Science Blog

"All the radiation fluxes are consistent with known physics." - Jim D Apples to oranges comparison. I could say the same thing about math. A mathematical expression can have no relation yet seems to solve in the same way. The mathematical form is exact. Yet none of these systems has any physical relation to atmospheric water-vapor or cloud feedbacks. Case in point. Let's use the same climate feedback expression to solve for four totally different systems. Just because it math or physics can be used, doesn't mean you have something that applies in nature.

The 3 °C figure remains a model-dependent construct whose feedback assumptions have not been independently verified by the surface downwelling measurements.

"10% because the warming and H2O responses amplify it." - Jim D. That's a silly unsubstantiated belief based on circular reasoning. The 10 % figure is the direct clear-sky CO2 contribution to the surface downwelling trend (Feldman et al. 2015; broader analyses such as Clark et al. 2021). Treating the remaining ~90 % (temperature + water-vapor changes) as pure “amplification” of that small CO2 term assumes that essentially all of the observed warming was caused by the CO2 forcing in the first place. Utterly ridiculous circular reasoning. Warmer air and higher water-vapor content increase downwelling longwave whether the temperature rise was driven by CO2, solar variability, ocean heat redistribution, land-use changes, or any combination of factors. The surface measurements do not isolate how much of the temperature/H₂O increase is a feedback specifically to the ~0.2 W m⁻² per decade CO2 signal versus other drivers. Near the surface the 15 μm band is already heavily saturated, so additional CO2 adds little extra downwelling from the lowest layers even after temperature and humidity adjust. Let me repeat that. Near the surface the 15 μm band is already heavily saturated, so additional CO2 adds little extra downwelling from the lowest layers even after temperature and humidity adjust. The observed surface signal remains small relative to the total flux and relative to the temperature/water-vapor terms. Attributing the bulk of the downwelling increase as an amplifier of the direct CO2 effect therefore requires assuming the very causal dominance that the surface data do not demonstrate.

"Radiative transfer models predict that, including Feldman's results." - Jim D No, that's not what the paper actually showed. The spectroscopic fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the 15 μm band is not in dispute. The question is the magnitude of the incremental surface downwelling longwave from the recent rise in CO2 under real atmospheric conditions, and whether that signal is large enough to be the dominant driver of the energy balance. Feldman et al. (2015) merely isolated the clear-sky CO2 contribution at two well-instrumented sites and found roughly 0.2 W m⁻² per decade from a 22 ppm increase is about 10 % of the concurrent trend in total downwelling longwave. But this is merely guesswork and is a small number against a clear-sky background flux of typically 200–350 W m⁻². Near the surface the 15 μm band is already heavily saturated; most of the additional optical depth appears higher in the column, and the surface sees only a modest increment. Not the modeled increase you claim. The larger observed rises in downwelling longwave are accounted for mainly by higher air temperatures and more water vapor (roughly 90 % of clear-sky trends in broader analyses), not by the direct CO2 term. Meaning, we have no link between warming and CO2, just assumptions, and more modeled assumptions, but no real observational evidence to go on. So, the existence of a CO2 spectral signature does not, by itself, establish that the recent energy imbalance is dominated by anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing. It's silly to even suggest that there is a relationship, but here we are, the believers have a new climate religion, where belief is stronger than evidence. The size of the measured surface signal is consistent with a small direct effect, not with the claim that “almost all the IR from clear skies” or the bulk of the recent increase is attributable to rising CO2. Furthermore, there is no evidence that CO2 increases water vapor. It's just a belief Jim. Anthropogenic CO2 is yet another 'god of the gaps' explanation with models written by the hands of man to predict the small-minded religious conclusion from man's biases and nothing more.

"The Feldman paper was about long-term changes in surface IR due to increasing CO2. It was measured." No, in Feldman et al., 2015 they divide the total clear-sky-only CO2 forcing by 10 years (22 ppm) to get 0.2 W/m²/decade. They didn't prove anything, they attribute it to CO2.

"The net IR effect of GHGs is a real thing." Are you sure Jim? Because anthropogenic GHGs do not "produce a significantly detectable signal" due to much higher uncertainty, measurement error. Is it real if you can't measure it? agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.…

They lied. Made up graphs and made up claims. You were right! They made up data. youtu.be/sm_DfhJ92ew?si=dxzj…

What budget? About 99% of what you say is entirely based on subjective guesswork.

Don't tell the kids proxies aren't real measurements.

Santa might bring climate doom this year to all the naughty girls and boys who burned fossil fuels.