Christy and Spencer have a unique place in history. Throughout the political nonsense, they just carry on reporting cold, hard facts. Heroes both of them
A brilliant presentation. Thank you Dr Christy. This is the message we should be sharing in our schools and colleges instead of scaring the pants out of our younger generations. Please keep on spreading the message Tom
Greetings from Belgium. Today (20/11/2024) we had our first snow and I thought: hold on a minute, didn't Al Gore said that "from 2015 on snow will be something from the past"?
Why is it that all the really good scientists are saying the same thing. THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS. BRILLIANT SCIENCE HERE. THANK YOU TOM FOR ALL THE GREAT VIDEOS.
The newspeak version of Feynman's quote: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment/data, it (i.e. the data) is wrong."
The comment he makes at 44:00 or thereabouts about contaminated datasets is REALLY interesting. I'm not a climatologist but I am an academic in a STEM field and I've worked as a software developer for a while. What is the general arrangement for maintaining and sharing these datasets? Are they just uploaded as supplemental material to some publishers website for interested parties to download? I mean, I think we need versioning in a big way. These datasets should be published in raw form, then a series of adjusted versions created along with all the forking and non-destructive editing as a history. This is how diff works and somewhat similarly, commits in git. All the versions and the history needs preserving as a bunch of deltas. Any institution or individual who wants to try messing with the contents should create a branch from a suitable fork position (like ideally the raw data but maybe some newer version if he/she agrees with what has been done so far), and then they should record what have been done along the way as a commit note. This will remove all doubt about subterfuge and underhand tactics and messing with the data, because you have a complete and auditable history of what has happened to it ever since its inception. This bullshit of everyone having their own dubiously adulterated dataset to try to make some point has to end. It isn't science.
Yes!! A new presentation on Tom Nelson's podcast. Time to sit back with a hot cup of coffee and enjoy science! BTW, anyone now what caused this hot spot @38:00 ?
This is John Christy’s best presentation ever ! Greatly appreciate that he goes back to the real raw data , that’s a lot of tedious, laborious work but so very important to get at the truth. Thank you gentlemen , great analysis , presentation and discussion.
A pleasure to watch ... Good presentation. A mix of big picture and local. Easy to understand charts. Although mostly USA-focused (long and extensive weather recordings), it is interesting to compare and contrast Christy's data with legacy media, NGOs, and even some science agencys' hysterical headlines.
@@harrying882yeah, unfortunately, it started long before her. Climate change guff has been going for decades, just in different forms. As an older person, I've seen it all before. Probably not to the scale of modern times though.
Tony Heller is excellent at analysing data and spotting fraud. But he does not have his own datasets, he usually uses the NOAA datasets. As you can tell from this presentation John Christie build his own datasets. He is also a pioneer of satellite measurements.
Let's shift our focus on stopping pollution. Chemical polution I mean.Focus on developing countries to get their waste management in order and clean up the rivers. Countries still use rivers and waterways as convenient sewers. Put money in that
As a studying climate scientist I love telling people the past hurricane season or two, are below standard… and then I tell them what La Niña is gonna do🙂↕️🙂↕️ poor urban planning is about to reap what it’s sowed next year
P.S. It would be great if you could get Professor Ian Plimer on the show. As you probably know he just launched a new book called "Climate Change: The Facts 2025." ..or some of the contributers in this book...
So there was a cold winter in 70:s in the US and the idea was we are facing Ice age globally, and then a hot summer in the 80:s, only in the US, and they said the Earth is going to burn.
Southwest Washington state has cooled over the last 5 years. It has not gotten hotter. East winds have been cold. Nights with a high above 60 degrees are almost nonexistent. Atmospheric Co2 levels have dropped from a low of 409ppm to 407ppm this year. Timberline Lodge is running ski lifts before Thanksgiving. It’s getting colder.
In my interactions with the climate crisis faithful I often confront them with a question. What changed? Thanks for this talk. My answer to the question is; not much changed. Is climate change real? Sure. To me it remains a determination we will make in the future and not something we can determine in the present.
there is a climate crisis but it’s global cooling, not global warming the Earth is currently in a major ice age global warming, if we ever got any, would be good for life global cooling would be a crisis
Roy Spencer's ECS is based on faulty reasoning. So is Judith Curry's. The reasoning of Spencer and of Curry adds error to error. You get better reasoning from Happer & Wijngaarden.
RS used real world data to calculate the possible CO2 warming effect (but says other factors may be contributing ... eg cloud cover change). Scafetti (2024), also using real world data, arrives at values similar to Christy. I don't think Curry looked as deeply into the data but is comfortable with CO2 causing some of the warming. H&W used radiative physics to calculate CO2 effects, reaching a lower value. I don't think H&W include mass transport effects (evaporation, convection & wind) on outcomes, but did try to model clouds. His calculated TOA spectra match quite well with real world data. Skeptics don't agree on everything. And most don't try to enforce consensus, unlike some climate scientists 😀
@@nitrostudy9049 Thank you for your comment. RS and Judith are great for us, but we don't have to accept their every word. You write: "RS used real world data to calculate the possible CO2 warming effect (but says other factors may be contributing ... eg cloud cover change)." Yes, he used real world data, but they do not include actual comparisons between a an actual world with and an actual world without CO2 emissions (of course, such are impossible). Consequently, his calculations rely upon assumptions and models, to extract his results. I am saying that his modelling is based on faulty reasoning, so it doesn't much matter what real world data he may use. Roy doesn't understand the difference between external driver variables and internal state variables, as they come into such calculations. He relies on the conceptually faulty 'forcing and feedback' formalism. That doesn't correctly analyse the difference between external driver variables and internal state variables. Roy won't admit this, because he is so invested in his past calculations that rely on it. You write: "I don't think Curry looked as deeply into the data but is comfortable with CO2 causing some of the warming." She didn't go into such detail, but her method shares the faults of RS's. You write: "H&W used radiative physics to calculate CO2 effects, reaching a lower value. I don't think H&W include mass transport effects (evaporation, convection & wind) on outcomes, but did try to model clouds. His calculated TOA spectra match quite well with real world data." H&W are frank that calculations and models are necessary, and don't try to hide their work under cover of "real world data". Good for them. They are not, I think, the top experts on the details of radiative transfer calculations, but their efforts are respectable. They do the usual calculation of the virtual "no-feedback" warming assuming Planck feedback. They get 0.8°C. More experienced authors incline about 1.2°C. I won't quibble about that. The next step of reasoning is to consider the virtual "feedback" effect. The warmistas say that it is positive. H&W say that it is negative. I think they should brush up their arguments that it is negative, but I think they are right that it is indeed negative, and I think there are reasonable grounds for saying so. That means that the dreaded warming cannot exceed 1.2°C; it is quite possibly less, but it is also very difficult or impossible to calculate precisely by how much. Whether H&W consider bulk transport effects and clouds or not is not too important, once one recognises that the dreaded warming cannot exceed 1.2°C. I think it likely that the bulk transport effects make the feedback strongly negative, but I don't think we need to rely on their being strong. We just need to know that it is negative. If the "feedback" were positive, the warmistas would have a strong argument, but since it is negative, they have no argument, nowhere to turn; they are dead in the water.
@christophergame7977 Thanks for your views and info. I think with a white board and coffee and a bit of chat, we would mostly find approximate agreement. Creating and seeking (not manipulating) match between theory predictions and real world data is not 'hiding' it is the gold standard ... the main function of science. I am a great admirer of Happer. An excellent scientist and communicator. H&W's more recent papers utilise methodologies based partly on theory and partly on real-world data (how the values for those calculations were mostly created) 😀 Given the still high uncertainties in TOA measurements, and surprisingly (to me) much less certainty in surface IR (downwards) spectra, the actual differences attributable to increased CO2 are unresolved One thing is sure, the science is not settled. My own view is simplistic. Only about 12% of surface absorbed energy radiates directly back to space. The atmosphere absorbs 23% of total absorbed solar directly, plus all the earth surface heat not escaping directly to space (latent heat is dominant, plus conduction, and absorbed IR). All those energy sources get thermalised. Mass transport moves that energy to heights where the energy can escape by reverse thermalisation and phase change. Although complete conjecture, my view is that the atmosphere alters emissions further away from that of an ideal black body. A black body spectrum is one that maximises radiative power and entropy (happy to be corrected if wrong). Because the atmosphere reduces radiative efficiency, it raises temperature to maintain radiative output via a less efficient emission spectrum. That is, the Earth surface does not respond, rather, the atmosphere does. So, I am saying GHGs have some effect. Where and how this might take effect in the atmosphere is beyond my current thoughts 😀
Frightening evidence. Here in NW Denmark (the EU one) our local beach is constantly gobbled up by the North Sea. German bunker beach fortifications have all tumbled 20+meters down sand dunes to sea level during our 55 years. Guess what, neighbouring beaches are expanding. Climate change Crisis?
19:00 Wouldn't increased nighttime temperatures be a natural effect of increased greenhouse effect? So during the day, the solar input, which is unchanged, dominates completely. But at night, the temperature drop depends, among other, on the amount of radiation that can escape into space. (I am aware that in the tropics, the effect of CO2 is typically negligible, as water vapor dominates that overall suppression of radiation into space)
Its the infrastructure that catches the heat. Concrete and other materials in cities. This has been known for a long time. If you have more green areas in a city you notice the temperature difference there and between areas with no green spots. You dont see the dramatic temperature rice in areas outside of cities and if it was greenhouse gases it would be the same trend outside of cities. Willie Soon looked at temperature measures from only rural areas outside of cities and sure enough the rise in temp wasnt dramatic at all.
Also the temperature recorded near ground, I think it is supposed to be at 6 feet above ground, has little to do with what is happening in the lower atmosphere or the upper atmosphere where heat escapes into space. Near surface cloud cover has a lot to do with warm versus cold nights along with the heat escaping from asphalt, cement, buildings etc causing the urban heat island effect.
@@bonkbonk2670 Sure. I was merely trying to anticipate and preempt the argument that CO2 is causing the reduced outflow of energy. Actually, as Ott/Shula and others have shown recently on this podcast, the lower atmosphere cannot radiate into space at all, but requires cold surfaces to cool down. Surfaces, unlike the atmosphere, can radiate in the 'atmospheric window', where all radiation escapes unscathed into space. This is why the hood of a car gets condensation long before there is any sign of fog in the air. And structures have much, much more thermal inertia (heat capacity and conductivity) than plants and soil, meaning that they do not cool down nearly as fast.
I lived most of my life in an urban area then I moved rural but still often travel to urban areas. The temperature difference that I've felt as well as monitored at wx stations show the same difference I feel. I have often found interesting comments on the phenomenon in newspaper archives. "200 years ago amateur meteorologist, Luke Howard, noted that in London "Night is 3.70° warmer and day 0.34° cooler" - he was noting the urban heat-island effect, The Times, 14 December 2006 UHI "can make a city up to four degrees warmer than other areas in the country [and is] most pronounced when winds are low" - "Baltic blasts penetrate London's warmth duvet", The Times, 9 January 2003 'Central London a "Heat Island", 16°F Above Suburbs at Times' The Times September 5th, 1961 There are sadly not many historic wx stations that have not been contaminated by encroaching development, although the UHCN network is pretty good data.
Extremely informative and easy to follow presentation. Dr Christy is doing excellent work.
Yet another fantatic lecture on Tom Nelson podcast! :) John Christy is one of the best and most level-headed scientists out there.
Christy and Spencer have a unique place in history. Throughout the political nonsense, they just carry on reporting cold, hard facts. Heroes both of them
Facts to Marxists is like Kryptonite to Superman. 😂
A brilliant presentation. Thank you Dr Christy. This is the message we should be sharing in our schools and colleges instead of scaring the pants out of our younger generations. Please keep on spreading the message Tom
Greetings from Belgium. Today (20/11/2024) we had our first snow and I thought: hold on a minute, didn't Al Gore said that "from 2015 on snow will be something from the past"?
We've had snow in the south of the UK today & sub zero temperatures at night too, unusual for this point in November!
Cripes - it's almost like he's doing actual science!
How refreshing is that!?
Maybe, he has independent funding.
Why is it that all the really good scientists are saying the same thing. THERE IS NO CLIMATE CRISIS. BRILLIANT SCIENCE HERE. THANK YOU TOM FOR ALL THE GREAT VIDEOS.
Apparently, "97% of scientists agree with whoever is funding them", don't know how true it is, but I wonder.
Tried to put in a different comment but it keeps getting removed. Anyway, true.
Because the poor ones are academic who#es it would seem.
The newspeak version of Feynman's quote:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment/data, it (i.e. the data) is wrong."
The comment he makes at 44:00 or thereabouts about contaminated datasets is REALLY interesting. I'm not a climatologist but I am an academic in a STEM field and I've worked as a software developer for a while. What is the general arrangement for maintaining and sharing these datasets? Are they just uploaded as supplemental material to some publishers website for interested parties to download? I mean, I think we need versioning in a big way. These datasets should be published in raw form, then a series of adjusted versions created along with all the forking and non-destructive editing as a history. This is how diff works and somewhat similarly, commits in git. All the versions and the history needs preserving as a bunch of deltas. Any institution or individual who wants to try messing with the contents should create a branch from a suitable fork position (like ideally the raw data but maybe some newer version if he/she agrees with what has been done so far), and then they should record what have been done along the way as a commit note. This will remove all doubt about subterfuge and underhand tactics and messing with the data, because you have a complete and auditable history of what has happened to it ever since its inception. This bullshit of everyone having their own dubiously adulterated dataset to try to make some point has to end. It isn't science.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound as if your indoctrination... sorry I mean training has been effectively applied.
I don't think your university training has stuck properly. Tried a different comment, but it went missing i.e. removed.
@@lancebarnes3970have another try.
This is a breath of fresh air in the tainted atmosphere of alarmist agit-prop. Thank you.
Yes!! A new presentation on Tom Nelson's podcast. Time to sit back with a hot cup of coffee and enjoy science! BTW, anyone now what caused this hot spot @38:00 ?
Not only is John crystal clear and very well researched but his warning about energy infrastructure should scare us all !
Relevant for Europe as well
This is an amazing catch
well done Tom
Thank you very much for your presentation!! I like the reliance on DATA.
But if we can’t convince people it’s a crisis, how can we make money and influence politics?
Yay! John's a favorite scientist of mine... I recall Freeman Dyson saying the guys at UAH were 'solid'. So glad to see a new post...
Thanks Tom
Great video guys. Ed Milliband in the UK needs to see this as he sends us back to the dark ages with his ridiculous net zero policies
He won’t give a sh… Climate is not his driver, his agenda is driven by ambition - to wipe out Great Britain and oppress the indigenous population!
This is John Christy’s best presentation ever ! Greatly appreciate that he goes back to the real raw data , that’s a lot of tedious, laborious work but so very important to get at the truth. Thank you gentlemen , great analysis , presentation and discussion.
A pleasure to watch ... Good presentation. A mix of big picture and local. Easy to understand charts.
Although mostly USA-focused (long and extensive weather recordings), it is interesting to compare and contrast Christy's data with legacy media, NGOs, and even some science agencys' hysterical headlines.
Thank you Dr Christy
How Dare you!!! How are we expected to promote degrowth and destroy Capitalism without a climate crisis???
Auld greta Thunberg, it probably started off as a good cause turned into a business and became a racket.
Too funny! The only way to reach many of the "Chicken Little" dupes, is to illustrate how stupid their position is. Bravo!
I should be in school....
@@harrying882yeah, unfortunately, it started long before her. Climate change guff has been going for decades, just in different forms. As an older person, I've seen it all before. Probably not to the scale of modern times though.
@@dougberrett8094You have a point, but just bear in mind, people can't resist propaganda if they don't know it's happening. Media narratives.
Thanks for sharing!!! An honest appraisal.
Stunning presentation! Thanks for all your hard work! An understatement - I know.
Thanks nice to see science done right.
For American data sets, Tony Heller has very good data sets.
Tony Heller is excellent at analysing data and spotting fraud. But he does not have his own datasets, he usually uses the NOAA datasets. As you can tell from this presentation John Christie build his own datasets. He is also a pioneer of satellite measurements.
Love the data and charts, so powerful and necessary to debunk the propaganda media…
Thanks so much for the video and info.
Remember to like and share good people.
Thanks.
Keep up the great work !! The message is going to get out there a lot easier come January 2025!
Let's shift our focus on stopping pollution. Chemical polution I mean.Focus on developing countries to get their waste management in order and clean up the rivers. Countries still use rivers and waterways as convenient sewers. Put money in that
As a studying climate scientist I love telling people the past hurricane season or two, are below standard… and then I tell them what La Niña is gonna do🙂↕️🙂↕️ poor urban planning is about to reap what it’s sowed next year
Thanks for this great channel
P.S. It would be great if you could get Professor Ian Plimer on the show.
As you probably know he just launched a new book called "Climate Change: The Facts 2025."
..or some of the contributers in this book...
Done--he is scheduled to be my podcast guest next month.
@@tomnelson2080 Super, then we have something to look forward to! :)
Nice one!
I love this guy!
Thnx Tom great show again👌
So there was a cold winter in 70:s in the US and the idea was we are facing Ice age globally, and then a hot summer in the 80:s, only in the US, and they said the Earth is going to burn.
Respect
Ty for your work
Excellent!
Southwest Washington state has cooled over the last 5 years. It has not gotten hotter. East winds have been cold. Nights with a high above 60 degrees are almost nonexistent. Atmospheric Co2 levels have dropped from a low of 409ppm to 407ppm this year. Timberline Lodge is running ski lifts before Thanksgiving. It’s getting colder.
Huge about of work - thank you.
" It is your human environment that makes climate. "
'Mark Twain'
In my interactions with the climate crisis faithful I often confront them with a question. What changed?
Thanks for this talk. My answer to the question is; not much changed. Is climate change real? Sure. To me it remains a determination we will make in the future and not something we can determine in the present.
Great!
there is a climate crisis
but it’s global cooling, not global warming
the Earth is currently in a major ice age
global warming, if we ever got any, would be good for life
global cooling would be a crisis
One simple answer, no climate change,,,,, no money!!!!!!
"Millan Millan on how land use affects climate and rain" you will find this on you tube
At 37:37, that hotspot is located directly over the Ring of Fire, in a very active area of Volcanos. That ain't good.
When is your next interview with David dilley?
The endless climate mantra: "Just you wait, it's going to be bad, you'll see". Repeat decade after decade in perpetuity.
I figured out why Mann wanted to get rid of the medieval warm period, as it's common knowledge C.O.2. follows temperature 800 yrs later.!
I am still confused as how/why the sun has no effects on or climate. at least that's seems to be the narrative. Me, common sense states otherwise.
The planet is not "getting warmer".
Roy Spencer's ECS is based on faulty reasoning. So is Judith Curry's. The reasoning of Spencer and of Curry adds error to error. You get better reasoning from Happer & Wijngaarden.
RS used real world data to calculate the possible CO2 warming effect (but says other factors may be contributing ... eg cloud cover change).
Scafetti (2024), also using real world data, arrives at values similar to Christy.
I don't think Curry looked as deeply into the data but is comfortable with CO2 causing some of the warming.
H&W used radiative physics to calculate CO2 effects, reaching a lower value. I don't think H&W include mass transport effects (evaporation, convection & wind) on outcomes, but did try to model clouds. His calculated TOA spectra match quite well with real world data.
Skeptics don't agree on everything. And most don't try to enforce consensus, unlike some climate scientists 😀
@@nitrostudy9049 Thank you for your comment.
RS and Judith are great for us, but we don't have to accept their every word.
You write: "RS used real world data to calculate the possible CO2 warming effect (but says other factors may be contributing ... eg cloud cover change)." Yes, he used real world data, but they do not include actual comparisons between a an actual world with and an actual world without CO2 emissions (of course, such are impossible). Consequently, his calculations rely upon assumptions and models, to extract his results. I am saying that his modelling is based on faulty reasoning, so it doesn't much matter what real world data he may use. Roy doesn't understand the difference between external driver variables and internal state variables, as they come into such calculations. He relies on the conceptually faulty 'forcing and feedback' formalism. That doesn't correctly analyse the difference between external driver variables and internal state variables. Roy won't admit this, because he is so invested in his past calculations that rely on it.
You write: "I don't think Curry looked as deeply into the data but is comfortable with CO2 causing some of the warming." She didn't go into such detail, but her method shares the faults of RS's.
You write: "H&W used radiative physics to calculate CO2 effects, reaching a lower value. I don't think H&W include mass transport effects (evaporation, convection & wind) on outcomes, but did try to model clouds. His calculated TOA spectra match quite well with real world data."
H&W are frank that calculations and models are necessary, and don't try to hide their work under cover of "real world data". Good for them. They are not, I think, the top experts on the details of radiative transfer calculations, but their efforts are respectable. They do the usual calculation of the virtual "no-feedback" warming assuming Planck feedback. They get 0.8°C. More experienced authors incline about 1.2°C. I won't quibble about that. The next step of reasoning is to consider the virtual "feedback" effect. The warmistas say that it is positive. H&W say that it is negative. I think they should brush up their arguments that it is negative, but I think they are right that it is indeed negative, and I think there are reasonable grounds for saying so. That means that the dreaded warming cannot exceed 1.2°C; it is quite possibly less, but it is also very difficult or impossible to calculate precisely by how much. Whether H&W consider bulk transport effects and clouds or not is not too important, once one recognises that the dreaded warming cannot exceed 1.2°C. I think it likely that the bulk transport effects make the feedback strongly negative, but I don't think we need to rely on their being strong. We just need to know that it is negative. If the "feedback" were positive, the warmistas would have a strong argument, but since it is negative, they have no argument, nowhere to turn; they are dead in the water.
@christophergame7977 Thanks for your views and info. I think with a white board and coffee and a bit of chat, we would mostly find approximate agreement.
Creating and seeking (not manipulating) match between theory predictions and real world data is not 'hiding' it is the gold standard ... the main function of science.
I am a great admirer of Happer. An excellent scientist and communicator. H&W's more recent papers utilise methodologies based partly on theory and partly on real-world data (how the values for those calculations were mostly created) 😀
Given the still high uncertainties in TOA measurements, and surprisingly (to me) much less certainty in surface IR (downwards) spectra, the actual differences attributable to increased CO2 are unresolved
One thing is sure, the science is not settled.
My own view is simplistic. Only about 12% of surface absorbed energy radiates directly back to space. The atmosphere absorbs 23% of total absorbed solar directly, plus all the earth surface heat not escaping directly to space (latent heat is dominant, plus conduction, and absorbed IR). All those energy sources get thermalised. Mass transport moves that energy to heights where the energy can escape by reverse thermalisation and phase change.
Although complete conjecture, my view is that the atmosphere alters emissions further away from that of an ideal black body. A black body spectrum is one that maximises radiative power and entropy (happy to be corrected if wrong).
Because the atmosphere reduces radiative efficiency, it raises temperature to maintain radiative output via a less efficient emission spectrum. That is, the Earth surface does not respond, rather, the atmosphere does. So, I am saying GHGs have some effect.
Where and how this might take effect in the atmosphere is beyond my current thoughts 😀
Do humans raise dew points? Ie Alabama has more acreage in Forests due to planting and replanting trees.
Does anyone else notice their comments keep going missing?
How do you explain the quickly melting ice caps and glaciers and permafrost ?
Non human warming
@jonemery8324 Wool pulled over eyes
Having been at the beginning of this malarkey 30 years ago I can safely say it is a tree you can bark up.
@jonemery8324 Is that when you were born.
Stay focused Scott you are dribbling.
Logic and reason TRUMP fear and dogma every time...
@sabinehossenfelder go ahead call this climate denying too, hmm?
Frightening evidence. Here in NW Denmark (the EU one) our local beach is constantly gobbled up by the North Sea. German bunker beach fortifications have all tumbled 20+meters down sand dunes to sea level during our 55 years. Guess what, neighbouring beaches are expanding. Climate change Crisis?
Climate Discussion Nexus
19:00 Wouldn't increased nighttime temperatures be a natural effect of increased greenhouse effect? So during the day, the solar input, which is unchanged, dominates completely. But at night, the temperature drop depends, among other, on the amount of radiation that can escape into space. (I am aware that in the tropics, the effect of CO2 is typically negligible, as water vapor dominates that overall suppression of radiation into space)
Its the infrastructure that catches the heat. Concrete and other materials in cities. This has been known for a long time. If you have more green areas in a city you notice the temperature difference there and between areas with no green spots. You dont see the dramatic temperature rice in areas outside of cities and if it was greenhouse gases it would be the same trend outside of cities. Willie Soon looked at temperature measures from only rural areas outside of cities and sure enough the rise in temp wasnt dramatic at all.
Also the temperature recorded near ground, I think it is supposed to be at 6 feet above ground, has little to do with what is happening in the lower atmosphere or the upper atmosphere where heat escapes into space. Near surface cloud cover has a lot to do with warm versus cold nights along with the heat escaping from asphalt, cement, buildings etc causing the urban heat island effect.
@@bonkbonk2670 Sure. I was merely trying to anticipate and preempt the argument that CO2 is causing the reduced outflow of energy.
Actually, as Ott/Shula and others have shown recently on this podcast, the lower atmosphere cannot radiate into space at all, but requires cold surfaces to cool down. Surfaces, unlike the atmosphere, can radiate in the 'atmospheric window', where all radiation escapes unscathed into space. This is why the hood of a car gets condensation long before there is any sign of fog in the air.
And structures have much, much more thermal inertia (heat capacity and conductivity) than plants and soil, meaning that they do not cool down nearly as fast.
@@thomaspaaruppedersen6781 👍
I lived most of my life in an urban area then I moved rural but still often travel to urban areas. The temperature difference that I've felt as well as monitored at wx stations show the same difference I feel. I have often found interesting comments on the phenomenon in newspaper archives.
"200 years ago amateur meteorologist, Luke Howard, noted that in London "Night is 3.70° warmer and day 0.34° cooler" - he was noting the urban heat-island effect, The Times, 14 December 2006
UHI "can make a city up to four degrees warmer than other areas in the country [and is] most pronounced when winds are low" - "Baltic blasts penetrate London's warmth duvet", The Times, 9 January 2003
'Central London a "Heat Island", 16°F Above Suburbs at Times'
The Times September 5th, 1961
There are sadly not many historic wx stations that have not been contaminated by encroaching development, although the UHCN network is pretty good data.
They would put their propaganda banner on another video eh...
Thank you Dr Christy