NOAA says they know what the climate will be like in 100 years, but can’t predict it two weeks into the future.
They predicted a warm February, and it was the coldest in more than 30 years.
Climate Prediction Center – OFFICIAL 30-Day Forecasts
U.S. had its coldest February in more than 30 years | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
February 2021 was the coldest February on record since 1989 – CNN
After their forecast failed, they blamed it on a disrupted polar vortex caused by global warming.
Understanding the Arctic polar vortex | NOAA Climate.gov
They used the same diagram which Science News in 1975 used to explain global cooling.
Two weeks ago they predicted a warm April, and got that forecast backwards.
Climate Prediction Center – Revised OFFICIAL 30-Day Forecasts
10-Day Temperature Outlook for the Conterminous U.S.
This is what is currently showing on NOAA’s main page :
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | U.S. Department of Commerce
Despite pandemic shutdowns, carbon dioxide and methane surged in 2020 – Welcome to NOAA Research
First they acknowledge that government doesn’t control greenhouse gases, then they say government has to control greenhouse gases.
Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases
US CO2 emissions have been declining for fifteen years, as China’s have skyrocketed.
Annual share of global CO₂ emissions
Annual total CO₂ emissions, by world region
China coal power building boom sparks climate warning – BBC News
China has slashed clean energy funding by 39%, leading a global decline | MIT Technology Review
John Kerry admits that the US doesn’t control atmospheric CO2 and says that he is hopeful China will collaborate.
Kerry: Zero emissions won’t make difference in climate change
The last time Biden was in the White House, they pulled the same scam.
U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change | whitehouse.gov
NOAA predicts 78 feet of sea level rise, and forests growing in what is now tundra due to increased levels of CO2.
Despite pandemic shutdowns, carbon dioxide and methane surged in 2020 – Welcome to NOAA Research
The Arctic was ice-free and trees grew all the way to the edge of the Arctic Ocean from 4,000 to 9,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower.
Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago — ScienceDaily
Holocene Treeline History and Climate Change Across Northern Eurasia – ScienceDirect
The sea level story is the same as 30 years ago, when globalists said we would drown unless we submitted to global governance.
“GOVERNMENTS must yield national sovereignty to multilateral authorities able to enforce laws “across environmentally invisible frontiers” if the green-house effect, which threatens the future of whole nations, is to be overcome, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Sir Shridath Ramphal, said on Tuesday.”
“A Commonwealth Expert Group set up to look at climate change estimated there was a 90 per cent certainty that sea levels would rise by between one and four metres by the year 2030.”
26 Jan 1989 – Call for anti-greenhouse action – Trove
26 Sep 1988 – Threat to islands – Trove
Stormy weather – Global warming – Salon.com
And NOAA is fearmongering about methane “over a 100 year time frame”
Despite pandemic shutdowns, carbon dioxide and methane surged in 2020 – Welcome to NOAA Research
If NOAA scientists bothered to read NOAA research, they would know that the residence time of methane in the atmosphere is only nine years.
There are lots of other reasons why the methane story is bogus. The graph below was generated using the RRTM-LW model from AER, with their standard mid-latitude summer atmosphere parameters as input. This is the model used by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their weather and climate models. The Y-axis shows the amount of downwelling longwave radiation (i.e. greenhouse effect) produced by different levels of greenhouse gases in the mid-latitude summer lower troposphere (952 mb.) The X-axis is logarithmic, with four values plotted for each gas.
- 0% of current levels
- 10% of current levels
- 100% of current levels
- 1000% of current levels
Each of the three curves assumes constant (current) values for the other two gases.
Water vapor (H2O) is far and away the dominant greenhouse gas. With no water vapor, the amount of DLWR would be less than one third of its current value.
CO2 is significant, but much smaller than H2O. CH4 (methane) is nearly inconsequential. If you reduce methane by 10X or increase it by 10X, the change in DLWR (downwelling longwave radiation) is small. Claims that CH4 is 28X stronger than H2O are complete nonsense and have no basis in science.
It is easy to see why methane is inconsequential in the spectral diagram below. Methane only has three small peaks, compared with the much larger and broader peaks of H2O and CO2. A good way to estimate greenhouse gas potential is to measure the area under the curve for each gas. The area under the methane curve is quite small compared to the areas under the H2O and CO2 curves.
File:Atmospheric Transmission.png – Wikimedia Commons
But methane has another problem, its peaks line up with H2O peaks, so those spectral bands are nearly saturated.
It is also impossible to build up large amounts of methane in an atmosphere which contains oxygen, because it quickly oxidizes in the presence of oxygen into H2O and CO2. That is why we use it for a fuel. The concentration of methane during mid-latitude summer is a tiny 1.7 PPM, but planets (including Earth) emit a lot of methane. Saturn’s moon Titan has methane seas. The reason Titan is able to hold its methane is because it has almost no oxygen.
Cassini Explores a Methane Sea on Titan | NASA
Earth is nothing like Titan, because we have oxygen. The global warming potential of methane on Earth is thus very small, and is nearly inconsequential compared to water vapor.
As long as you can keep the people ignorant you can scare them with most anything.
If NOAA/NASA were to look at 2 real greenhouse gases they need look further than their own monitoring station in Hawaii.
The explosive growth in SF6 and NF3 might actually be driving the ‘warming’ and not CO2. Both SF6 and NF3 are used in manufacturing of wind turbines and solar panels.
SF6 is 23,900 times the green house gas that CO2 is, and was non existent prior to 1980
NF3 is 17,200 times the green houe gas that CO2 is. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/hats/gases/NF3.html
Great post, Tony! Go for the heart of the lie.
Wonder how long its going to be for mass media to learn they can now begin in earnest to attack the NOAA Al Gore about their lies and make lots of money getting on the other side of the fence- like Deniers
If the Mid Pliocene warm period was 7 degrees warmer than it is now and had seas that were 78 feet higher than they are today, yet the CO2 concentration was comparable to what we have today, then hasn’t NOAA just proved that CO2 concentration can’t be responsible for catastrophic sea level rise and significant global warming?
Increased greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane have even less effect than Tony states. The temperature difference between the earth’s surface and the top of the troposphere is driven by heat transfer. The heat of compression (adiabatic heating and cooling) works to support this temperature gradient (lapse rate), but it is fundamentally a heat transfer problem.
Solar heat absorbed by the earth’s surface (about 163 W/m2) is transferred by both radiation and convection in parallel. With convection being the dominate mechanism, accounting for well over half of the 163 W/m2, any increase in temperature caused by the increased radiative thermal resistance from additional CO2 or methane in the atmosphere is diluted by convection.
Climate models are fundamentally flawed in that they assume all of the heat absorbed at the earth’s surface is transferred by radiation or is transferred by radiation and convection in series to the top of the atmosphere. Aside from obviously not being a series process, this assumption violates thermodynamic law. The most that can possibly be transferred by radiation from earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere through a vacuum is less than 150 W/m2. Through a radiatively participating media like the troposphere filled with greenhouse gases, and largely covered by radiation barriers called clouds, the radiative component is substantially less than the 150 W/m2 theoretical maximum and much less the 163 W/m2 needed to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics.
Heat transfer is analogous to electrical transfer where temperature difference is analogous to voltage, heat flux is analogous to current, and thermal resistance is analogous to electrical resistance. (Hydraulic analogs of pressure/temperature difference; fluid flow/heat flux; and flow resistance/thermal resistance also exist.) As with a simple electric circuit with two resistors in parallel (or water flow through two pipes in parallel) with a fixed current, increasing the electrical resistance (or flow resistance) of one the resistors (or pipes) does not increase the voltage (or pressure drop) across the parallel network proportionally. The total resistance, Rt, increase is much less and can be calculated from 1/Rt = 1/Rc + 1/Rr, where Rc and Rr are the thermal resistances to convective and radiative heat transfer, respectively.
This fundamental error along with the ridiculous notion that increased temperature from the additional CO2 or CH4 increases water vapor, which amplifies the greenhouse effect, results in over predicting warming by a factor of between 5 and 10. Instead of a climate sensitively from doubling CO2 in the atmosphere of 1.5 to 5C, the sensitively is more like 0.15 to 0.5C.
This is why there is no evidence of CO2 driving temperature throughout earth’s history.
Absolutely correct! This is also confirmed empirically by the dimensional analysis work of Nikolov and Zeller.
So can the scientists at NOAA and NASA not know that their theory is suspect, even outright a fantasy? If so, then what are they up to with promoting this? Are they trying to get ahead of the game and stop industrialization and using global warming as a tool to do it? I’m not sure that withholding the benefits of science and engineering from the public is a good idea to begin with.
Even though the pandemic shut down industry and economies world-wide, there hasn’t been even a small downward blip in the Mauna Loa CO2 readings. This is why we need to spend trillions of dollars doing more of the same that doesn’t work because it is “the right thing to do.”
CNN to propagandize fake climate change:
in particular about minute 7:00 and on
But…but…but…the major news agencies are beginning to now call “Climate Change” “Climate Emergency!
Some simple facts people need to recognise:-
Our atmosphere is not heated to any large extent by radiation – 99% doesn’t react to IR.
Oxygen and Nitrogen heat up and cool daily with virtually no IR interaction and they constitute ~99% of our atmosphere.
At ambient temperatures the IR emitted by the surfaces is insignificant for two of CO2’s absorption bands – 2.7 and 4.3 micrometers. The highly energetic radiation in these bands are irrelevant to so-called back radiation – there just isn’t any significant amount emitted by the Earth in these bandwidths. The Sun’s radiation contains significant power in these bands but this isn’t back radiation.
This leaves the band centred around 15 micrometers and a significant portion of this is already captured by water vapour which is >50 times more prevalent than CO2.
Climate scientists claim you can add up radiation fluxes and use the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to calculate temperatures – this is wrong. A simple mathematical analysis proves this beyond doubt and all of the models using these type of equations are simply wrong.
Any one who thinks 420 molecules of CO2 and less than 2 molecules of Methane in every million molecules of ordinary air poses a threat simply is incapable of rational thought.
Identifying and quantifying all of the radiation fluxes might be difficult enough.
So what if we took a control volume of the atmosphere that was in equilibrium before man ever rubbed two sticks together. We are told, in simplified terms, that for every 10,000 units of atmosphere, 7799 were N2, 2199 were O2, and 2 were CO2. Let’s say it was in thermo-equilibrium at temperature X. The only alteration we make is add 2 more units of CO2.
What would the NEW units of CO2 have to contribute to change the equilibrium temperature by one degree Fahrenheit? Cv of N2, O2, CO2, (BTU/ R lbm) respectively are .177, .157, and .1560 and their atomic masses are 28, 32, and 44. so:
10,000(.7799x28x.177 +.2199x32x.157 +.0002x44x.156) (1 degree F)= 44(2)(.156)(delta F needed by the NEW CO2 units). In order for the two new units of CO2 to cause an atmospheric equilibrium temperature increase of 1 degree F, they would have to continually receive enough energy to maintain their temperature at 3621 degrees Fahrenheit above the old equilibrium temperature.
I don’t understand your calculation, This is not only because of my preference for SI units, you appear to be equating Watts per square metre with Joules per kilogram. Surely there must be a mass flow term in there somewhere, or the implicit assumption that heating the atmosphere does not affect the rate of convection (which seems highly improbable). Also, I should expect a flow process, such as exists in the troposphere, to employ Cp, not Cv as it is the enthalpy, not the internal energy, which we expect to characterise an essentially adiabatic process. This is almost certainly just confusion which afflicts a senile old fool like me, but I really don’t follow your reasoning.
We are operating under the assumption that CO2 controls the atmospheric temperature, and that there is a planet wide atmospheric equilibrium temperature that follows the CO2 level in the atmosphere. So we compare two cases: Equilibrium before man, with two existing CO2 molecules. Then we add two additional CO2 molecules per 10,000 molecules to represent the carbon polluted atmosphere of today. More CO2 raises the equilibrium temperature. Since everything was in equilibrium before, what must the two pollution CO2 molecules be doing if they were to raise the equilibrium temperature 1 degree? We assume that CO2 absorbs radiation raising its internal energy, which it then conducts to the adjacent molecules.
The control volume can be as small as 10,000 molecules, or as large as the entire atmosphere. Let it be the entire atmosphere, then you don’t have to worry about mass exchanges at the boundaries, however long as it is large enough such that the exchange of mass and energy at the boundaries are negligible it’s okay. We are assuming atmospheric thermal equilibrium so the exchange averages zero.
It doesn’t matter whether you use SI or English. Everything is proportional. You get the same numeric answer! Which is that the CO2 molecule basically has to become a mini nuclear power plant.
“He who sits in the heavens shall laugh. The LORD will have them in derision [mockery].”
It is no coincidence that all of the schemes to defraud, and the overt media obfuscation through propaganda, have been ‘unmasked’ for all the world to witness.
Coincidence is nothing more than revelation. How one chooses to process the revelation, in context, determines the relevance.
The concentration of CO2 and other so called ‘greenhouse’ gases spewing out of just the Reykjavik area have to be measured in millions per part, not parts per million, making an utter mockery of the CO2 reclamation facility across town. It’s no coincidence.
Like the word says, God will not be mocked.
The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
We must stop burning carbon!!!… said the little boy to the volcano.
How dare you!!!… scoffed the little girl.
Where’s Dr. Seuss when you need him ? Oh, wait….
They say in their article that the vortex breaks up every other year or so. I’m surprised that it isn’t more frequent. Vortexes in nature like whirlpools, tornados, and hurricanes are transient phenomena, so why would the polar vortex be different? in any case, they knew it happened that frequently and yet their model didn’t predict it. It appears, Polar Vortex or not, the world is too chaotic for them to accurately forecast the future climate.
Talk about dumb. Predicting the weather ten, twenty, or thirty days ahead, is just weather forecasting, NOT, predicting the “climate”.
As for predicting what the climate will be like in 100 years, that is in the realm of alchemy, utter fantasy.
Methane, a problem? With a concentration measured in parts per, BILLION, (parts per ONE THOUSAND MILLION), even at its current level of 1860 ppb, or 0.000186% of our atmosphere, it takes a massive amount of mathematical tom foolery to turn that, into a problem.
Tony, I found something for you about Russia. Early spring snowmelt is lower and late spring snowmelt is higher than 90 years ago due to….cooling! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223569665_Streamflow_changes_over_Siberian_Yenisei_River_Basin
You don’t have much non-American stuff, so I thought this would be a nice one to add.
Is the general public really this stupid? Are people unable to make simple logical deductions anymore? Consider this quote from the NASA article listed above:
“The atmospheric burden of CO2 is now comparable to where it was during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period around 3.6 million years ago, when concentrations of carbon dioxide ranged from about 380 to 450 parts per million. During that time sea level was about 78 feet higher than today, the average temperature was 7 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in pre-industrial times, and studies indicate large forests occupied areas of the Arctic that are now tundra.”
Let’s say you are not scientifically inclined. However simple logic should allow you to conclude the paragraph is nonsense or at least a non sequitur – If the propaganda is that CO2 is the driver of Climate and Global temperatures – if that postulate were true, then citing 3.6 million years ago with the SAME level of CO2, however with global temps being 7 degrees F higher than now, and sea levels 78 feet higher – then you must logically conclude the postulate that CO2 drives temperature is entirely false or at least severely suspect!
You cannot state science is settled and CO2 drives temperature, then claim evidence for this nonsense is that when CO2 was at this level in the past, temperatures were considerably higher as was sea level – and have any credibility!
The key to perpetrating this humongous fraud on the masses, was to dumb the masses down over a few generations first and fail to teach successive generations how to think critically and logically. (and I fear this effort has largely succeeded – a dumb populace is much easier to control than a smart one)
Kerry has his dream job: flying around the world, pompously telling people what they should be doing. He is a colonialist.
People around the world should greet him with, “WTF are you?”
Except that he’s handing out OUR hard earned money and that of our children and grandchildren. And I would guess, in response, there’s a nice fat kickback for Uncle Joe, a nice big book order for one of Obama’s POS books and who knows what else.