Array Of Data Shows Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Ocean Surfaces Cooling Off

Schneefan at German weather and climate analysis site here brings us the latest on atmospheric temperatures.

First we note that the middle troposphere (7,500 meters) as measured by NASA has seen recently a sharp cooling off since the start of April:

The chart shows the daily mean temperature at about 7,500 meters altitude, i.e. middle troposphere (400 mb/hPa). Here we see that temperatures have dived (pink curve) and reached a near 17-year low for this time of the year. Source:

An enlargement shows a comparison to last year, last updated April 9, 2018.

Temperature at 7,500 m altitude have dived steeply since early April. Source:

Near surface temperatures sharply down

Also the global 2m surface temperature is showing a strong downward trend:

The plotted data have already been adjusted (falsified?) with the NASA/GISS factor, and so may actually be even lower. Source:

Should the cold temperatures persist, April, 2018, could fall below the zero anomaly for the first time since 2012, foremost with the UAH  satellite data. The following UAH chart shows lower tropospheric temperatures (1500) continuing their decline after the warm peak caused by the natural El Niño phenomenon:

Source: UAH Global Temperature Update for March, 2018: +0.24 deg. C

In March, 2018, lower tropospheric temperatures (1500m) over the oceans (71% of the earth’s surface) also saw a further drop:

Source: climate4you.

More cooling over the coming months

The following chart shows the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) 3.4 plot, i.e. the ocean surface temperature anomaly of the western equatorial Pacific region, since July 2016.


Much of the last 2 years has been in the globe-cooling La Niña phase (blue). And as satellite instrument temperatures tend to lag the El Niño temperature anomalies by some 4 months, further surface cooling is expected to show up in the satellite data over the coming months.

ENSO indicates more cooling ahead

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is an indicator for the development of the easterly trade winds at the equatorial Pacific and thus tells us what’s ahead for the ENSO. Recall that the ENSO has a powerful impact on global surface temperatures. SOI values over +7.0 indicates La Niña conditions 2 months ahead, while an SOI under -7.0 points El Niño conditions.

Currently the following chart shows the SOI is at +13.7, which means the globe-cooling La Niña should continue on two months from now, and thus means cooler satellite measurements showing up 6 months later.

The Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is currently at +13,7, thus pointing to La Niña conditions 2 months from now. Source:

Recently some scientists have postulated that the ENSO is impacted by solar activity, which currently is at a low (earth-cooling) level. The next solar cycle is expected to be a weak one, thus boding more cooling and tough winters ahead.

It’s got nothing to do with trace gas CO2.

67 responses to “Array Of Data Shows Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Ocean Surfaces Cooling Off”

  1. SebastianH

    It’s got nothing to do with trace gas CO2.

    Back it up with science please. Using the variability of the climate system as proof that there is no ongoing warming caused by an increasing greenhouse effect is a bit weak und not scientific at all.

    But thanks for including predictions that can be easily tested in 6 months.

    P.S.: All this April cooling must be elsewhere … pretty warm and sunny in Germany, isn’t it?

    1. AndyG55

      “Back it up with science please. “

      roflmao. trolling with silly comments yet again, hey seb

      You know there is ZERO evidence that CO2 has any affect on oceans. No scientific mechanism, so empirical evidence, its just a mindless anti-physics fantasy.

      Considering your total inability to produce any evidence or science for ANYTHING, that statement should be considered HIGH FARCE. !!

      Lots of REAL DATA above, seb..

      But real data always was an anathema to you.

      1. yonason (from my cell phone)
        1. SebastianH

          Clever, using the derivative on a scale that large (trend per century going up to 80°C for the late 90s El Nino, while the overall trend per century for the RSS dataset is 1.9°C per century).

          Also clever, not using the derivative for CO2.

          Whatever the author tried to show with this graph, it’s a huge deception and you are really trying to bring it up as “backup”? Whatever …

          1. AndyG55

            Still trying to DENY that you have no evidence of CO2 warming?

            Even when graphs clearly show absolutely ZERO correlation between CO2 and warming ??

            Oh dear !!

          2. yonason (from my cell phone)


            Here is the link that graph was taken from.

            The article is clear and self explanatory, unlike the nonsensical activist chatbot comment.

          3. SebastianH

            Even when graphs clearly show absolutely ZERO correlation between CO2 and warming ??

            You’d have to be capable of understanding a graph first, to be able to determine if it could be used to show there is a correlation. What is the correlation between speed and acceleration if you draw them on the same graph?

            yonason, the article you posted is discussing something about the runaway effect on Venus not happening here on Earth. How is that (and the deceptive graph you posted) a backup for anything?

            Also, can you trust an author who writes something like this about Venus?

            In addition, Venus is a lot closer to the sun and its rotation is 243 Earth days, not 24 hours – it is basically baking in the solar furnace all the time.

            How much solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus again?

            It’s just some blogger ranting about nothing, arguing against a straw man. Like most of the time when skeptics argue …

          4. AndyG55

            “It’s just some blogger ranting about nothing,”

            No seb, its NOT you.

            Again, your post contains NOTHING except brain-washed self-opinionated ranting. and another mindless analogy (which you always fall back on when you are EMPTY)

            Venus’s high temperatures are mostly caused by its massive gravity based temperature gradient.

            But I’m betting you were wilfully unaware of that, also.?

        2. tom0mason

          Seb —

          “You’d have to be capable of understanding a graph first, to be able to determine if it could be used to show there is a correlation.”

          Looking down your nose at others again, sounds so much like Mr. Pompous. Maybe they understand more than you can ever know.

          1. AndyG55

            “Maybe they understand more than you can ever know.”

            That probably applies to basically anyone passing junior high with any maths or science in their studies..

            Seb has shown over and over again that his knowledge of science, physics, maths, biology, engineering etc etc is that of a junior high student.. (or university journalism/arts graduate).

          2. SebastianH

            Great reply tomOmason! Instead of countering it by explaining how it could be backup you go for a straight up adhom and speculation.

            A graph comparing the derivative of the instrumental record to the value of the CO2 concentration, is “backup” for “It’s got nothing to do with trace gas CO2.” exactly how? How does that work on your side of the argument? How could someone who understands the graph possibly get the impression that it could be “backup” for anything?

          3. AndyG55

            But, seb, it is NOTHING to do with CO2.

            If you have any proof otherwise..

            THEN PRODUCE IT. !!

            You again have produced ZERO rational argument.

          4. tom0mason

            No seb, just an observation. 🙂

            Glad to see you’re explaining exactly what the graph means.

        3. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

          Here’s the second post in that series, where the conclusion is [emphasis mine]…

          “For a tipping point and/or runaway warming to be reached, and then survive, the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis demands that the lower troposphere warms in a consistent and ACCELERATING mode, due to the hypothetical positive atmospheric feedbacks supposedly produced from fossil fuel CO2 emissions. As this analysis substantiates what the prior article had found, the current climate “tipping point” claims and/or concerns are completely without empirical evidence merit or, if you prefer, categorically factless.”

          And how else would one determine ACCELERATION, if not by looking at derivatives of the data curves? But there is no accelerated warming and so their can’t be correlation with steadily increasing CO2, and so dangerous runaway warming isn’t occurring.

          The whole AGW hypothesis is nonsense, as per the data. And as a result, all the wasteful and ruinous changes being made, with more being advocated, are pointless lunacy.

          1. AndyG55

            Well done, Y.

            That pretty much shuts down the “unaware” whinging about the graph.

            Enhanced atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE extra warming.

            END OF STORY.

      2. Bitter&twisted


        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          That was to Andy, so maybe it’s just crumbs falling from the table. But, yeah, I’m with you on that.

        2. AndyG55

          I disagree,

          We cannot allow his brain-washed anti-science to go uncorrected.

          Other people read the board, so seb’s little fantasy fizzics, and “unawareness” of basically any reality, needs to be brought to light.

          Anyone with an operational mind will, of course, figure it out for themselves pretty quickly.

          But all people visiting the board should be made fully aware of the depths of his “unawareness”.

          1. SebastianH

            I agree with AndyG55 here. He needs to continue replying to every comment I write to display the level of understanding and politeness that is prevalent in the skeptic scene 😉

            I find it funny that this very comment is so self-descriptive of him. The “unawareness” sure is infinite in AndyG55 … ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?

          2. AndyG55

            “ever heard of the Dunning Kruger effect?”

            Yep, you seem a great example.

            Promoted to a shill/alarmist apostle position that you don’t have the capacity to support with anything resembling real science.

            People are well aware of your “unawareness”, seb

            Everyone except you.

          3. SebastianH

            You are really deep into that rabbit hole AndyG55. Anyway, do you have something to offer except insult heavy non-content replies parroting the same physically impossible stuff over and over again?

            Those mythical people … you mean that silent majority that you imagine cheering towards you at their desk, not facepalming after every paragraph they read from you?

          4. AndyG55

            “heavy non-content replies parroting the same physically impossible stuff over and over again?”

            What a pathetic attempt to put your well-honed and practiced modus operandi onto someone else.

            But that is all you have left, isn’t it seb..

            Remember, YOU are the one with the unprovable CO2 warming FANTASIES.

    2. tom0mason

      OK, seb, where is the observation, or experiment that show CO2 can change the temperature of the troposphere?

      Theory says it should be evident, so where is the experimental verification? Certainly the idea of a of an upper tropospheric tropical hot spot has been canned, so where is the evidence?

      Observational evidence seb?

      1. SebastianH

        Theory says it should be evident, so where is the experimental verification?

        What theory says this exactly?

        Certainly the idea of a of an upper tropospheric tropical hot spot has been canned, so where is the evidence?

        Has it? That is a model result, isn’t it? Since when are you guys interested in model results?

        Anyway, can you tell a warming caused by an increase of the greenhouse effect apart from warming caused by less aerosols or higher solar output? E.g. how would we expect the stratosphere to change vs. the surface level in those cases?

        1. Newminster

          Seb, if you can’t tell a warming caused by an increase of the greenhouse effect apart from warming caused by less aerosols or higher solar output then why are you arguing that you can?

          According to you up to now it’s all down to CO2. Now you’re telling us you can’t tell what it’s down to. Since the correlation between CO2 increase and temperature over the last century has been patchy (to say the least) most of us on here came to that conclusion years ago. Glad you could join us!

          1. SebastianH

            According to you up to now it’s all down to CO2. Now you’re telling us you can’t tell what it’s down to

            No, I am asking tomOmason if he can tell the different “signatures” apart. Way to go misinterpreting what people actually say/write …

          2. AndyG55

            ZERO signature of CO2 warming

            ZERO evidence of CO2 warming


          3. Luke

            It is quite clear what the signatures of increased absorbed solar and increased atmospheric emissivity are. Increase absorbed solar by reducing albedo, then surface temperature, DWLWIR and OLR all increase until a new radiative equilibrium is reached. Increase bulk atmospheric emissivity at constant absorbed solar, then surface temperature an DWLIR increase, and OLR must temporarily decrease, until radiative balance is restored. Do you agree, Sebastian?

          4. SebastianH

            I agree. Basically, with an increased GHE the stratosphere would be cooling while the surface would warm, with an increase in solar output (or reduced albedo) the stratosphere would not cool.

            Guess what has been observed.

          5. AndyG55

            “the stratosphere would not cool.”

            Yes it would.

            You seem unaware of tropopause expansion, hence stratosphere cooling, form NATURAL warming from solar energy

          6. Luke

            However,Seb, OLR has increased during the satellite era, which is not consistent with an increasing greenhouse effect in an imbalanced state. As you know, the energy source for increasing surface temperature must be deducted from
            OLR, if there is no increase in solar input (where else can the energy come from?). Agreed?

        2. tom0mason

          So seb just noise, no answers, eh?

          Empty cAGW vassal make a lot of noise.

        3. tom0mason

          Err, sorry seb you’re correct it’s not a theory, it’s a supposition at best probably nothing but a superstition in reality.

    3. MIG

      I know observed local weather is not a trend, but snow is forecast in Kansas City this Sunday, which would mean every Sunday in April has had snow so far…never happened before.

      Glad to hear Germany is nice, I’m flying there in a couple of weeks.

    4. wert

      Back it up with science please. Using the variability of the climate system as proof that there is no ongoing warming caused by an increasing greenhouse effect is a bit weak und not scientific at all.

      I never trust any science of yours after the climategate showed us how wicked hockeyteamers are.

      But, show me your polynomic approximation on how much CO2 warms the atmosphere? Because, what I see is a very linear relation between CO2 and temperature. Instead of the huge acceleration that’s been postulated.

      I don’t say the “trace gas” has nothing to do with the warming. I firmly believe scientists like Christy are right, and increasing CO2 will increase temperatures. It is just that there’s nothing to worry about, and definitely not any reason to jump into stupid, inefficient and expensive mitigation. Prove me wrong on that.

    5. Kate

      We should be getting ready for seeding here on the Canadian prairies. It was -12C this morning, and we’re still under a foot of snow.

      Taken April 4th.

      1. AndyG55

        Only spent a small amount of time on farms…

        cattle and llamas.

        Yes, a friend was a llama farmer, for the wool.

        Anyway…. that doesn’t look like ideal conditions for crop planting !!

        May the “climate” change rapidly for you. 😉

    6. flow

      science? 17 year low with ever rising CO2.
      How does that work, if CO2 warms?
      Its like piling extra blankets on the bed, then being colder than before you added them.

    7. Unknown Comic

      Sebastian Gorka ? I watch you all the time on Hannity, Breitbart and Fox News.

      Hey man love your commentary on the conservative movement.

      anyways, the cooling is coming like you said & we’re all in a heap of Doo doo.

      Population expected to fall from 7 billion to 2.5 billion by 2030

  2. Green Sand

    Also keep a ‘weather’ eye on the AMO.

    ‘Will Arctic Sea Ice Rebound As Atlantic Ocean Cools?’

    “Arctic sea ice extent has generally been below-normal since the middle 1990’s at which time the northern Atlantic Ocean switched sea surface temperature phases from cold-to-warm. It is likely to return to pre-mid 1990’s levels when the oceanic cycle flips back to a cold phase in coming years……”

    Time will tell!

  3. tom0mason
  4. yonason (from my cell phone)
  5. SebastianH

    Just in “Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century” (Oliver et al)

    Have fun reading it global cooling fans.

    1. SebastianH

      Also just in: “Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation” (Caesar et al)

      And: “Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years” (Thornally et al)

      In case you still have questions about that cool patch in the North Atlantic and how that would somehow contradict global warming …

      1. RickWill

        So the polar bears will have more sea ice!

        This is Humpty Dumpty science:
        ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

        In fact it has morphed from Global Warming to Climate Change to Climate Disruption. Global Warming was too specific. When it did not warm at the rate projected it was changed to Climate Disruption. When there was no clear trend in frequency or severity of weather events it changed to Climate Disruption. Climate Disruption has no specific meaning and allows the Humpty Dumptys of Climate Science to mean what ever they want it to mean.

        If models were useful to the physical world they would not have to be constantly tuning them to reproduce the latest recorded data or adjust the data to suit the models – they would have predictive capability. It is not science. Climate Models are just computer games that have won favour with Politicians in search of a cause to get people to willing part with the rewards of their endeavour.

        Clearly you have been sucked into the fairy tale and believe it SebastianH – maybe you are a beneficiary of government funding to perpetuate the story. I have been a beneficiary as well as I no longer pay for household energy but at least I recognise the rort.

        1. yonason (from my cell phone)

          P.S. – in [SebH’s] first link we read…

          “This weakening is revealed by a characteristic spatial and seasonal sea-surface temperature ‘fingerprint’—consisting of a pattern of cooling in the subpolar Atlantic Ocean and warming in the Gulf Stream region—and calibrated through an ensemble of model simulations from the CMIP5 project. We find this fingerprint both in a high-resolution climate model in response to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, and in the temperature trends observed since the late nineteenth century.”

          I.e., they have taken measurements and, by adjusting parameters, forced models to “predict” the measurements they observe, AFTER THE FACT. Confirmation bias – nothing more.

          I am very glad to be retired, and not have to waste money on those fake-science journals anymore!

          1. AndyG55

            “and in the temperature trends observed since the late nineteenth century.””

            There was NO WARMING from 1980 – 1997


            Only through the use of NON-CO2 El Ninos can they create a trend of any sort.

            So warming CANNOT be caused by CO2..

            Look elsewhere…

            … like the sun, for instance.

          2. tom0mason

            @yonason (from my cell phone)

            You’re retired, watch-out seb will probably insult you, he’s already vented against other retirees (me).

          3. tom0mason

            @yonason (from my cell phone)

            Maybe the CMIP6 models could show some light on the solar cycle.


          4. Yonason (from a friend's comp)

            @tom0mason 12. April 2018 at 7:52 AM

            We old codgers have to stick together.

            SebH vents against anyone who doesn’t accept his unfounded assertions. I’d like to agree with Pierre that it’s only his problem, but as annoying a nuisance as he is, he makes it everyone else’s, as well. Like the tantrum throwing child in a public place, his behavior when he doesn’t get what he wants makes it unpleasant to be there, which I’ve come to think is really his prime objective.

      2. AndyG55

        WOW, wonders will never cease.

        seb FINALLY admits that there was a LIA, anomalously COLD,

        and that there is an AMO that drives NH cycles.

        Yes seb, we all KNOW it has warmed NATURALLY since the LIA. And thank goodness for that

        “We suggest that enhanced freshwater fluxes from the Arctic and Nordic seas towards the end of the LIA — sourced from melting glaciers and thickened sea ice that developed earlier in the LIA”

        So absolutely NOTHING to do with human anything.

        And look, the “thickened sea ice” developed “earlier in the LIA”.

        That would be because of the anomalous COLD wouldn’t it seb.

        1. AndyG55

          Sorry about the double similar post, I thought the first one has done a disappearing trick.

          1. tom0mason

            Can’t be said often enough! 🙂

      3. AndyG55

        Well done seb,

        Finally recognising the existence of the AMO that controls climate cycles in the AMO.

        Also recognising that their was an anomalously cold period called the LIA, which we are fortunate to have warmed slightly from.

        You may even have read the abstract for one of your links..

        “We suggest that enhanced freshwater fluxes from the Arctic and Nordic seas towards the end of the LIA—sourced from melting glaciers and thickened sea ice that developed earlier in the LIA”

        So, glaciers and thickened sea ice formed in the start of the ANOMALOUSLY COLD LIA.

        Towards the end of that period (well before any possible human CO2 influence), it started to melt.

        Another small step out of your chronic “unawareness”

      4. SebastianH

        Unsurprising replies … “Humpty Dumpty science” definitely takes the crown on creative terms invented by skeptics to “counter” science. Climate models are just computer games? Sucked into fairy tales … just wow.

        Yonason very quickly comes to the rescue with zero science as a counter-argument, obviously having no problem doing what he accuses his opponents to be doing.

        AndyG55 comes up with that El Nino parrot thing despite the heatwave paper specifically excluding those effects.

        And tomOmason expects some kind of insult waiting to play the offended guy. If I’d get a Euro every time I feel offended by things you guys are writing, I’d be a rich person.

        Finally, AndyG55 again displaying an unseen level of misunderstanding what other people write. Also “there” not “their”, AndyG55 …

        Puh … so, obviously the papers are fake, the results don’t matter and the authors have no clue, right? Not real science, so you guys can sleep well tonight … everything all right in the skeptic bubble 😉

        1. AndyG55

          Still NOTHING but unprovable AGW mantra, poor seb.

          Sorry you do not understand that El Ninos have been the ONLY warming in the satellite record.

          Also sorry that you are so basically UNAWARE that you think CO2 causes El Ninos.

          Sorry you DENY that evaporation causes cooling

          I can’t help your lack of awareness of basic facts of life and physics..

          Do you still DENY that the LIA was a period of ANOMALOUS COLD?

          Do you still DENY that you have ZERO evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING except enhanced plant growth?

          Why do you live in a world of DENIAL, seb?

          And you obviously have ZERO intention of doing anything about it.

          Your post, as usual, contains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except self-opinionated BS.

          ZERO SCIENCE seb. !

          1. SebastianH

            Sorry you do not understand that El Ninos have been the ONLY warming in the satellite record.

            How does an event like that cause warming exactly? Are all the past El Ninos still happening? Still releasing heat content from the oceans into the atmosphere?

            Also sorry that you are so basically UNAWARE that you think CO2 causes El Ninos.

            I don’t, please stop willfully misinterpreting everything people with opposing views write.

            Sorry you DENY that evaporation causes cooling

            No, stop making stuff up.

            Your post, as usual, contains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except self-opinionated BS.

            Not “sipped”?

            I am really tired of your replies and hope everyone understands that I can not continue to reply to you like this anymore. There is no progress with you and you probably are doing it only for the fun it. While sometimes entertaining, conversing with you is a huge waste of time. Sorry.

            Had a little hope Pierre ment your comments with that posting a few days back, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. “The hounds” are not moderated in the comments here …

          2. AndyG55

            “I can not continue to reply to you like this anymore.”

            Your replies are always pretty much EMPTY of anything scientific or any rational thought anyway. Just like your whinging, self-righteous post I’m replying to now.

            You will never make any progress in when you have NOTHING to offer.

            Glad to see you FINALLY admitting that CO2 doesn’t fuel El Ninos. And as El Ninos are the only warming in the satellite era.. ZERO effect from CO2.. WELL DONE 🙂

            One tiny step. 🙂

            Gradually teasing real FACTS out of you. 🙂

            But also SORRY that you are “unaware” that El Ninos causes warming and actually spread that release of solar energy around the globe and the oceans…. even though the evidence sticks out like a sore thumb .

            You were absolutely MANIC in your denial of evaporation causing surface cooling… what has changed??

            It is great to see that you have finally realised your error and are fessing up to it. 🙂

            Gees, next you will be ADMITTING to the fact that gravity forms a pressure temperature gradient in the atmosphere which regulates the surface temperature.

            Or you will be ADMITTING that the LIA was the actual anomaly, and that the current slight totally natural warming, back partially toward MWP temperatures, is nothing but beneficial to all life on Earth, just like the rise in aCO2 is.

            And I must admit that I’m REALLY tired of your incredible lack of progress in producing some empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING but enhanced plant growth.

            Surly you can do better !!

          3. tom0mason

            Truth hurts seb?

            Surely it was you that tried to say that the atmosphere warms the oceans and that increasing CO2 means that the oceans would warm more. Or maybe you didn’t say that, eh? Well it was some-such nonsense along those lines till Kenneth corrected you (well done Kenneth!).
            So basically you have shown “[Also sorry] that you are so basically UNAWARE that you think CO2 causes El Ninos.” And you hate AndyG55 reminding you of you past errors! Hubristic people hate having their egos punctured.

            And haven’t you alluded to me being drug-addle? Or your remarks against me show you as a pompous agist? Or maybe that wasn’t you?
            No it was you! 🙂

            And you offer no science, no insight, nothing but misapplied analogies and cAGW blather that must be countered.

        2. AndyG55

          “the authors have no clue, right”

          Shows you never read even the abstract.

          … Read what the authors actually said, seb,

          Really funny thing is that you don’t have a clue that you don’t have a clue.

          You actually BELIEVE you are correct most of the time.


    2. AndyG55


      who wouldn’t expect some extra ocean warming after the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, and during a GRAND SOLAR MAXIMUM

      Only those who DENY that the LIA was ANOMALOUSLY COLD, would be so cognitively challenged.

      Absolutely ZERO human or human CO2 effect though.

      ZERO EVIDENCE of that.

  6. Data Shows Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Oceans Cooling | Principia Scientific International

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  7. It’s Probably Nothing – Small Dead Animals

    […] Related:  Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Ocean Surfaces Cooling Off […]

  8. Can Humans Melt the Antarctic Icecap? – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  9. Array Of Data Shows Atmospheric Temperatures In Free Fall, Ocean Surfaces Cooling Off – I.A.M.

    […] NoTricksZone […]

  10. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

    Here’s how we use quantum mechanics and the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove CAGW.

    CO2’s ~15 micron absorption spectrum corresponds to a blackbody temperature of ~-80 C, which makes that an extremely low-energy (long wavelength) regime. It also happens to be in an energetically-sparse region of the blackbody curve, given that there’s not much on the planet that is radiating at ~-80 C.

    So which do you think is more likely:

    1} That CO2 is absorbing extremely low-energy photons from an energetically-sparse region of the blackbody curve, increasing its vibrational quantum state and thus its collisional radiationless transition probability… because remember, for collisional radiationless transition to have a very high probability, the molecule must be highly excited… as you can see from the UMLT monoatomic oxygen in the study here:
    such that it’s transferring its vibrational quantum state energy to the translational kinetic energy of other molecules…


    2} Other molecules with a much higher-energy (shorter wavelength) absorption spectrum absorbing photons of a higher energy level (and from a region of the blackbody curve which isn’t as energetically-sparse) than that which CO2 can absorb, becoming vibrationally excited then transferring that energy to CO2 via collisional radiationless transition, then the CO2 undergoes emission relaxation by emitting a 15 micron photon, as outlined in the study I cited prior:

    In arguing for their position, the warmists are essentially arguing that energy is flowing from a lower-energy to a higher-energy regime… it’s a sneaky, roundabout way of saying that 2LoT is violated. I think everyone can see the problem in that, yes?

    There are four forms of molecular energy:
    1} Electron quantum state (quantized potential energy)
    2} Vibrational state (quantized kinetic energy)
    3} Rotational state (quantized kinetic energy)
    4} Translational energy (unquantized kinetic energy, the only energy which we can measure as temperature)

    The time-independent Schrodinger equation treats translational kinetic energy separately from electron quantum state, vibrational quantum state and rotational quantum state because translational energy is the only energy which is not quantized.

    The warmists have it exactly backward.

    Remember back when they claimed that CO2 would cause stratospheric warming? That was because they were claiming that CO2 was absorbing a photon, increasing its vibrational quantum state, then transferring that vibrational (kinetic) energy to other molecular constituents of the atmosphere in the form of translational energy (the only form of molecular energy which we can measure as temperature) via collisional radiationless transition. Since that sort of energy transfer has a probability distribution which depends upon molecular abundance, atmospheric pressure and molecular excitation level, it generally only happens at certain altitudes. The warmists were claiming it happened in the stratosphere, but empirical observation proved them wrong.

    When no stratospheric heating was empirically observed (indeed, the stratosphere cooled), they then switched to claiming that CO2 would cause the stratosphere to cool (to come into line with empirical observation), but it would cause the troposphere to warm… but they kept the very same collisional radiationless transition mechanism by which they’d previously claimed CO2 caused stratospheric heating… but they forgot that the wide absorption spectrum of water in the troposphere precludes there being many sufficiently energetic photons in the troposphere to sufficiently excite CO2’s vibrational quantum state to make the collisional radiationless transition probability very high.

    And they forgot that energy cannot flow from a lower-energy to a higher-energy regime… that violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Think about it… 15 micron photons are very low energy, yet the warmists are claiming those low-energy photons are heating up the other molecular constituents of the atmosphere which have absorption spectrums at a higher-energy region of the blackbody curve (higher-energy photons), and in a region of the blackbody curve which has a higher abundance of photons by dint of the fact that there is more ‘stuff’ radiating at those warmer temperatures.

    In reality, the reverse (of what the warmists claim) happens throughout the atmosphere… other molecular constituents absorb higher-energy photons, become vibrationally excited and transfer that energy to CO2 via collisional radiationless transition, whereupon CO2 undergoes emission relaxation by emitting a 15 micron photon.

    Here’s how we know that collisional radiationless transition isn’t the predominant mechanism of energy transfer from CO2 to other atmospheric molecules, as the warmists contend:
    “Molecular fly-by collisions take little time, something like 10^−13 s. Optical transition of collisional complexes of molecules generate spectral “lines” that are very broad – roughly five orders of magnitude broader than the most familiar “ordinary” spectral lines (Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation). The resulting spectral “lines” usually strongly overlap so that collision-induced spectral bands typically appear as continua (as opposed to the bands of often discernible lines of ordinary molecules).”

    That we have a very defined spectrum rather than a broad quasi-continua for CO2 emission in our atmosphere proves that collisional radiationless transition is a very minor aspect of energy transfer from CO2 to other molecular species.

    Given that the mean free path length (for that 15 micron IR emitted by CO2) increases with increasing altitude, the net vector for that emitted IR is upward.

    That’s why CO2 has been shown to cause cooling throughout the atmosphere, except for a very slight amount of warming at the tropopause:

    You’ll further hear warmists talking about increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration causing a widening of the ‘shoulders’ of the purported absorption (but in actuality, the emission) band of CO2… but take a look at the image above.

    You are looking downward on those “shoulders”, and you can see that CO2 causes cooling… so a widening of those “shoulders” as CO2 atmospheric concentration increases means it’ll cause cooling at a wider band of frequencies. And as CO2 atmospheric concentration increases, you’ll see the center of that rainbow of colors labeled ‘CO2’ go toward even more extreme cooling.

    So CO2 acts as a negative feedback to the completely natural warming the planet had recently experienced. That forcing has ended, the planet is now cooling, and as CO2 atmospheric concentration continues to increase, it will exacerbate the cooling.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy