Monday, January 7, 2013

Global Temperature 2100 -Question and Answer

These posts are from

Re: Global warming temperature predictions

« Reply #841 Yesterday at 12:04pm »


Jan 5, 2013, 9:51pm, norpag wrote:Y'all might like to check out my post GlobalCooling- Climate and Weather Forecasting at or at

Norpag, I enjoyed those posts. Have you made a forecast of global temperatures through the end of this century?

Link to Post - Back to Top Logged

Re: Global warming temperature predictions

« Reply #842 Yesterday at 7:51pm »


duwane - I dont think we know enough to say anything really useful yet about the end of the century.Looking at the last 15 years SSTs, the PDO. the Livingston and Penn data and the high Neutron count at the last minimum I would say,something like - its more likely than not ( 60 - 40) that the NH might be .5 - 1 degree cooler by 2035.) Beyond that it depends on exactly where we now are relative to the approximate 1000 year solar cycle and also the extent of any further decline in solar magnetic field strength .
In my eyes the simplest clue will be the Neutron count at the next minimum due about 2020.
We might have some idea of where that's headed by 2018 after that there will be enough data to have a meaningful idea of 2100. In all this the level of anthropogenic GHG is more or less irrelevant for forecasting purposes because until we know the scale and causes of natural variability much better than we now do , we can't even make any useful estimate of climate sensitivity to CO2 other than to say it must be quite low otherwise we wouldn't be here to discuss it at all.


  1. Readers of my paper "Planetary Surface Temperatures. A Discussion of Alternative Mechanisms" will realise that it is merely a review paper of other studies. Some of the references do in fact refer to papers published in, for example, The Journal of Atmospheric and Solar Terrestrial Physics. Another reference is to work done by Hans Jelbring whose 1998 thesis was Wind Controlled Climate. Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University. 111pp.

    The concept of the temperature gradient in an atmosphere developing at the molecular level is not my original work by any means. Hans Jelbring (in my Ref [11]) wrote "Hence, the atmospheric mass exposed to a gravity field is the cause ..."

    Either you accept the fact, first postulated by Loschmidt in the 19th century, that the requirements of both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics dictate that an autonomous thermal gradient must develop in a still gas in a gravitational field, or you accept the naïve conjecture of climatologists, who usually have little understanding of physics, that there would have been an isothermal atmosphere in the absence of water vapour and so-called greenhouse gases. The latter requires a blatant violation of both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics because it assumes that, every time a molecule moves upwards, energy is created and entropy decreases.

    Doug Cotton

  2. Without gravity acting to restore the thermodynamic equilibrium which is stipulated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which says: "An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system") and thus, as a direct corollary of that Law, supporting (at the molecular level) an autonomous thermal gradient, then ...

    (1) The temperature at the base of the troposphere on Uranus would be nowhere near as hot as 320K because virtually no direct Solar radiation gets down there, and there is no surface at that altitude. The planet's radiating temperature is under 60K because it receives less than 3W/m^2.

    (2) The temperature of the Venus surface would be nowhere near as hot as 730K (even at the poles) because it receives only about 10% as much direct Solar radiation at its surface as does Earth at its surface.

    (3) Jupiter would be nowhere near as hot, even in its core, which receives extra kinetic energy which was converted by gravity from gravitational potentential energy due to the continual collapsing of this gaseous planet. This is why Jupiter emits more radiation than it receives.

    (4) The core of our Moon would be nowhere near as hot as it is thought to be, probably over 1000K.

    (5) Earth's surface would indeed be perhaps 20 to 40 degrees colder, and the core, mantle and crust nowhere near as hot, maybe no molten material at all.

    Think about it! If you're not sure why, it's explained in Sections 4 to 9 and Section 15 here.