Category Archives: Global Temperatures

Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 2

The previous posting,  “Does the Greenhouse gas effect really exist–Part 1”,  looked at measured radiation of longwave infrared (IR)  that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect.

There is another way to demonstrate the  greenhouse gas effect using the SURFRAD data.  I have selected SURFRAD data for the year 2016 for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Desert Rock, Nevada sites

Some thoughts about the following charts 1B and 3B.  These charts plot  the radiation data—both solar short wave and the Earth’s longwave IR plus the net Solar and net longwave IR.

Charts 2B and 4B show air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and albedo.  These data are not used in the analysis but might prove valuable to someone interested in deriving a better understanding of the energy balance.

Figure 1B Monthly Means Sioux Falls SD:  Radiation Chart For 2016

Different from the earlier chart in Part 1 which showed a 24 hour continuous plot of data, the following 4 charts are the daily data in a given month combined and  the mean extracted for each data set.

Continue reading


Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 1

Does one have to deny that the so-called green house gases (GHG)s have an effect on global temperatures to be a skeptic?  Many of the big-league skeptics believe that the GHGs do play a part in global temperature.  So maybe not.

The following is a quote from Climate Change Reconsidered II** :

“ As carbon dioxide concentrations increase so too does the intensity of back radiation at the surface across the active wavebands of CO2, and because this radiation emanates from a lower and warmer layer of the atmosphere, the magnitude of the back radiation increases. Consequently, the net infrared radiation emanating from the surface is reduced, causing a rise in temperature that generates increased heat exchange and evaporation. This surface warming also contributes to an increase in convective instability”.

So, hold on and let me explain why I believe this.

First, a look at the big picture.   The Sun’s surface is somewhere about 5500 C.  Radiation goes out in all directions with some of it directed toward Earth.  This is Earth’s principal source of energy.  This radiation travels 93 million miles in about 8 minutes to reach Earth.  It loses much of its strength in the journey, but at the top of our atmosphere, its strength is nominally 1365 watts per square meter.  The Sun’s radiation mainly consists of photons of visible light, ultraviolet and infrared.  The full force of the Sun’s radiation seldom reaches the Earth surface because of clouds, reflection off snow and ice, scattering in the atmosphere for example and the angle that the Sun’s rays strike the surface.  Further complicating this topic is the fact on average, the Sun only shines on any place on Earth for more than 12 hours per day.

Many charts showing the Earth’s average energy budget use 340 w/m²  because when you factor in the length of the day and the spherical geometry of the Earth the effect is about ¼ the energy at the top of the atmosphere at noon.  While the Energy budget charts are useful, I believe they get in the way of understanding the GHG effect.  So, the following will uses actual measured radiation data and not the hypothetical 340w/m².

To get an idea of what happens at the surface, lets take a look at the data collected by the Surface Radiation Project. The Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) was established in 1993 through the support of NOAA’s Office of Global Programs. The SURFRAD mission is clear:

“its primary objective is to support climate research with accurate, continuous, long-term measurements of the surface radiation budget over the United States”. 

SURFRAD currently has 7 operating stations.  These stations are very well equipped. They can measure upwelling and downwelling solar, upwelling and downwelling IR, temperature, RH, wind speed, cloud cover, UVb  and several others.   The SURFRAD website allows you to make charts of the collected day.  For starters I have plotted some data from the Desert Rock, Nevada SURFRAD site.

Figure 1A

Continue reading

Climate Model Forecast Temperatures Are Too High Study Says

Look at these charts that show correlation. 

So, there you are.     You have seen it all now.  See how easy It is to make correlations.

BUT WAIT, I forgot to show you the most important one of all.   It’s shows how actual measured global temperatures correlates with the global temperature forecasts made by the climate models that the catastrophic man-made global warming (CMNGW) scientists use. 

Continue reading

What?  Downwelling IR Radiation–Why?  Condensation Nuclei (Cloud?)–How?  Tyndall (Colloid) Scattering




Large Spike in Cycle 24 Sunspots and F10.7 Solar Flux

Solar Cycle 24 still has some surprises.   Both the NOAA  Sunspot count and F10.7 solar flux spiked.  The right hand side of the chart below, from Solen  shows the Sunspot count to have peaked at about 120 and the F10.7 solar flux above  130.  Sunspot count and Solar Flux usually act in unison. Dr Svalgaard says that F10,7 is a more reliable indicator of solar activity than Sunspots

Last major update issued on September 6, 2017 at 05:00 UT. Update posted at 13:50 UT

The generally accepted  way to portray  Sunspots is using a smoothed count from Sunspot Index and Long-term Solar Observations (SILSO). SILSO data is provided by the  Royal Observatory of Belgium, in Brussels. That number is charted below as Ri smoothed. ” Smoothed” is the process of averaging the daily numbers over some period of time. Silso number uses a formula* (see below) that incorporates some 13 months of monthly data.

In the chart  below, Ri is the total monthly Sunspots that were occasioned by the solar polar fields,  north (Rnorth ) and south (Rsouth).

Spikes in activity are not  uncommon as can be seen in the above chart which chronicles Solar Cycle 24 from its beginning to the current time.  I am still surprised at this late date.


*The Silso formula:

The smoothed count is a 13-month averaged sunspot count using this Belgium’s formula:
Rs= (0.5 Rm-6 + Rm-5 + Rm-4 + Rm-3 + Rm-2 + Rm-1 + Rm + Rm+1 + Rm+2 + Rm+3 + Rm+4 + Rm+5 + 0.5 Rm+6 ) / 12
Rs = smoothed monthly sunspot count
Rm = One month’s actual sunspot count
The “-6” through “+6” appended to each Rm is the number of months before or after the month whose smoothed count is being calculated. The beginning and ending months in the formula are only given half the value of the others.*

Harvey Not Caused By Man-made Global Warming

Many of the catastrophic warming brigade are shouting that hurricane Harvey is the fruit of global warming tree.  The media, the other branch of the Democrat Party, are saying the same thing.   Joe D’Aleo’s marvelous website, IceCap, provides a chart that will show open minded people that these big hurricanes have been going on for quite a while.   Well before the supposed start of the CO2 caused global warming.   The following chart shows the history of the biggest hurricanes that have hit the US since 1851:

Note that Katrina and Sandy are not on the list.  Hurricanes can be destructive even if they are not 4 or 5 category storms.  Sandy perhaps not even a category 1 hurricane when it made landfall, caused considerable damage from the storm surge.  Storm surge occurs when a major storm pushes water on  to the shore  at levels well above normal.

Further, how do you account for the fact that the last  hurricane of category 3 or larger to make landfall on the US was 12 years ago.   I guess that means there has been no warming during those 12 years.   But wait,  how can that be because the warmers keep telling me that the “hottest ever years” are now.


Observations Refute Greenhouse Effect of Certain Atmospheric Gases


Guest Posting by

Jerry L Krause   2017

First we need to review a bit of history from the pen of the one who founded this thing we now term physical science.  But before we review what Galileo wrote in Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, we need to consider what the publishers (Elzevir) of his book wrote in their preface to the reader.  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. (as translated by Henry Crew and Alfonso de Salvio, 1914)

Many of us have been taught that Galileo refuted a long accepted general idea—that bodies twice as heavy fell twice as fast—of the Greek philosopher Aristotle by dropping, at the same time, bodies of significantly different masses (weights) from high places and observing that they struck the ground at basically the same time.  However, it seems Galileo efforts of demonstration were not readily accepted by everyone.

For Galileo had his character Simplicio state:  Your discussion is really admirable; yet I do not find it easy to believe that a bird-shot falls as a cannon ball.  To which Galielo had the character Salviati reply:  Why not say a grain of sand as rapidly as grindstone?  But, Simplicio, I trust you will not follow the example of many others who divert the discussion from its main intent and fasten upon some statement of mine which lacks a hair’s-breath of the truth and, under this hair, hide the fault of another which is as big as a ship’s cable.  Several pages Simplicio stated:  The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to be desired: but now I am fully satisfied.  Even after Simplicio accepted that Aristotle’s idea was false, it seems it was not the demonstration which convinced him.  What was it that convinced Simplicio?

Immediately after Simplicio’s concession, Salviati replied:  The facts set forth by me up to this point and, in particular, the one which shows that difference of weight, even when very great, is without effect in changing the speed of falling bodies, so that as far as weight is concerned they all fall with equal speed: this idea is, I say, so new, and at first glance so remote from fact, that if we do not have the means of making it just as clear as sunlight, it had better not be mentioned; but having once allowed it to pass my lips I must neglect no experiment or argument to establish it.  Herein lies the possible answer to what convinced Simplicio.  If we remove no experiment from Saviati’s last statement, we are left with:  I must neglect no argument to establish it.

I have read that Galileo refused to accept the result (that the planets’ orbits about the sun were ellipses) of Tycho Brahe’s very careful naked-eye astronomical observations and Johannes Kepler’s very careful mathematical analysis of Brahe’s observational data.  I have read that Galileo did this because he considered a circle to be a more perfect figure than an ellipse.  Whatever his reason, the observed fact is he was wrong about the ‘shape’ of the planet’s orbit.  Because of some argument he had with himself?

Relative to Saliviati’s previous reply, I question what was so new, and at first glance so remote from fact.  What was the fact that Galileo’s new idea was so remote from?  I have pondered this question and have concluded the fact was the result of this experiment (experience):  hold a ten-pound bag of sugar in one hand and a one-pound package of butter in the other.

But Galileo was not done, after Salviati’s comment, he had his third character, Sagredo, immediately state:  Not only this but also many other of your views are so far removed from the commonly accepted opinions and doctrines that if you were to publish them you would stir up a large number of antagonists; for human nature is such that men do not look with favor upon discoveries—either of truth or fallacy—in their own field, when made by others than themselves.  A bit later Sagredo added:  In this manner he has, as I have learned from various sources, given occasion to a highly esteemed professor for undervaluing his discoveries on the ground that they are commonplace, and established upon a mean and vulgar basis; as if it were not a most admirable and praiseworthy feature of demonstrative science that it springs from and grows out of principles well-known, understood and conceded by all.

The title of this essay is this essay’s sole purpose.  So as I bring measurements (observations) to your attention, we will only consider the observed facts which apply to this purpose.

It is an undebatable fact that certain atmospheric gases have been observed, by instruments, to absorb certain portions of the invisible, to human eyes, infrared (IR) radiation being continuously emitted by the earth’s surface.  And there are many undebatable cases that when radiation is absorbed by matter it is observed to be transformed into a sensible heat (an increase in temperature) of that matter.  So based upon these cases and a radiation balance calculation, it has been long accepted that the result of this absorption of the IR radiation is that the earth’s average surface temperature would need to be about 33 degrees Celsius (33C) less if not for the presence of these certain atmospheric gases.  This is the claimed greenhouse effect (GHE).

Continue reading