Self regulation of global temperature.

Negative correlation of downwelling radiation 

Willis Eschenbach is a yachtsman, polymath and Mathematical Genius. I am not, but fortunately he sometimes explains his observations and the supporting math.

I have mentioned before the temperature dependent cooling effect of tropical thunderstorms he reported(and which are not accounted for in the IPCC models) and in this article, he explains the effect mathematically starting with Ceres satellite data showing the negative correlation between downwelling radiation and surface temperature. 

The blue areas over the tropical oceans are the areas where thunderstorms move heat from the lower atmosphere to the stratosphere where it can be radiated out, cooling the lower troposphere. The warmer the ocean gets, the more heat is removed.

So, it turns out the planet has a thermostat. This is really important, as the Ceres plot supports his mechanism. The article is simple enough for a politician to understand, so give it a read and then you can relax your fears of extinction. Physics has your back.

22 thoughts on “Self regulation of global temperature.

    1. Did you read the article?

      The Ceres plot shows an active transport of heat from the surface, not passive radiation.

      More downwelling SDR results in LOWER surface temperature.

      What is the thermostat setting? Silly question, as there are chaotic, coupled variables. But from the best of the proxy records, it topped out in the Holocene Maximum at about 4F above current temps. That would seem to be the upper limit, the lower limit is a glaciation which is a lot worse.


      1. “Silly question?”

        So why did you say the earth has a thermostat?

        That the “thermostat” topped out at about 4F above the current level is bad enough, but what was the level of greenhouse gases and other human pollution 8,000 years ago? CO2 levels were less than 50% of our current 415 ppm. Some people – you know, climate scientists – think that is a significant difference. Which gets me back to the point you call “silly” – whatever the mix of factors up and down, the “thermostat” is seeking a new equilibrium level that is very likely to be painfully higher than what we are used to.


        1. So, you haven’t read the article.

          Eschenbach has given you a window to understand the incredible balance that protects us, and protected life on Earth for Billions of years, and all you can do is look for some petty whatabouts because it challenges your preconceived political narrative.

          It’s a wonderful world outside your bubble, if you would take some time to appreciate it.

          And CO2 has nothing to do with it. It is a powerful negative feedback that operates on temperature alone. We are near saturation on CO2 so it’s effect is feeble by comparison.

          So, I guess you will have to look for another excuse to seize other people’s money and dictate their standard of living.


          1. You can take your smarmy lectures and you silly selfish whines and shove them up your ass.

            I do not need some fossil fuel yachtsman nor you to add to my understanding that the world we live in is always in a delicate balance of competing forces. Call me all the names in the book that you want, it will not lead me to agree that the entire scientific community – with the exception of a few fossil-fuel-financed contrarians – is corrupt and/or not fully aware of how the cherry-picked analyses you find so persuasive fit into the bigger picture.

            Skyrocketing CO2 and its predicted effects are not a “petty whatabout” nor are we ANYWHERE “near saturation.” We are at 415ppm. The geologic record shows times when it was above 6,000ppm.

            And by the way, you ALWAYS descend to slime when someone fails to bow down to your genius.


          2. Yes, CO2 has been much higher. But the temperature wasn’t

            In the Cretaceous Period CO2 was 2000 to 2500 ppm. yet the temperature was only 5C higher. So, 800 ppm isn’t going to be catastrophic. And there were other factors. The greatest variation in temperature correlates with continental drift and how much of the tropics was ocean vs land.

            Gee, why would that be?

            The thermostat works.


          3. The chart you provided does not prove what you think it does. The world was very different before there was life on land. The big dip in temperature at 450 million years ago was the immediate impact of the emergence of terrestrial vegetation. From about 400 million onward the graph shows a clear correlation between average global temperature and atmospheric CO2. It also shows that average temperatures about DOUBLE of what we have now are a historical fact.

            In short, it remains that “We are near saturation on CO2” is one of those made up “facts” that you are prone to throw in. There HAVE been much higher levels in the past and those high levels are correlated with MUCH higher temperatures.


          4. I would go further, and not consider anything prior to the carboniferous era

            In fact, you probably replied while I was in the process of revising the post to only consider the Cretaceous forward. Comparisons prior to the breakup of Pangea aren’t useful because of albedo differences.


    1. Could you not have made your point using the .028F figure cited by your source? Did you have to choose the extreme that is 31x worse? I suppose so.

      At any rate, this legislation returns our country to where it should be – leaders in the effort to curb global pollution. Measuring our contribution in isolation ignores the importance of our leadership. It is estimated that our CO2 emissions will be reduced by 40% by the measures included. And whether you, like it or not, the majority of people in this country want us to do more than we have been doing.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The 0,028 figure is the most optimistic possibility and it would be foolish to assume the current administration would suddenly become competent and consistent

        Last issue poll I saw, the top issue for voters was inflation 33%. gas prices 19% and climate less than 1%.

        Europe is going back to coal. China never left it.


        1. Uh, there is a difference between being a top issue and being popular. That 1% is not particularly relevant.

          My comment that government action on climate enjoys broad support is supported by evidence…

          As an aside, those two top issues are now starting to work for President Biden and the Democrats. Both are improving and will probably continue to do so between now and November. With Trump’s help the GOP has already blown its chances to take the Senate and the House is back in play.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. A lot depends on the question you ask.

            Sure, when you ask the public whether they support planting trees to capture carbon or taxing someone else, you’re going to get a positive response.

            But ask them if they want $5 gas or if they want to pay double for electricity, only to have the grid fail when it’s really cold or really hot. you’re going to get blank stares as they think you are insane.

            It’s a long time till November, and the temporary dip in gas prices is predicted to end in September.


          2. “A lot depends on the question you ask.”

            Are you trying to deny that there is broad public support for the government to do more about climate change?

            Obviously, you can load the questions with hyperbolic nonsense to get whatever answers you want – a common push polling technique used by partisans – but the support for more action found by Pew has been replicated countless times by different polls.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Pew does not include the costs of such policy in its question.

            A lot of things are popular if the costs are hidden.

            Polls that only offer aspirational goals without the associated costs are dishonest.


          4. I’m not making a comparison.

            Germany shut down its nuclear thinking they could get by on renewables backed up by Russian natural gas.

            Now they are scrambling to reopen coal fired plants to avoid freezing to death this winter.


          5. “Polls that only offer aspirational goals without the associated costs are dishonest.”

            It is very typical of you to claim dishonesty when presented with facts or ideas you wish were not true. It is a bad habit. You should try to stop.

            Even when the question is posed as a trade-off with economic growth, the public STILL favors more action on the environment.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s