The Antarctic Volcanoes Project Blog: UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2020: +0.53 deg. C

Sunday, December 6, 2020

UAH Global Temperature Update for November 2020: +0.53 deg. C

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/

My reply:

[[The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.19 C/decade over global-averaged land).]]

So, IPCC-brainwashed scientists found a pony in the manure.

+0.14/decade? How can such accuracy be attained from satellites?

I quote Wikipedia:

[[Infrared radiation can be used to measure both the temperature of the surface (using "window" wavelengths to which the atmosphere is transparent), and the temperature of the atmosphere (using wavelengths for which the atmosphere is not transparent, or measuring cloud top temperatures in infrared windows).

[[Satellites used to retrieve surface temperatures via measurement of thermal infrared in general require cloud-free conditions. Some of the instruments include the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR), Along Track Scanning Radiometers (AASTR), Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIS), and the ACE Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE‐FTS) on the Canadian SCISAT-1 satellite.. Over land the retrieval of temperature from radiances is harder, because of inhomogeneities in the surface.]] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Duh, how does Spencer get global average temperatures(GATs) for even one day from such spotty unreliable coverage, much less a decade-long average accurate to two decimal places? I suspect that there is no pony in the manure, just a strong desire to find one to make one's life work have meaning. It would have been more honest and done more good to work all those years in health care.

Physics prohibits gases from emitting Planck radiation that can be used to determine temperature. The surface is solid and emits it, as do water droplets in clouds, but the cloud temperatures are made frigid by the thermodynamic lapse rate and bear little relation to surface temperatures. Any real measurement of surface temperature requires clear air from the measurement surface to space, which is very iffy, so it seems very hard to believe that the temperatures for the entire globe can ever be measured at one time. It looks to me like the year-by-year GAT is really flat within experimental error and the rest is like using a Ouija Board to obtain messages from the beyond and thinking it's your dear dead mother because she said you get tire tracks in your underwear regularly.

Either way, atmospheric CO2 can't raise Earth surface temperatures even 0.01C with its weak 15 micron photons that have a Planck radiation temperature of -80C like dry ice. It can't even interfere with the surface heat deposited by the Sun that stays within a normal range of -50C to +50C. If there were any real but minor GAT increase over the decades, it can't be CO2 but must be something else, which the IPCC hasn't been looking for because they might find it and ruin their political program. Meanwhile the horrible leftist-run U.N. IPCC octopus is plotting to rob the world of hundreds of trillions of dollars, as per WUWT's own article:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/05/climate-activists-100-150-trillion-over-30-years-to-fix-global-warming/

http://www.historyscoper.com/whatisenvironmentalismideology.html

After this announcement all kibbutzing talk of how accusing IPCC of leftism is wrong is pure manure sans ponies. Manwhile Spencer and his IPCC-appeasing pals are letting them destroy the world's future without a fight by giving the IPCC global warming hoax even one iota of credence. We all know that most of that money will be used not to solve a nonexistent crisis but to foist the Marxist idea of social-racial justice after milking the big dumb mainly white virtue-signaling deplorable herd like cows and shearing them like sheep.

We are on the winner's team all along. Here's my deepest most thoughtful dismantling of the CO2 global warming hoax using physics, fresh off the presses, free for all to study. I hope it gets wide readership despite IPCC shadow-banning. Once you are "woke", I hope you become an activist fighting the IPCC's Great Robbery every step of the way while getting royally pissed-off every time anybody tries to sell it.

https://www.quora.com/What-specific-chemical-properties-of-carbon-dioxide-causes-the-greenhouse-effect-Why-chemically-is-carbon-more-reflective-than-other-gases/answer/TL-Winslow

No comments:

What Is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project?

It's too bad the current brouhaha about CO2 is so narrowly focused. So what if a higher concentration in the atmosphere raises global average temps? If higher temps were accompanied by increased atmospheric moisture, it would even out around the world and turn it into a paradise planet, greening the deserts so that the teeming billions could be fed. Cold temperatures are inimical to life, not a goal of life.

Too bad, it might take a lot more CO2 than you think to really change the global weather, but not because it has any control over Earth's surface temperatures. In fact atmospheric CO2 can't melt an ice cube with its 15 micron main radiation wavelength that has a Planck radiation temperature of -80C, colder than dry ice (-78.5C).

Why do they call CO2 greenhouse gas? Because plants breathe it, and they pump it into greenhouses to help them grow and thrive. Polar regions and deserts look good in postcards, but who wants to live there. Meanwhile global pop. is zooming, so obviously the real answer is to pump more CO2 and water vapor into the atmosphere to turn the Earth into a greenhouse, turning deserts both hot and cold into lush green crop-growing regions like 35 million years ago when the avg. global temp was 88F and the CO2 level was 1K parts per million (vs. 415 PPM today). So what if we lose some desert polar regions and even some yummy coastline, the adjustments will be inconvenient but temporary, but I prefer shirt-sleeve weather to Frosty the Snowman. How many arctic animals can't adapt to a warmer climate? What animal needs to live in ice and snow and wouldn't like a vacation to Tahiti? They can lose the fat, hair or feathers.

The real question is can we make and keep the global CO2/H20 levels high enough, and for how long? Sooner or later mass global starvation will become unstoppable if world pop. keeps climbing, and this is the way to forestall it, if we act soon enough. Don't give me them Malthusian objections, give me some CO2/H20 solutions. I like a paradise Earth in the possibility window.

So, while the world is debating the horrors, extent or lack thereof of global warming caused by CO2, let's engineer the CO2/H20 solution to making the Earth a warm temperate planet from pole to pole with no deserts or ice wastelands, allowing vastly more food to be grown and turning poor nations rich. I DON'T mean a planet with wild swings between super-hot summers and super-cold winters, but one that is warmer than now everywhere, but moister and greener, with a giant network of plant life helping to avoid extremes. Since CO2 and water vapor are the keys, and the paltry amounts in the atmosphere need to be increased as soon as possible to turn deserts green and get the warming process off to a good start, but the new levels have to be maintained permanently, I'm looking to remote Antarctica (which is really a sea) as the most promising source for unlimited CO2 and water vapor generation, given that noxious emissions (sulfur dioxide, etc.) can be controlled.

This blog is for posting news on the world climate situation, scientific and political, along with my own articles. I'm sure it will start out with hardly any interest or followers, but I'm hoping that it will attract the smartest people eventually and in the end I hope for a global consensus that if it can be done it must be done.

So what is the Antarctic Volcanoes Project? My working idea is that an international effort to reactivate as many volcanoes in Antarctica as possible in an ideal location for distributing the CO2/H20 will produce the best and most cost-effective results. Sorry, one-worlders, it won't give you a license to override and control any country's economy, but if your country is suffering from lack of food you will be too busy expanding farming to care. Hence until I think of or hear about a better way to increase world CO2/H20 levels, this is my pet project. If you are a scientist, please climb aboard my AVP Express and let's make it happen.

It Would Be Funny If It Were's So Sad

It would be funny it weren't so sad, but when the scientists say "greenhouse gas" they are using a malaprop. It should be greenhouse GLASS, because that's why a greenhouse stays warm, by glass walls stopping convection of air and trapping heat. Yes, CO2 is pumped into greenhouses, but not for heating purposes, only to help plants BREATHE. So the whole sucker's game of "greenhouse gas" must truly be for the purpose of stopping more vegetation from growing and feeding the teeming billions. Is that their true goal? Another blip on the horizon is the promise of melting permafrost releasing gigantic amounts of CO2 from the Arctic not Antarctic sector. Let's hope we at least get some more good CO2 that way.

Jan. 14, 2011. Good article on CO2 levels and global temps 30-40 million years ago