4 years in between?

        • AndyG55 says:

          BECAUSE THAT’s the El Nino step you dofus.

          As your purple line proves.

          The ONLY way you can get a trend is using that El Nino step.

          which is what you have done.

          And you do know that is an old version of UAH don’t you. Probably not. Use v6, its had the satellite issue fixed.

          FFS, would they please send someone with even a fraction of a brain.

          I’m sick of dealing with nincompoops. !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            Find the data, UAH v6, and RSS.. and do the work for yourself.

            IF YOU ARE CAPABLE.. !

          • Friar Geschwind says:

            AndyG55:

            “And you do know that is an old version of UAH don’t you. Probably not. Use v6, its had the satellite issue fixed.”

            Yes, I know that version was changed last year. Back then it actually showed, from 1995 to 2015 a decline in peak to peak El Ninos, Neutral years, and trough to trough La Ninas. I thought Spencer believed in the “Pause” but last year he showed cooling?

            By the way he’s gone through half a dozen versions in over 20 years.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Just for you.. Here’s RSS before the 1997-2001 El Nino event

          • AndyG55 says:

            And RSS after the El Nino

          • AndyG55 says:

            So Friar gets-wind..

            Not capable.. OK, we knew that

            GISS changes every month.. the past gets colder and colder. For NO KNOWN REASON.

            Roy’s changes are for KNOWN technical reasons to do with the satellites.

            But I doubt a drone like you would understand the difference.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Get the data..

      The graphs I presented above are made straight from UAH v6 data..

      The RSS graphs come straight from RSS data.

      End of story.

      This one is particularly interesting ….
      It shows that over the US, the ONLY un-corrupted surface data, has an almost exact ZERO TREND match to both satellite data sets.

      Doubt you know what “sample validation” means though.

      • Sparks says:

        Did Friar really show that UAH graph with a steep trend line of a 0.2 C Anomaly from a cool period? I cant stop laughing!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.