Category Archives: NOAA

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

Major Hurricane Landfalls In Florida—1900 To 2017

This posting is a reblog of Dr Roy Spencer’s posting “Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming“.   It is part a pitch for his new book that is a “putdown”  to those the would-be prophets of global doom. 



September 18th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Partly in response to the crazy claims of the usual global warming experts (Stevie Wonder, Beyoncé, Jennifer Lawrence, Mark Ruffalo, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Pope Francis), I decided to write another Kindle e-book. This one is entitled, Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t Be Blamed On Global Warming.




In it I review the many fascinating examples of major hurricane landfalls in the United States, even going back to colonial times.

For example, two major hurricane strikes endured by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, in 1635 and in 1675, have yet to be rivaled in more modern times. Major hurricane Maria, now approaching a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:Dominica and Guadeloupe, is probably no match for the Great Hurricane of 1780 in the Caribbean, which had estimated winds of 200 mph and killed 20,000 people.

I also address the reasons why Hurricane Harvey and its flooding cannot be blamed on climate change. Regarding Hurricane Irma which recently terrorized Florida, you might be surprised to learn that it is consistent with a downward trend in both the number and intensity of landfalling major Florida hurricanes:

Continue reading

Will The Global Temperature Begin To Cool Down In The Near Future?  


The numbers of scientist predicting a drop in global temperature  are becoming a large group— ready to challenge the mythical 97%.  This blog has posted some of the predictions.  The postings have demonstrated that there is not total unanimity as to reason why the temperature will drop.  Maybe it is a combination of different things. That is refreshing in light of the warmer’s one size fits all theory that CO2 is essentially raising or will raise global temperature all by itself.

First some discussion that suggests that CO2 is not what the warmers claim.

The warmer’s theory says that atmospheric CO2 molecules intercept low-frequency IR waves radiated from Earth on their way back into space.  The exchange warms the atmosphere a little and this causes water to evaporate and move into the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much more significant “greenhouse gas” than CO2. They say that the result is a 3 fold increase in temperature as a result.  This is their so-called “climate sensitivity”.  This is part of the GIGO that is put into the climate models that the warmers use to predict catastrophic in the future.  Let us look and see how well this has turned out for them in the real world versus the computer world.

The chart above was made in June 2013 so it is a little out of date.  Next chart will be the latest update.

The important things to know are the following

  • All those little hair-like lines represent the output from one of the 73 warmer computers. They are all over the place.
  • The heavy black line aggregates all of the 73 outputs into a single line which represents the “official forecast”.
  • The blue squares are the actual recorded global temperatures as measured by satellites.
  • The actual temperature as measured by the weather balloons  are shown as black dots.
  • The balloons and the satellites essentially confirm each other and they are, again, actual measurements.
  • Every 4 or 5 years, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) gathers and produces an analysis of the state of the climate. They then issue a technical report and a summary that is primarily for the politicians of the world.  One of the features of the IPCC report is how confident they are that their predictions are spot on.
  • The red arrows show their level of confidence, at the time of the report, as to how sure they are that the forecasts are correct.
  • The first report said that they were “confident”. As each new report was issued, they got more confident of their forecasts.  The last one being 95% certain.  This is all happening as the spread between their forecast temperature readings and the actual  temperature readings continued to diverge.

Continue reading

Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect–New Super Computer Cheyenne

Jeane Dixon was guest on late night TV as well as frequently in magazines and other media because she made predictions-some of which came true but mostly were off target. For years, media featured her New Year predictions. Her notoriety sprung from her prediction that the 1960 Presidential election would be won by a Democrat but the winner would not live out his term.  Following President John Kennedy’s assassination, someone remembered her prediction and the rest, as they say, is history.

From Wiki, comes the definition of the Jean Dixon Effect.

John Allen Paulos, a mathematician at Temple University, coined the term ‘the Jeane Dixon effect’, which references a tendency to promote a few correct predictions while ignoring a larger number of incorrect predictions.[1] Many of Dixon’s predictions proved erroneous, such as her claims that a dispute over the offshore Chinese islands of Quemoy and Matsu would trigger the start of World War III in 1958, that American labor leader Walter Reuther would run for President of the United States in the 1964 presidential election, that the second child of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his young wife Margaret would be a girl (it was a boy), and that the Russians would be the first to put men on the moon.[15][16]

I think it is time to declare the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect.  The theory certainly fits the Effect definition as posited by John Allen Paulos.

cheyenne_plumbing-450And it is about time to do that.  A new, ultra-fast computer, the Cheyenne, has just been brought on-line in Wyoming.  It will be used to do studies, some of which will be related to “man-made global warming”.  What we can expect are more erroneous predictions made faster than they used to be.  That’s progress.  And of course, it means more doom-laden stories for the media to circulate.


Daily Mail Says–NOAA Duped World Politicians With Manipulated Global Warming Data

Whistleblower Dr. John Bates really has stirred up a hornet’s nest.  He says the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s(NOAA)  global temperature revisions made just before the Paris COP meeting are suspect.  Skeptics have been critical of those revisions from the very beginning.  The UK Daily Mail posted “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”    The Daily Mail opened up their posting with this:

“The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.


A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

Continue reading