Climate Change Is Weakening a Crucial Ocean Current

By Eric Betz | April 11, 2018 12:10 pm
3_DSC-A0617_05

New research indicates the Atlantic Ocean currents are getting weaker. (Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio)

When you picture the rugged coastlines of Norway, tropical heat probably doesn’t come to mind, but it should. Even in the country’s Arctic reaches, the coast is typically free from ice and snow, and the weather is often more Seattle than Anchorage.

How can that be? Residents can thank the Gulf Stream, an ocean conveyor belt that pushes warm water their way from the tropics.

And Northern Europeans aren’t the only ones who should be thankful, either. Much of Europe and the east coast of North America benefit from a massive system of circulating seawater called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Current, or AMOC. The Gulf Stream is just one small part of that system.

Sunlight might be most intense at Earth’s equator, but ocean circulation pushes that tropical heat toward the poles. When the currents transporting that heat change, it can have major impacts.

And now new evidence suggests that climate change is already weakening this massive ocean circulatory system. In a pair of papers published Wednesday in Nature, two sets of independent researchers used very different techniques to reach the same startling conclusion.

Both studies found that melting ice from Greenland has spilled huge quantities of freshwater into the North Atlantic, diluting the dense salinity of North Atlantic currents and weakening the AMOC by 15 percent. However, the results disagree on when the changes started.

For decades, scientists have worried that human-caused global warming could weaken this system and drastically alter weather patterns. It’s an idea best known from the scientifically and cinematically awful 2004 film The Day After Tomorrow.

But nonetheless, scientists say that changes to these Atlantic Ocean conveyor belts have brought some of the most abrupt climate changes in the past. A 2016 study published in Science showed how the most recent Ice Age — which not only changed global climate but also reorganized ecosystems — coincided with changes in the AMOC.

That’s troubling considering the research published Wednesday. The two Nature papers used very different approaches to reach their conclusions. One of the studies, led by Levke Caesar of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, looked at patterns of changing sea surface temperatures. Their results indicated that the AMOC started weakening around the middle of the twentieth century as a result of greenhouse gas emissions.

The other Nature paper, led by David Thornalley of University College London, took a much longer-term look at changes in the AMOC. They studied deep-sea sediment to gather hints at the current’s makeup over time. They found that the AMOC was actually relatively stable from the year 400 AD until about 1850. This period coincides with the so-called Little Ice Age. The authors say that glaciers from the Little Ice Age started melting largely due to natural climate variability at the start of the Industrial Era, and that’s what began feeding freshwater to the North Atlantic.

And while their results may differ on the timing, both groups say human-caused climate change is playing a role. The question going forward is how much will weakened ocean currents alter our current climate and precipitation patterns?

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Environment, top posts
MORE ABOUT: climate change
ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/EquivPrinFail.pdf Uncle Al

    Earth would benefit from respeciation. Make Jerusalem crickets the apex predator. WE are the Zanti.

    • CB

      “Earth would benefit from respeciation.”

      You are welcome to respeciate yourself right off the planet!

      You must leave the rest of us out of your suicidal plans.

      Is that clear, Alan?

      “When Floridians narrowly voted for Donald Trump on Nov. 8, they might as well have elected to drown themselves. Rising seas and accelerating storms are inundating this low-lying state, but a majority of its citizens still chose a presidential candidate who calls climate change a hoax.”

      (Los Angeles Times, “Is Florida’s climate change model — denial at the Capitol, frantic action at the beach — in store for the U.S. under Trump?”, David Helvarg, December 2, 2016)

      • jonathanpulliam

        Floridians’ odds of drowning won’t change. Florida is sinking since before the warming hoax was invented. Lets not talk about a region already known to be sinking and unfairly blaming fossil fuels, ‘kay??

        It’s actually impossible to calculate aggregate terrestrial sea levels with super-precision, but the best available measurements indicate that the oceans have seen only 1/3 of an inch of rise over the past quarter-century, which hardly seems very alarming to me, frankly.

        • OWilson

          Notice they talk about Florida which is drained and channeled natural swamp land, like a lot of Louisiana.

          Those places, like the Netherlands where people have settled, have been at war with Mother Nature since the beginning, and emerged victorious!

          Nearly 20% of Hollands agricultural land has been reclaimed from the sea!

          They just don’t talk about Tuvalo being washed away anymore, since a scientific study of satellite time line images, disproved that Big Lie, and showed empirically that it was “Growing, not Sinking” along with “many other pacific islands” (BBC)

          Lol!

          • CB

            “Notice they talk about Florida”

            Uh huh. That’s because Florida is low-lying land, and more susceptible to sea level rise.

            Is the level of the sea rising, Mr. Wilson?

            “Sea level rise will swallow Miami, New Orleans”

            (Phys Magazine, “Sea level rise will swallow Miami, New Orleans, study finds”, October 12, 2015)

          • Walter Goddard

            New Orleans is already below sea level.. That’s why it flooded when the dike failed, during the hurricane..

          • With Respect

            The dike failed after the hurricane passed.

            New Orleans has been below sea level for a long time.

            The dike failed because deadbeats failed to pay for its upkeep.

          • Walter Goddard

            Do you think it makes much of a difference, Whether or not the dike failed before or after the storm passed?… I assumed it failed during the storm.. you may be correct that it failed after?..

            I do know that the storm water saturates/permeates the dike and weakens it..
            All of the government agencies cannot predict more than an average storm swell to prepare for.. when they build or maintain things like the dike.
            The bayou pumps can only handle a finite amount of water..

            Maybe we could use the dutch method of windmills w/solar powered back-ups; to build higher capacity pumps.. that can also be used to grind food, for desalinization, and perhaps add the potable water to the city’s water supply, etc…

            Are you up to that challenge?

          • With Respect

            Sea level is predicted to rise between two and seven feet in the next eight decades. The pump that could handle that will cost an extraordinary amount.

            Are you going to pay for those pumps made necessary by your fossil waste dumping? Will that be cash, or check?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Sea level is predicted to rise between two and seven feet in the next eight decades.”

            Just bogus predictions based on the flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models.

            Based on empirical data, sea level likely won’t rise more than 5 or 6 inches.

          • Mike Richardson

            Thank you for pointing that out. I’d also like to point out that the oldest parts of the city – the French Quarter and the Garden District – did not flood. They were settled prior to the building of the levees, so of course they were on high ground, though that is a relative term with the sea level rise. The areas that suffered the most after the levee failure were areas built up by real estate developers without taking into account how the residents would fare in the event of a catastrophic flood. Many of these areas, such New Orleans East, have yet to be be fully resettled, and may never be developed to the same degree as before, now that their vulnerability to flooding has been so dramatically demonstrated.

          • OWilson

            Did not prevent you getting flooded out, despite government warnings!

            Lol!

            So far you have blamed governments, global warming, and now real estate devolpers.

            But then, you tell us, you rebuilt in exactly the same spot!

            Who will you blame, next time?

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            I don’t live in New Orleans, idiot.

          • OWilson

            Livingston Parish you told us, right Mikey?

          • Mike Richardson

            Wherever in Louisiana I do live, it remains blessedly unblighted by your physical presence. Unfortunately, according to you, the residents of the Dominican Republic cannot say the same. They have my sympathy.

          • OWilson

            Lol!

            “Sun Will Eventually Swallow the Earth” – Scientific American.

    • jonathanpulliam

      By the rue’d spore that spawned the flood
      White Flag to AIPAC’s sleaze un-furled
      Here Benedict Donald of Zion stood
      The creepiest whack job in the world.

  • With Respect

    So, with such profound consequence, how do we propose to make the people who caused this danger by their fossil waste dumping pay?

    • Steve_Ohr

      Carbon taxes, Now.

      • With Respect

        Sure, that’s a start; but British Columbia has had the world’s most complete carbon tax for a decade, slowly rising from $5/tonne toward $50/tonne by 2020, and has barely seen a dip in emissions (while the rest of Canada has dumped increasing fossil wastes hand over fist), so we also need higher carbon taxes, too.

        Or, private citizens can take direct consumer action and form or join fossil waste disposal buyers’s clubs to bid up the cost of fossil waste dumping by putting a fossil CO2e premium against goods for their fossil CO2e used in manufacture and getting to market.

        And of course, lawsuits.

        • 9.8m/ss

          Can you point out a successful “fossil waste disposal buyers’s club” operating today, anywhere in the world? If not, then what makes you think that option for consumers actually exists?

          • With Respect

            You make a point that’s been made before.

            Before the Tesla, Elon Musk was I am sure asked about successful EV manufacturers operating in 2005.

            The test isn’t has there been one before. We know buyers’ clubs in general work. We know the Pigouvian Principle in general works. It’s just a matter of finding the formula to put Pigou’s peanut butter in buyers’ club chocolate.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Tesla successful?? The bears do not agree with you.

        • Steve_Ohr

          BC has almost no coal generation, and they exempted cement, and the elasticity of gasoline demand is low when there aren’t cheap alternatives yet.

          In the UK and Alberta, the advent of a carbon tax led to the immediate planned closure of coal generation.

          It’s not correct to analyze the effectiveness of carbon taxes on country-by-country basis, the right unit of analysis is to look at the effect by sectors.

          Gas and diesel aren’t very elastic (meaning for every X% of increased cost, demand doesn’t fall that much) however, there are two reasons why this will change. First, elasticity goes up when the cost increases are due to policy, because the changes are random, they’re permanent and so the cost increase has more salience in the market.

          Secondly, elasticity goes up a lot when there are ready alternatives, which are now arriving in form of cost-effective EVs.

          • With Respect

            I find your analysis satisfactory, with some thoughts.

            BC has almost no coal generation _now_, but that was a near thing ten years ago when there was a powerful lobby for coal.

            Cement is a shame, and most people don’t realize 5%-8% of the world’s fossil GHG comes directly from cement; doubly a shame because geopolymer is far less expensive, cures many times faster, cures stronger, and can be made net carbon negative. With the Alberta-BC pipeline row, who knows whether the BC government will push to get drivers into EVs faster, for energy security and to protect citizens from bullies and blackmailers.

            On a day when every buyer can walk up to a car dealer and get an EV as fast as an ICE, with as much choice and as good terms, then we’ll see what’s what in transportation.

            Even where there are no carbon taxes, coal is largely collapsing where governments aren’t actively subsidizing, and sometimes even then, but it’s good to know carbon taxes do work.

        • jonathanpulliam

          You must be Conrad Black’s lawyer, right, Joy Boy?

      • Rip Vanden Broecke

        I agree with everything you have said, except this. The way Carbon tax is set up it does nothing to stave the use of fossil fuels and therefore, nothing to help alleviate climate change. The way Carbon tax has been set up it only helps make the mega corporations producing the fossil fuels richer yet. How can taxing the consumer help curtail it’s use? Those same mega corps getting the benefit of not having to pay that carbon tax are putting that much more effort into preventing the research of alternative “clean” fuels. The carbon tax is especially detrimental to anyone that does NOT live in or near a big city, where mass transit is a realistic option. If you are a rural resident, especially in a place like British Columbia with an already high carbon tax, and you need to go to a hospital or a medical specialist that is in a town or city 1 to 2 or more hours away from your residence, you have little choice but to drive your fossil fueled vehicle to get their. Not to mention the many small businesses in these same locations that have little to no option but to use fossil fueled vehicles or equipment to get their jobs done.

        So why do the ones making ALL the money from these fossil fuels get off the hook for paying this carbon tax? and how does that help the environment.

        Now if the oil oligarchs, political puppets went against the hand that feeds them and keeps them in office, were to decide to start making their benefactors pay this lobbyist conceived tax, then perhaps I might agree that the carbon tax is actually a “good thing”.

        • Steve_Ohr

          Carbon taxes are extremely effective. Why should pollution be free?

          Put a price on pollution and the market will figure out ways to avoid the cost.

          “A carbon tax killed coal in the UK. Natural gas is next.”
          qzcom/1192753/a-carbon-tax-killed-coal-in-the-uk-natural-gas-is-next/

          Note: Replace with .

          • jonathanpulliam

            Your argument is specious. You have a pattern of making specious arguments. I’m going to have to block you as your comments are “a waste of space”.

          • CB

            “Why should pollution be free?”

            I can see no clear reason.

            I can also see no clear reason that anyone should have the “right” to live an unsustainable life in the middle of nowhere just because they “prefer it”.

            If they are doing something like this, though, I certainly think they should be paid for their efforts:

            “Creating biochar actually reduces CO₂ in the atmosphere because the process takes a theoretically carbon-neutral process of naturally decaying organic matter and turns it carbon-negative”

            (Yale Environment 360, “Refilling the Carbon Sink: Biochar’s Potential and Pitfalls”, Dave Levitan, December 9, 2010)

            It’s one of the reasons why I prefer a sequestration credit instead of a flat refund to go along with any carbon tax that may be enacted.

      • OWilson

        That you, Al?

        Lol!

    • 9.8m/ss

      I don’t believe it’s practical to establish legal liability in these cases. The oilcos can point at their customers. The customers can show they were not involved in choosing civilization’s energy sources. The idea that liability for damages all of western civilization imposes on all of humanity (the other species don’t have standing, except in Ecuador) can be resolved in a tort case is a fantasy.

      • With Respect

        I am reliably advised otherwise: the deep pockets principle tells us it is always legitimate for those harmed by a multitude of parties to take the most accessible proximate party with ability to pay to court; that party can enjoin others if they choose. Let the oilcos sue their customers, by all means.

        • jonathanpulliam

          What a sick, hateful degeneracy you espouse.

          • With Respect

            More with the bot-like drivel-by one-linerisms.

            How do we know you’re not just a poorly built bot?

          • jonathanpulliam

            You are the one who is bought, as in “bought-and-paid-for”. A rent-a-nerd. The Stormy Daniels of hallucinated, imaginary sheiss-storms. I imagine you are German as there seems to be a lot of mental illness as a percentage of the German population overall who are kooks.

          • Mike Richardson

            Is it as sick and hateful as espousing the burning of your opponents in ovens? You don’t get a walk back from a comment like that.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Please, um, Mike. Let’s be real, ‘kay. “With respect” is a tawdry mini-me would-be Charles Manson who is high-function articulate, but a debased sociopath nonetheless. Like you he is a person willing to mis-characterize and outright lie to spread his perverse “logic” surrounding your all’s “hoax” regarding anthropogenic warming. Go die.

          • Mike Richardson

            In an oven, right?

          • jonathanpulliam

            Any excess Co2 produced by your incineration or anything else will doubtless be absorbed owing to the “sinking” effect of the southern oceans, as it has for untold millenia.

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! And you call other folks sociopaths?

        • CB

          “Let the oilcos sue their customers, by all means.”

          lol!

          The very customers they lied to about the dangerous nature of their product and kept from accessing alternatives for decades and decades…

          I feel like the customers would still be on fairly firm legal footing.

          “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago”

          (Scientific American, “Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago”, Shannon Hall, October 26, 2015)

        • jonathanpulliam

          Will Rogers used to say he never met a man he didn’t like. I never met a lawyer I liked. You seriously ought to be locked up, as you are a danger to yourself and others, Mr. Florid.

    • Thomas Buzzi

      We don’t. May as well enjoy the ride, it might end very soon.

      • With Respect

        I enjoy rides where I see people held to account for the harms they do.

        That’s how I get my fun.

        Why should I stop now?

        • OWilson

          You should enjoy this little tid bit of news, then:

          Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann

          July 4, 2017
          by John O’Sullivan

          “Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

          The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud.

          Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.” ”

          (Update: Mann’s law suit was tossed out by the judge!)

          Lol!

        • jonathanpulliam

          You make a mockery of empiricism. Your knowledge of science and the scientific method is sub-miniscule. You are like an actor who has learned to recite from a script. You are a moral bankrupt degenerate who does not think well, sadly.

    • jonathanpulliam

      Burning traitor America-haters like you in ovens might provide useful calories.

      • With Respect

        It is rare that a one-liner drivel-by comment so perfectly shows off for readers what’s really going on in the head of fossil waste dumpers trying to defend their deadbeat ways.

        The aggression, narcissism, appeal to patriotism to justify violence and hatred, pseudoscience reminiscent of more primitive thuggish regimes and their propaganda of xenophobia and calumny, all portrayed with those same simple words that we’ve heard before, translated from German or Russian, replacing ‘Fatherland’ with ‘America’, shouted from under white hoods.

        Any absurdity, the more offensive the better, to avoid having to face their creditors and pay their debts, will come from the keyboards of these mere poseurs.

        • jonathanpulliam

          I think there might be some error in your calculation. You appear to be a well-intentioned deranged person. I support the pursuit of fusion power, like the power that powers our Sun.

          • With Respect

            The power that powers our Sun, so easily collected using photovoltaic technology, cheaply and cleanly. That’s admirable.

            And so much more practical than the foolish errand of attempting to capture fusion power terrestrially for domestic use, a practice that has remained steadily 60 years from concrete achievement for 70 years.

            By the way, it’s polite when suggesting an error in a calculation to demonstrate specifically what it is you don’t understand.

            And that you promote burning people who differ from you for power also not helpful to your credibility.

          • jonathanpulliam

            “The power that powers our Sun, so easily collected using photovoltaic technology, cheaply and cleanly.”

            See, now you are revealing your ignorance.

            Photovoltaic is not cheap and it is not clean. It in fact has a larger carbon footprint than fossil fuels alone. That is fundamentally because the PV cell takes more energy to manufacture than it will ever return during its entire service lifespan. That trade off is certainly acceptable in space, and the PV cell was first used to power the Vanguard satellite in 1959 for that reason.

            As a terrestrial-based generator for purposes of residential and light industrial electrical needs it is grotesquely deficient, as well as being, in practice, an eco-catastrophe due to all the lead storage batteries, cost of inverters, copper wiring, security for these once installed, and the environmental impact of lead/copper mining, transport, and smelting is not trivial indeed it is very bad. And of course the silicon wafer fab requires high heat 5000 degrees plus.

  • OWilson

    “Day after Tomorrow” rapid freezing, catastrophic warming, or neither?

    More studies needed!

    • scottdouglasjohnson

      Nothing in “Day after Tomorrow” was even remotely realistic.

      • jonathanpulliam

        Not to change the subject, but I saw the Mexican-made original version of the movie “El Mariachi”, later re-made into a singularly dreadul and spectacularly meritless 13-million-dollar-budget vehicle for Antonio Bandeiras, which predictably sucked, and this Mexican version was said to have cost a mere US$ 15,000.00 to produce, which is about the doughnut budget on most U.S. movie sets, I should imagine, and this mexican-produced film was a fast-paced tour de force of cinematic pacing and suspense and verisimilitude.

        “Day After Tomorrow” is like a loogie fur-ball that some cat hucked up.

  • dan becker

    Another Younger Dryas on its way?

    • With Respect

      We’re already seeing more rapid climate change than during the YD, only warming instead of cooling.

      • jonathanpulliam

        I can see why you prefer to post this sort of malarkey from behind a pseudonym.
        You seem to employ the Hitler “Big Lie” rhetorical technique rather poorly. Seems you have failed to make sound arguments, and you have failed to respond to the comments which show your assertions to be calculated not to educate, but to deceive for motive of your hoped-for personal profit. I imagine that is a forlorn hope, as pathological liars such as you who selectively cite only that which bolsters their “case” are legalistic persons, as opposed to righteous persons, and there is a difference, as Empiricism favors the righteous, not the duplicitous scoundrel like you.

        • OWilson

          He is another inveterate control freak who needs to manage and paraphrase other posts into strawmen which he then proceeds to knock down.

          The dead giveaway of true believer trolls always goes, “So you are saying…..”!

          Then they link you to a series of internet rabbit holes, just to keep you busy!

          Old hat!

          Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, if only you guys could just burn them in ovens. Right, Johnny?

          • OWilson

            You are sick!

          • Mike Richardson

            Funny, I don’t recall you condemning your new friend’s comment to With_Respect when that was exactly what he suggested. Selective outrage is fake outrage.

          • OWilson

            I didn’t read anything like that in the thread, but if you could point it out, I WILL condemn it, of course!

            Seriously!

          • Mike Richardson

            I’d believe you might be serious if it weren’t for that parting shot projecting your own emotional and mental state on me. But you can’t be serious if you expect me to believe you’re incapable of reading other posts to get context and familiarity with a poster before embracing them as a fellow “skeptic.”

            However, I’m all about educating the ignorant, even when that ignorance is purposefully used as a shield to escape accountability (in fact, especially when that’s the case). So here’s the quote, which was posted without provocation in response to With Respect five days ago:

            “Burning traitor America -haters like you in ovens might provide useful calories.”

            Now I don’t expect an apology for your attempt to make me look like the extremist when I referenced your buddy’s initial holocaust-y post. But it would be nice if you surprised me and actually follow through with what you said you would do. Or you can make excuses, which seems more likely.

          • OWilson

            I condemn that language whole heartedly!

            There ya go!

            But in context of a contentious and sarcastic debate, nobody but a silk stocking, limousine liberal snowflake would get his panties in a knot believing that the poster actually proposing the burning of humans to for food value!

            But if you want to get technical, he did not say what you put in quotes out of context!

            You are lying when you do that! We use quotation marks for good reason!

            Lol!

            And no, Mikey, I did not “breathlessly uptick” that particular post!

            You, as usual, are a devious and complete waste of space, wherever you post!

            Bye now!

            Troll on!

          • Mike Richardson

            “He did not even say what you put in quotes! You lied when you did that!”

            I quoted him exactly, verbatim. Word. For. Word. Just as I did your unbelievable denial of reality above. I expected your hatred to overcome you, and for you to of course attack me for forcing a clear choice of right or wrong on you. I also know from your history of posting that you can interpret cherry-picked facts in a way that is at odds with actual reality. But your statements above show that your ability to replace reality with delusion has reached an alarming stage. You do realize that when you call me a liar, and I can so easily prove I’m not, you are yourself lying? Your ability to craft your own reality does not allow you to avoid accountability in this one.

            You passive aggressively upvote other trolling remarks by this poster, while ironically labelling others as trolls. I never said you upvoted that particular remark, but neither do I believe you were unaware of it. Your reluctant condemnation, followed by the predictable excuses and personal attacks, are telling in this regard. And “silk stocking, limousine liberal?”. What right-wing talking head or blogger did you get this bizarre gem from? Sounds like some odd pantyhose fetish forcing its way to light. LOL!

            Maybe next time you’ll be little more careful in embracing the indefensible and avoid making things worse for yourself by labelling others “devious” when you blatantly deny objective reality . But I’m not holding my breath on that. 😉

          • OWilson

            The truth is plain to anyone who can read, Mikey.

            JP never used the word “oven” or “burn”.

            THAT came out of your own sick and hateful head!

            A new low, even for you!

          • Mike Richardson

            The truth is plain for all to read, indeed. He said exactly what I quoted, and you lied when you said that was not the case. But instead of admitting that, you’ve back pedaled to focus on condemning me for my facetious remark aiming to draw attention to his initial comment. You stated, “He did not even say what you originally put in quotes!”

            And I repeat, the quote is and was, “Burning traitor America-haters like you in ovens might provide useful calories. ” — jonathanpulliam, to With Respect, 4/14/2018 here on this blog discussion.

            Yes, one of us is lying. My question to anyone who’s bothered to read this exchange and jonathanpulliam’s statement is — which one of us is it?

          • OWilson

            So your remark, “Just burn them in ovens, right?”, was “facetious”.

            ILOL!

            But your newly corrected quote, of JP’s remark about burning folks for food value, you believe was meant seriously!

            Terminally lame, even for you!

            Go back to trolling school and ask for a refund!

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Awfully generous of you to offer refunds. Might cut into you beer budget a bit, though.

            But on the topic of offering lessons, if you want anyone to believe you’re sincere in condemning JP as well as me for pointing him out to you, you might want to address him specifically, and to delete your upticks and sympathetic posts to him decrying others as “trolls”. Otherwise , folks might get the crazy idea that you’re a bit of an insincere hypocrite. :)

  • Retaining H2O

    There are way too many variables to even say what % of this may be caused by human activity vs. natural causes. It is also unclear exactly which changes would need to be made to “stabilize” the AMOC and what detrimental effects those changes would have on human populations.

    Basically, not enough is known. Leaping to solutions can lead to worse outcomes.

    • Steve_Ohr

      The factors driving global warming are well understood.

      Here are two ways to visualize those factors. This graph shows the different factors that are forcing changes in our radiant energy balance:

      “Radiative Forcing Components”

      uploads.disquscdncom/images/266d3543f498cc2f2076a779b5d108fe13fd9b7c0a43b478336ec49d771fc158.png

      This graph shows the factors driving global warming by source (i.e. volcanoes, land use changes, etc):

      bloombergcom/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      Note: replace with .

      • OWilson

        So how exactly much warming was “forced” over the last 40 years? :)

        • Steve_Ohr

          Almost entirely due to CO2, see links, above

          • OWilson

            NOAA’s 0.24 degree anomaly over 40 years includes natural variation and, if previous “calculation” are consired, also a healthy margin of error.

            Lol!

    • Steve_Ohr

      The proof of global warming doesn’t lie with predictions, modeling or temperature measurements. The proof of global warming lies with the physics that govern energy flux. The bottom line is:

      1. we are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere where it is accumulating.

      2. CO2 traps energy. The more CO2, the more energy.

      It is impossible that we are not heating the planet. Everything else, is details.

      • OWilson

        The proof of global warming can come only from observed consistent temperature data, not theories, anacdotal evidence, or political platform imperatives, or photoshpped pictures of New York under 50 feet of water!

        The current temperature anomaly from the complete NOAA satellite record of 40 years is, as at March, 2018, 0.20 degrees.

        Take away natural variation, warming up from the Little Ice Age, and the fact that the Earth as a whole is recovering from the last major Ice age, and the paltry contribution from the burning of fossil fuels becomes statistically insignificant!

        Notice thay every body talks about Global Warming without any reference to the inconvenient actual scientific temperature data for the last 40 years! :)

        • Steve_Ohr

          Reality is different. The fact that the global average temperature is up sharply should be obvious to even the dullest knife in the drawer:

          “2014 Confirmed as Hottest Year On Record, With Spike in Ocean Temperatures”
          news.nationalgeographiccom/news/2014/01/150116-2014-hottest-year-global-warming-climate-science/

          “2015 shatters the temperature record as global warming speeds back up”
          theguardiancom/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/nov/18/2015-shatters-the-temperature-record-as-global-warming-speeds-back-up

          “2016 Was the Hottest Year on Record”
          scientificamericancom/article/2016-was-the-hottest-year-on-record/

          “2017 Ranked Among Three Hottest Years Ever”
          scientificamericancom/article/2017-ranked-among-three-hottest-years-ever/

          This graph shows how it’s going up:
          climate.nasagov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

          • OWilson

            We know the patient has a slight temperature increase but exactly what is the increase in temperature are talking about?

            Always the same gobblydegook, ranked among the three ……..

            We are talking hundreths of a degree in those records.

            No margin of error?

            The dire temperature predictions of the IPCC 1990 FAR Report never came true after these 27 years!

            Please admit a little statistical scientific margin of error when you are talking about measuring accuratel hundredths of a degree over the entire uninstrument Earth! :)

          • Steve_Ohr

            IT’s 1° C, and that’s not a small increase. It’s a gigantic increase.

            To put that in context, the difference between the coldest ice age and modern times is just 4° C – think about that: the change from mile-high glaciers across Europe, to the industrial revolution was just 4° C.

            And the *hottest* it’s been in last million years, was just 1° C hotter than today.

            That’s a 6° C maximum swing to go from mile-high ice to a tropical planet.

          • OWilson
          • Mike Richardson

            “Pure political hyperbola,” said the greatest practitioner of political hyperbole on these blogs. And you continue to use only the most favorable interpretation of NOAA satellite data, ignoring the RSS figures derived from adjusting based on the satellite drift, as well as NOAA’s own surface temperature readings and data from NASA (which, not surprisingly, you state should not be involved in climate monitoring). Steve’s discussing scientific findings that disagree with your belief system, which is the real overt political position being presented here. :)

          • OWilson

            I believe NOAA’s satellite data from the last 40 years of observations.

            So do these folks! Lol!

            “”The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is an intergovernmental organization with a membership of 191 Member States and Territories. It originated from the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), which was founded in 1873. Established by the ratification of the WMO Convention on 23 March 1950, WMO became the specialised agency of the United Nations for meteorology (weather and climate), operational hydrology and related geophysical sciences a year later. Its current Secretary-General is Petteri Taalas[1] and the President of the World Meteorological Congress, its supreme body, is David Grimes.[2] The Organization is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland””. -Wiki

            Who state:

            “”(NOAA’s) JPSS-1 will circle the globe just over 14 times per day in a polar orbit. It will do so in a fixed plane in space while the earth is rotating beneath it, and its sensors will thus “see” almost every point on Earth twice per day. This will enable the satellite to provide a TREASURE TROVE of information, especially about atmospheric temperatures, humidity fields and the nature and distribution of clouds.

            “We in WMO often hold up NOAA’s satellite systems as a model to follow. Free and open access to observational data is what will ultimately let us do the best we can in terms of saving lives, minimizing property damage and helping all nations prosper from improved weather and climate services,” said Lars Peter Riishojgaard, TITLE at WMO.”

            Take your complaints to them!

            Some true believer prefer Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann’s secret stash of warming data, but that’s THEIR problemo!

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Awww, you can Wiki! How cute. Can you also comprehend that Remote Sensing Systems, who process the raw data from those satellites, have found more warming than in the figures you cite. NASA satellites are documenting the effects of that warming. But we should ignore that, right? Because that’s not what the satellites really want us to know. Only you, the Satellite Whisperer, should be trusted to tell us what the satellites are saying. 😏

            Yep, now there’s a true believer for you. You apparently believe you know better than satellite data analysts what remote sensing technology reveals about our planet. Do you also believe, as your friend jonathanpullium has stated, that those who disagree with you should be burned in ovens, or should “Go die”? You’ve certainly enjoyed (quite ironically) commiserating with him about trolls, and “breathlessly upticking” his posts. Maybe it’s that shared experience you both had getting kicked off the same blog, but I thought you might draw the line at associating with folks proposing such a final solution to those with opposing viewpoints. Guess that’s not a problem for you after all.

          • OWilson

            NOAA’s data not mine!

            An anomaly of 0.24 degrees over the entire 40 year satellite record, as at March, 2016.

            Troll that, Mikey!

            Do you believe NOAA is putting out phony data?

            Yes or no!

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            I believe they put out good data from ground based instruments, and useful data from satellites which correlates nicely with those ground based measurements, according to the RSS analysis. Satellite Whisperers might know better, but I think I’ll accept the analysis of those who do it for a living. :)

          • OWilson

            So I posted exactly what the WMO and UN, said about NOAA satellite data as late as November 2017.

            Anything NEWER than that to “deny” NOAA’s monthly published satellite data?

            Still clinging to your NASA data from 1850, which they admit relies in ancient steamship intake valve records, bouys, ancient tidal guages, weather balloons and and manual infilling guestimates of the temperature in those parts of the Earth like the North Pole, South Pole and large parts of South America and Africa that had not even been explored in 1850?

            To within hundreths of a degree?

            Lol!

          • jonathanpulliam

            You are arguing for discredited pseudo-science that was caught falsifying their data, in the case if the IPCC, some 4 separate occasions their numbers had to be retracted. There is a pattern, a pattern of fraudulent pseudo-“science’ for pay.

          • OWilson

            I trust NOAA’s satellite data over the entire 40 year record!

            It is posted below!

            The warming analogy is 0.24 degrees. At this rate iit will be half adgree higher, by 2100.

            (That is, unless we hit another Maunder Minimum!) :)

            My advice to you is the same as Mikey.

            Go tell NOAA they are producing and publishing erroneous data.

            The true believer line starts on the right!

            Lol!

          • Steve_Ohr

            So your premise has to be that the vast majority of climate scientists in the world are violating their professional code, and are personally unethical, and are falsifying their data and conclusions, for money. I’m saying:

            a) that’s stupid on the face of it. and,

            b) The proof of global warming is trivial and there isn’t anything that *can* be faked.

            Either the CO2 measurements are wrong – measurements that can be replicated anywhere, by anyone mind you – OR the laws of thermodynamics no longer hold.

            Or, you know that, other possibility: You’ve been lied to.

            The Bottom line is:

            1. we are dumping massive amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere where it is accumulating.

            2. CO2 traps energy. The more CO2, the more energy.

            It is impossible that we are not heating the planet. Everything else, is details.

          • OWilson

            Stop making stuff up!

            That’s NOT my premise!

          • Mike Richardson

            Actually, that would have to be your premise, since the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with you, and you’ve stated that their published findings amount to a “hoax.” .There’s no need for anyone to make these things up, when your statements make your premise so very obvious .

          • OWilson

            No, Mikey you are mking things up again.

            Stop it! Lol

            The hoax is being perpetrated by international left wing organizations and politicians who exaggerate the slight temperature, and shysters like Al Gore nd Michael Mann who can make an easy buck from it.

            Scientist are not that arrogantly certain that we have a “man made global warming catastrophy on our hands” and “only 5 years to save the planet”!

            They intelligently use words like “if”, “could”, “may”, in their predictions!

            That’s how you tell the difference between a scientist and a shyster and his dupes!

            I LOVE scientists!

            (Except the ones that will not share their “secret”, “private” data!)

            That’s also how you can tell a scientist from a shyster!

            Lol!

          • jonathanpulliam

            Dupes like you who carry water for the big hedge fund owners who want to create instruments to monetize carbon credits, which is just one more non-value-adding drogue ‘chute to hold economic recovery at bay. You anti-capitalist globalists are sick degenerates.

          • Mike Richardson

            “Please…” Begging isn’t going to help here. The warming Earth has been well documented by direct measurements for decades, and supported by proxies even further back. NOAA also has temperature readings taken at Earth’s surface (you know, where we live) showing more than the “insignificant” temperature change you keep erroneously promoting.

            Oh, and I’m still waiting on your triumphant return to the Imageo blog, since you did say your “temporary time out” is over. 😉

          • OWilson

            You and Tom can have that Global Warming Safe Space all to yourselves, except for the odd flat earther or religious nut he allows for you to practice your “Me Too” debating skills on!

            Lol!

            Besides when the heavy hand of censorship falls, the action just moves elsewhere. You’re here, right?

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! ” The heavy hand of censorship… “. Yeah, you’re a real martyr for the cause of free speech. 😏

            Maybe if you practiced a little reasonable self-restraint over there and didn’t constantly go on off-topic political rants, you could have avoided getting banned. Of course, the constant insulting and belligerent behavior didn’t help; nor did your tendency to make generalized accusations about researchers and publishers of climate science being involved in a “hoax,” or ( to use one of your incredibly worn out metaphors) “shouting fire in a crowded planet.” You’d really have to have an amazingly low opinion of other folks’ intelligence to think that the author of the blog post ( also the moderator) would not realize that your accusations applied to him. But I have no reason to expect you’ll change your behavior, and likely that’s the same conclusion that led to the apparently indefinite extension of your time out over there. Heck, keep up the good work and you might get the same result elsewhere.

            I still haven’t seen anything from you in this conversation that refutes the findings regarding the changes to ocean current circulatin. Just more of the usual.

        • Steve_Ohr

          And no, it’s not natural cycles. This is how they are practicing a deceit on you, they tie a true statement to a false conclusion. Yes, there are natural cycles, no that’s not what’s happening today.

          This graph shows CO2 for the last 800,000 years, the spike on the right hand side is us, that started with the industrial revolution when we started dumping massive amounts of carbon into our atmosphere:
          scripps.ucsdedu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

          NOTE: Replace with .

          You can see the natural Milankovitch cycles at work. For the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels have never dropped below ~180 PPM and never gone above ~300PPM. Until humans started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We are at 410 PPM today.

          Now look at the spike on the right side – you can see it looks nothing like those natural cycles. That spike is us, it begins at the start industrial revolution ~1800, which is when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

          Note that spike is BIGGER than natural Milankovitch cycles *and* it’s FASTER than any natural change.

          • OWilson

            See my reply above, but it may be censored Lol!

  • robin a corr

    I have no doubt that climate change is real. The earth has heated up and cooled down numerous times throughout geological history. I think the big question is whether it is man made or natural. While mankind certainly has made an impact on the planet and not all in good ways, I think overall, climate change is just going to happen. Volcanoes have been fairly silent lately. High volcanic activity actually has a cooling effect on the weather. So maybe less volcanic activity has contributed to the warming effect.

    • OWilson

      There are many factors that tend to keep the climate in balance!

      Far more powerful influences than man made Co2.

      • Steve_Ohr

        Simply not true.

        The factors driving global warming are well understood.
        Here are two ways to visualize those factors. This graph shows the different factors that are forcing changes in our radiant energy balance:
        “Radiative Forcing Components”
        uploads.disquscdncom/images/266d3543f498cc2f2076a779b5d108fe13fd9b7c0a43b478336ec49d771fc158.png

        • OWilson

          To cut to the chase, the warming anomaly over the last 40 years according to NOAA’s complete satellite record is 0.24 degrees (as at March 2018)

          So what warming are you talikng about and how much of that do you “believe” is caused, not by naturally emitted Co2, (Animals, volcanoes, vents, and the human breath, but by the burning of fossil fuels?

          • Steve_Ohr

            Natural CO2 sources are balanced by natural sinks, they aren’t the problem.

            The problem is the massive amounts of CO2 we’ve been dumping into the atmosphere from fossil sources since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

            Carbon dioxide levels are now over 410 ppm – up 45% from pre-industrial level of about 280 PPM. For over 400,000 years, CO₂ levels have never been below 180 or above 300 ppm.

            Because of that increase, the oceans are acidifying, the oceans are 30% more acidic today than at the start of the industrial revolution.

            At its lowest (180 PPM), the Earth was about 10 C° colder than it is now and glaciers covered much of the Earth. Think about this: Just 100 ppm was enough to push temperatures from the deepest glaciations to modern times. Now it is 120 ppm *higher* than that.

            The last time CO₂ levels were this high was more than 2.5 million years ago in the Pliocene and the globe’s temperature averaged about 3 C° warmer, and sea levels were 15 feet or more higher – and we’re going up a *lot* higher than 410 PPM.

          • OWilson

            The last time I looked the NOAA’s satellite warming anomaly was 0.24 degrees over the last 40 years.

            Scientifically statistically insignificant “noise”.

            How much of that increase do YOU “believe” is man caused?

            Some scientist say we are heading for another “Maunder Minimum” due to the varable output from the sun. :)

            If the Earth’s temperature is relatively stable all your speculation, analysis, charts and graphs prove NOTHING!

            Get it?

      • StanChaz

        Your attempts to belittle the effects of man-made climate influences such as Co2 fail to impress me.
        While many factors may indeed contribute to keeping a system such as climate in balance, it does not follow that the factor that may send the entire system spinning into a state of imbalance need be overwhelming – most especially in a finely balanced system.
        A finely balanced system may just need an outside man-made nudge, a push to send things off-kilter. And that initial unbalancing influence may well have a cascading domino effect that we will be hard pressed to stop or alter.
        We are shamefully gambling with our grandchildren’s future just to save a few dying yet very powerful industries and the people who own them (and the politicians and scientists that they buy-off).

        • OWilson

          You need a primer on the First 2 Laws of Thermodynamics.

          (Entropy in chaotic systems, and how it always seeks equilibrium)

          But how is NOAA’s 0.24 degree warming anomaly over the last 40 years,

          ” shamefully gambling with our grandchildren’s future just to save a few dying yet very powerful industries and the people who own them (and the politicians and scientists that they in turn buy-off)”

          Political hyperbola, pure and simple!

          Adios!

    • Steve_Ohr

      One can apply Occam’s Razor (a scientific principle) to your claim: What’s more likely?

      1. a conspiracy involving the financially and geographically diverse 97% of scientists who support the global warming theory or

      2. a conspiracy involving the 3% of scientists who do not, often with research funding from Big Oil. …?

    • Steve_Ohr

      The factors driving global warming are well understood.

      This graph shows the factors driving global warming by source (i.e. volcanoes, land use changes, etc):
      bloombergcom/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      NOTE: replace with .

      • Walter Goddard

        I wonder how much fun these groups had, plugging arbitrary numbers into their graphics makers??
        Just so they could launch their let’s go after oil companies with deep pockets campaign!
        Playing blame games and using fear to turn blind consumers and soccer moms against these gas and oil companies….

        If you don’t like the catastrophic messes, stop electing these blind politicians that over reach their understanding of how the world works..

        They create laws, levy fines, and charge penalties; against people trying to make a living, and who put good people to work that support their own families..

        Companies, that you and your so called groups of enlightened environmental righteousness, force to work with their hands tied behind their backs.. and wonder why they couldn’t shut the BOP valve on the BP oil rig..

        Did you watch the movie too?

        There is no such thing as a vacuum pressure test..
        .. just take a drinking straw and suck away.. and see when it stops……..

        When water is falling down the string of pipe, it creates a vacuum.. It means that there is someplace the water is moving to.. a loss of circulation.. a hole/cavern or fracture in the formation.

        The hole in the formation has to be plugged before circulation can be restored… Think of the blood pumped by your heart.. If you cut yourself/an artery, the hole has to be sealed.. before circulation can be restored.

        In the ‘patch’, they use ‘lost circulation material’.. like cotton seed hulls, or other organic material to pump into the ‘vacuum’ and plug it.

        I think y’all would be good actors though.. Have you considered an acting career?

        You could all play as daredevil/blind prosecutor in the next Hollywood disaster movie.. just leave the fantasy on the silver screen when you re-enter the real world!

        • RealOldOne2

          The graph Ohr cites is fatally flawed because it rules out solar radiation as the cause of the late 20th century warming by considering only the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Top of Atmosphere(ToA) and not considering what is really important, how much of that solar radiation actually enters the surface and reaches the surface, which is what causes climate warming, ocean heat increase, etc.

          Peer reviewed empirical science shows that the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. Cites and quotes are in another of my comments here. Search (Control-F) for “Hatzian” without the quote marks.

          • Walter Goddard

            I don’t seem to grasp how to search for your info using control F..

          • RealOldOne2

            When you have these comments on the screen, hold the ‘Ctrl’ key down and press the ‘F’ key.
            A blank search box with a flashing cursor should pop up on your screen.
            If it’s not flashing, then click inside that box.
            Then type the text you want to search for.
            It will find the next occurrence of the text you typed in.
            Then you can click the little up arrow or down arrow in the search box to find the next occurrence or he previous occurrence of the text.
            If it doesn’t find the text, you may need to load more of the comments by clicking the “load more comments” box at the end of the comments section.

            Alternatively, you could copy-paste the following URL text into a new browser tab:

            blogs. discovermagazine. com/d-brief/2018/04/11/ocean-current-climate-change-amoc/#comment-3860588736

            To do that, put your cursor right in front of the b in blogs, hold down your left mouse button and move your mouse to the end of that text, at the end of the 88736.
            Then let go of your right mouse button, and the above text should be highlighted.
            Then hold the ‘Ctrl’ key down and press the ‘C’ key. That will copy the highlighted text to the copy buffer.
            Then click your left mouse button in the open URL box of the newly opened browser tab.
            Then click inside that box if there is not a cursor flashing in it.
            Then hold the ‘Ctrl’ key down and press the ‘V’ key down. That should paste the previously highlighted text into the URL box.
            Then you must remove the spaces that are in the link, ie., after the two periods. Then hit enter and it should load this blog article and take you right to my comment where I cite and quote from 5 peer reviewed papers which empirically show that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased significantly during the late 20th century warming.

            Let me know if you have any questions or can’t find my comment. Thanks.

          • Walter Goddard

            Thanks ROO2

          • RealOldOne2

            You’re welcome Walter.
            FYI, many people shorten my name to ROO2, but if you are on these climate article comment sections very long, you will come across a user named ROO2. He used to post using the name Dan, but when he began impersonating me with the usernames Real0ld0ne2 (numeral zero instead of letter O) and RealOldOne3, I reported him and he got blocked/banned on websites. This got him so angry that he created his ROO2 identity. He has since created an identical RealOldOne2 user to impersonate me. But you can see that it is not me when you hover over his avatar(picture). His impersonation account only has about 100 comments, whereas I have over 26,000.

            I documented his serial impersonation here: okulaer. wordpress. com/2015/03/05/the-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt/comment-page-1/#comment-867

            Dan has since provided irrefutable evidence that he is ROO2. I was in an extended dialogue with ROO2 and Dan forgot to change to his ROO2 sockpuppet account and replied to me using his Dan account, and he owned all of ROO2’s previous statements and quotes. I called him out when he BUSTED himself here: disqus. com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/secnavy_rolling_back_social_change_will_weaken_military_the_daily_caller_17/#comment-3096758143

            Just thought I’d give you a heads up how rabid these believers in their climate alarmism religion are and to what dishonest extents they will go.
            Cheers.

          • Walter Goddard

            Thanks for the heads up..
            Stay tuned RealOldOne2 :)

            More to come!

  • KNRover

    Robin: This is the historical fact that is being ignored by those who want to keep the premise alive that (a) human activity has caused the current increase in global temps, and (b) we have to do something about it. I’ve seen many charts of temperature ups and downs going back a million years — long before man was here or had any impact on the environment. The fact is the planet just does this and nobody has yet figured out why. Those who want to keep the fallasy alive do it because they earn $$ researching it/trying to find ways to stop it. The other fact is that man’s ability to do anything about it is so puny as to be immeasurable.

    • Steve_Ohr

      No, it’s not natural cycles. This is how they are practicing a deceit on you, they tie a true statement to a false conclusion. Yes, there are natural cycles, no that’s not what’s happening today.

      This graph shows CO2 for the last 800,000 years, the spike on the right hand side is us, that started with the industrial revolution when we started dumping massive amounts of carbon into our atmosphere:

      scripps.ucsdedu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

      NOTE: replace with .

      You can see the natural Milankovitch cycles at work. For the last 800,000 years, CO2 levels have never dropped below ~180 PPM and never gone above ~300PPM. Until humans started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. We are at 410 PPM today.

      Now look at the spike on the right side – you can see it looks nothing like those natural cycles. That spike is us, it begins at the start industrial revolution ~1800, which is when we started dumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

      Note that spike is BIGGER than natural Milankovitch cycles *and* it’s FASTER than any natural change.

      • Walter Goddard

        I have a feeling that these people who deny the truth, of cycling climates, also do not want to hear the truth..
        They have tried to keep me from saying anything by holding’flagging my posts for spam review, for seven days now.. to prevent the truth from being told.

        Its either D-Brief and/or people on this blog, trying to block my posts..
        Perhaps its time for unbiased mangement!

        How much CO2 was exhaled, by all of the people and animals ever born on this planet.. The volcanos, lightning fires, war, spontaneous combustion, etc.. have all played a huge part too..

        Deforestation has contributed more to any type of global warming/climate change, than all of the fossil fuel ever burned by men..

        They can’t tell you how much fossil fuel was burned up by all of the volcanos .. But consider the geology of all of the known world’s volcanos and the gas and oil trapped in the formations that were consumed and burned up in the volcanic eruptions..

        They don’t even want to consider it at all!!!

        Why doesn’t one of these so called experts they talk about, (with all their instruments and measurements), explain why the Mason Esker and the glacial melt that caused it occurred 10,000+ years ago… almost 9,800 years before fossil fuel was discovered and used by men..

        I recently did read that some Asian cultures were reported as discovering oil about 2,000 years ago.. and used bamboo to drill with. When I attended Crew Chief V in San Angelo, TX… we never heard a thing about such a thing.. Not in over 5 years of working on the rigs did I ever hear of it..

        Are there any petroleum engineers on here that can verify the validity of the Asian discovery?

    • Steve_Ohr

      Yes, follow the money:

      “In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.”
      Source: ”Dark Money” Funds Climate Change Denial Effort”
      scientificamericancom/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

      The major source of funding for climate denialism in the US is the Heartland Institute. Heartland is paid by industry to run disinformation campaigns. They lie for money. Heartland is the SAME organization that told America that cigarettes and safe, and don’t cause cancer.

      Those are the people who are main funders of climate denialism in the US.

      We know *exactly* how Heartland is funding a massive disinformation campaign because their board meeting notes from 2012 are public:

      “Leak exposes how Heartland Institute works to undermine climate science”
      theguardiancom/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

      NOTE: replace with .

    • With Respect

      You’re simply wrong, and repeating falsehoods.

      The historical fact of climate change throughout geological history was the fundamental premise of the works of H. H. Lamb, who six decades ago determined that not only could climate change globally on geological timescales (the dominant belief before his work) but also that climate could change much more rapidly, and also that every climate change could be attributed to direct causes or ‘forcings’, either internal or external.

      Of the external forcings, it turns out that the largest by far on human timescales is human activity, mainly fossil waste emissions.

      Whatever charts you’ve seen, there are tens of thousands of professional scientists who’ve made creation of such charts their life’s work who tell us in just so many words that current climate is changing at least ten times faster than any natural global climate change seen in the geological record, and that we humans are the cause.

      These are people who would love to prove you right and their colleagues wrong, because then the $$’s their colleagues get would go to them. And by the way, the people who control those $$’s in the USA? They’d be Ted Cruz, Jim Inhofe, and other climate change deniers like yourself.

  • Walter Goddard

    Concerning climate change; I have a theory that it’s more natural than man made; with a few exceptions: Deforestation has a big impact on the watershed.. air and land temps as well as less humidity in the air. The ocean currents are a system of the earth’s rotating and tilting; combined with the day/night and seasonal temperature swings, the water run off from land, and the rain/snow… from all of the water and land masses, we get the climate. When the ocean currents are blocked by trash, silt, dirt, and to a point even the oil we spill from all sources :), it causes the normal patterns to become abnormal… Less circulation, higher temps; more like a swamp.. All the dead plants and animals are not carried away/absorbed into the ecosystem the way they were intended to. It raises the bad bacteria levels and causes problems. Long before men used crude oil, we burned wood and other pants and animal fat/oil as lighting and heating.. We can’t leave nature out of the equation when it comes to climate change. Since the extinction of the dinosaurs, and the end of the ice age, etc.. nature has played the major role!

    • With Respect

      “Concerning death by gunshot; I have a theory that it’s more natural than caused by my client, Your Honor; therefore you must not find my client guilty.”

      We have isotope evidence showing that practically 100% of the bottleneck in CO2 levels is due fossil waste emissions. That’s the simple mathematical truth of climate change in the present day.

      We don’t complain about nature playing a role when a drunk driver kills someone with their car. We don’t make excuses about nature when someone goes on a shooting spree. We hold people accountable for their actions.

      • Walter Goddard

        I cannot say how much of the CO2 levels are from burning fossil fuels vs. the plant and animals that were burned prior to the discovery and use of tar pits and/or crude oil.. Nature has played a huge part of the plant and animals being burned, ie: spontaneous combustion/lightning fires and volcanos, and the plants’ trees and animals that were killed or burned up. Men have also used the plant and animal products to burn for heat and light.. What ‘men’ think crude oil/natural gas is derived from; is the decomposition of plant and animals buried underground and trapped until extracted, refined, and then burned. So the question remains, How much CO2 was released by nature/man since nature and man started, or since fossil fuel was used by men alone; in the past 250 hundred years? We are not just trying to hold men accountable for mass shootings either.. We have been trying to outlaw/control guns.. We don’t outlaw vehicles when a drunk runs people over, or use a truck or car to run people over, or use as a bomb… but the blind will lead the blind and both will always fall into the ditch

        • With Respect

          Why can’t you say?

          There are people who can say. They can show you how they worked it out. They can show you the equipment they used, and how it works. You could use that same equipment to take the same measurements and do the same math. Many others already have and their numbers are in close agreement: it’s humans burning fossil.

          No one’s talking about outlawing guns or trucks or cars. What’s being said is pay for the harm you’ve done. Going further, when you dump fossil wastes you use up resources on your neighbors’ lands: pay them for those goods you steal without their consent, at a fair Market rate.

          This soft-on-crime socialism that you’re pushing, I’m not buying. Pay what you owe.

          • Walter Goddard

            I cannot say how much of the CO2 levels are from burning fossil fuels vs. the plant and animals that were burned prior to the discovery and use of tar pits and/or crude oil.. I almost forgot about the use of coal :)

            Nature has played a huge part of the plant and animals being burned, ie: spontaneous combustion/lightning fires and volcanos, and the plants, trees and animals that were killed or burned up. (When it comes to burning fossil fuels, think of all the fossils/crude oil/gas deposits included, in the earth that a volcano burns up and spews into the atmosphere!)

            Men have also used the plant and animal products to burn for heat and light.. What ‘men’ think crude oil/natural gas is derived from; is the decomposition of plant and animals/flesh buried underground and trapped until extracted, refined, and then burned.

            So the question remains, How much CO2 was released by nature/man since nature and man started, or since fossil fuel was used by men alone; in the past 250 hundred years?

            I don’t believe the numbers can be truthfully calculated.

            Does carbon dioxide have a time stamp or source code to tell when/where, or how it was emitted? Was it from: soy beans, pinto beans, wheat grass, a fart, diesel, axle grease, lithium grease, 10w30 4cycle engine oil, propane, LPG, unleaded or premium w/ethanol blends, kerosene, bees wax unscented candles, sweet crude, sour crude, high or low sulphur, did it come from a shale, granite, igneous, or metamorphic deposit.. let’s be realistic!

            Was it gas; from poached eggs and whole wheat toast with real cow butter, or was it once a dinosaur, a deer, a dog or just really sore? How about the wars and or fires that have burned houses and field alike? How long ago did men start mining/refining ore for money, and/or weapons.. some time before and after the Stone Age I think!

            Do the carbon based tools, used to measure carbon dioxide, find a conflict in their readings with the tool being used to measure carbon dioxide???

            When it comes to blaming men in industry, or those who benefit from fossil fuel burning, for all of the melting of the ice caps; that dilute the sea/ocean salt water, let’s also consider the salt formations that replenish the salt and all of the other sources of fresh water from land and air that contribute to diluting the salt water, including all the men and animals that perspire and urinate :)

            There is an awful lot of discrepancy over the weather data that remains since the digitization of old records too..

            The winter of 82 and 83 was one of the coldest ever recorded.

            I lived in Kalkaska, Michigan and worked in the oil field… The morning of January 19,1983, it was -56F and the windchill was officially reported as -110F ..

            It is the morning my oldest daughter was born, so I absolutely know what the temp was that day.. and most of the winter I nearly froze to death in the oil field.. on a deep test well in Falmouth, Michigan.

            The whole month of February 1983, the high temperature for the day never got above -30F…

            When all of this so called Global Warming started, I researched some online sources for the old weather records I personally experienced, and guess what? They were all changed, lost in the digital shuffle :(

            Let’s all have a look at the historical reports and testimonies from people who lost body parts to frostbite, city water mains freezing/breaking and emergency heating credits handed out like candy to the poor… During the winter of 1982 and 1983!

            I’m only 56, and I don’t believe that I’m the last living survivor who remembers… lol

            Personally, I’ve had enough of the lying manipulation, to force the climate change theories down my throat when I know the truth…

            We are not just trying to hold men accountable for mass shootings either.. We have been trying to outlaw/control guns.. We don’t outlaw vehicles when a drunk runs people over, or someone uses a truck or car to run people over, or those who use vehicles as a bomb… but the blind will lead the blind and both will always fall into the ditch…

            Should we start collecting first on this carbon debt/tax with your iPads and iPhones, or just the Windows, and Android devices? Maybe next year we can collect on bicycles and mopeds, the following year we could collect on coffee machines and tea kettles???

            Have you considered how you’ll pay for toilet paper and tampons; when all the trees harvested for paper, and oil/gas wells that supply crude that’s refined to become plastic, is against the law????

            Yes indeed, that’s a world I want to be a part of… Just don’t shake my hands with out washing them please!

          • With Respect

            Too long. Too rambling.

            If you don’t believe the numbers can be calculated, then you haven’t studied how Kalman time series work, or read Rubino et al’s 2013 1,000 year map of CO2 isotope levels.

            That’s your problem, not ours. We can’t raise you up out of ignorance, as there are none so blind as who refuse to see.

          • RealOldOne2

            There is peer reviewed science which finds that only 15% of the increase in CO2 since the Industrial era is anthropogenic, and 85% is natural.

            “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15%” – Harde(2017) ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’

            Another scientist claims that the amount of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere is even less than that. He uses a simple analogy to back up his claim.
            The example is based on the fact that ~97% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere is natural and ~3% is from burning fossil fuels. This is confirmed by these two IPCC figures from the IPCC’s most recent chapter on the carbon cycle, IPCC, TAR, WG1, Chap.3: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6057e2923d69833ed7cd3cc4443c01d645746ae3232bcac64b14350a16db9e56.png & https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ec667387ded55345185d702361726dda5028d7427c881ada5b38d6addcdcfcf9.png
            Here’s the analogy:

            “Let human carbon dioxide emissions be cream and natural carbon dioxide emissions be coffee. Pour 5 parts of cream and 95 parts of coffee into a cup with a hole in the bottom. Continue to pour 5 parts of cream and 95 parts of coffee into the cup fast enough to keep the cup filled.

            Question: What is the percent of cream in the cup? Answer: Clearly, it’s 5 percent.

            The tea cup analogy shows, so long as you pour 5 percent cream and 95 percent coffee into the cup, you will never get more than 5 percent cream in the cup.

            But the IPCC claims the cup contains 30 percent cream and 70 percent coffee, and the percent of cream in the cup will continue to increase so long as the pouring of 5 percent cream continues.

            Thus, the IPCC claims the hole in the bottom of the cup magically stops over 60 percent of the cream from flowing through the hole. The IPCC further claims continually pouring this mixture into the cup will create a permanent, increasing amount of cream in the cup, that will overflow the cup.” – edberry. com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-not-change-climate/

            For only the human CO2 to accumulate, there would need to be a MAGIC world where every natural process that absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere would have to magically be sentient and be able to discriminate between a human CO2 molecule and a natural CO2 molecule. That does not happen in the real world.

            Cheers.

      • RealOldOne2

        “We have isotope evidence showing that practically 100% of the bottleneck in CO2 levels is due fossil waste emissions. That’s the simple mathematical truth of climate change in the present day.”
        That is not true. There are no unique carbon isotope signatures/fingerprints because the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs, as shown in Fig.1 from this Plant Physiology journal article: ( ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC406107/pdf/plntphys00464-0001. pdf) remove spaces .
        And oxygen depletion and δ¹³ lightening do not match human activity as fully explained in this article: (rocketscientistsjournal. com/2010/03/sgw. html#III_A) .
        And the decrease in ¹⁴C is due to the natural decay from the ‘bomb spike’, as this Oak Ridge National Labs report shows in the last Figure: (1.usa. gov/SGFleW) .

        Walter is correct that climate change is overwhelmingly natural, and anthropogenic CO2 is not the primary cause. Peer reviewed science and the empirical evidence from the real world shows this is true.

        • With Respect

          Ever feel so attacked by fact, become so truth-challenged, you must begin by dishonestly crying, “That is not true” about patent matters of record easily confirmed, using false claims about some of the very source material you are disputing?

          Case in point.

          Ever do it so often your own self-plagiarizing downward spiral can be tracked across the Internet with a simple Google search?

          Let’s look at the text accompanying Fig. 1 from Parks & Epstein, Metabolic Fractionation of C’3 & C’2 in Plants, 1961. (From the estimable Pasadena Institute of Technology.)

          Investigations on the magnitude and mechanism of the C13/C’2 fractionation which occurs during photosynthesis have been made by Baertschi (1, 2) and by Park and Epstein (12). These workers observed that plants grown in carbon dioxide of controlled C13/C12 ratio discriminated against C13 during photosynthetic CO2 fixation. The fixed plant carbon was -26 per mil with respect to the atmospheric CO2. Park and Epstein proposed and experimentally supported a model for photosynthetic fractionation of carbon..

          A reference to a hand-drawn picture in a 1961 article showing the mechanism by which plants alter isotope ratios does nothing to refute the large body of work of evidence collected more recently and analyzed by equipment created more recently that has withstood peer review and independent validation that fossil isotope ratios differ from those contributed directly by plants. Makes one cynically wonder that the actual article title, date or text were not cited.

          Worse, Jeff Glassman’s puffed-up ‘journal’ is a defunct website with zero credibility full of sun-cycle myths long ago debunked. Citing it is an insult to readers.

          It is false to assert that climate change is not overwhelmingly unnatural caused by fossil waste dumping people who burn fossil are responsible for.

        • With Respect

          Ever feel so attacked by fact, become so truth-challenged, you must begin by dishonestly crying, “That is not true” about patent matters of record easily confirmed, using false claims about some of the very source material you are disputing?

          Case in point.

          Ever do it so often your own self-plagiarizing downward spiral can be tracked across the Internet with a simple Google search?

          • RealOldOne2

            “you must begin by dishonestly crying “That is not true”
            Bart_R, why do you say that when it’s not true. I tried to be polite and make the factual statement “That is not true” rather than making the more concise factual statement, “You’re lying”. You’ve never attacked me with fact and I’m not truth-challenged confirmed by the fact that no one has shown that I am posting anything that is not truthful.

            I showed you peer reviewed science which backs up my statement. You’ve provided none, which leads me to believe that you are just trolling. Why would you be doing that? Perhaps you still stinging from my exposing your 30+ porkies? cnsnews. com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            Show some respect to the board and post empirical science to back up your claims or there is no point in your posting at all because you’re just trolling.

            ps. Bart_R, aka 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1, aka With Respect, just how many sockpuppet accounts do you post with?

          • With Respect

            I’ve never attacked you at all. Yet you appear to feel attacked, to attack ‘back’ messenger-shootingly, to personalize issues where there’s nothing personal.

            Why is that?

            Who hurt you with facts? Who traumatized you with truth?

            Was it a mean math teacher? An abrupt psychiatrist? A direct-speaking doctor? A tactless object of your affections?

            It doesn’t matter.

            And wow, what a trove comes up when one Google searches “Bart_R” and “1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1”.

            You just have a gift for citing sources that deflate your own claims on closer reading.

          • Walter Goddard

            I want you to know that I do wish you well :)
            You’ve been rather rude and accusing with your insinuations, but I won’t hold it against you!

            I’ve made a couple of edits to my previous posts… You can harass me later about them, if they approve the post.
            It’s under review by the moderator.. It seems they’re a little nervous about the falsified weather data that I exposed since 1982.. I referred to from my own personal life experiences…
            I have considered ordering several states’ microfiche records to prove the falsification of National and International weather records and related corroborating evidence…

            I am also considering going to the press if D-Brief refuses to allow the post..

            The world needs to know the truth..

            So, while you harass every one with a different point of view, why don’t you please explain how burning fossil fuel was responsible for the Mason Esker?
            It’s the answer to every other opinion brought up..

            The climate change camp cannot have it both ways..

            If fossil fuel is the sole reason for glacial ice caps melting, why did all the geology courses, in every institution of science, teach the geologic record of glacial ice carving the Great Lakes Region, but then melted and disappeared.

            SO when did man start burning coal and when did man invent all forms of fossil fuel?
            When did the glaciers carve out the Great Lakes and when did they melt?

            With respect and humility, respectfully research and post these answers?

            Thanks…

          • RealOldOne2

            “I’ve never attacked you at all. Yet you appear to feed attacked”
            Bart_R, you were the one who claimed the “attack” thing. Now you’re trolling with that nonsense.

            “Who hurt you with facts? Who traumatized you with truth?”
            No one. You are the one who has been hurt by facts and traumatized with truth, in my above comment, blogs.discovermagazine. com/d-brief/2018/04/11/ocean-current-climate-change-amoc/#comment-3858809170 . You are so traumatized that you refuse to even engage and discuss that peer reviewed empirical science.

            “Bart_R and 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1”
            So you’re acknowledging that they are both other names you post with. Why do you use multiple sockpuppets?

            “You just have a gift for citing sources that deflate your own claims on closer reading.”
            False, confirmed by your inability to show that in my above referenced comment which empirically shows that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was natural, not anthropogenic.

          • With Respect

            All this denial must come from a place of petty discomfiture, seeing the petty tactics engaged.

            It appears our OCD specimen can’t let any imagined wrong go, no matter how small the infringement.

            Let’s try an experiment: the smallest word, the smallest fact, and see if the pony won’t dance all over it: air gets moist due AGW.

          • jonathanpulliam

            Trump damaged his brain function on account of his morbid addiction to aspartame; if I may inquire how did you damage your brain, Gomer?

        • With Respect

          Let’s look at the text accompanying Fig. 1 from Parks & Epstein, Metabolic Fractionation of C’3 & C’2 in Plants, 1961. (From the estimable Pasadena Institute of Technology.)

          Investigations on the magnitude and mechanism of the C13/C’2 fractionation which occurs during photosynthesis have been made by Baertschi (1, 2) and by Park and Epstein (12). These workers observed that plants grown in carbon dioxide of controlled C13/C12 ratio discriminated against C13 during photosynthetic CO2 fixation. The fixed plant carbon was -26 per mil with respect to the atmospheric CO2. Park and Epstein proposed and experimentally supported a model for photosynthetic fractionation of carbon..

          A reference to a hand-drawn picture in a 1961 article showing the mechanism by which plants alter isotope ratios does nothing to refute the large body of work of evidence collected more recently and analyzed by equipment created more recently that has withstood peer review and independent validation that fossil isotope ratios differ from those contributed directly by plants. Makes one cynically wonder that the actual article title, date or text were not cited.

          The two lines overlap? Does seem to mean that you’d expect to see the sum of the two contributions in the mix in that range, not that you can’t tell which is which, especially when you have good estimates of the other contributor.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you must begin by dishonestly crying “That is not true”
            Bart_R, why do you say that when it’s not true. I tried to be polite and make the factual statement “That is not true” rather than making the more concise factual statement, “You’re lying”. You’ve never attacked me with fact and I’m not truth-challenged confirmed by the fact that no one has shown that I am posting anything that is not truthful.

            I showed you peer reviewed science which backs up my statement. You’ve provided none, which leads me to believe that you are just trolling. Why would you be doing that? Perhaps you still stinging from my exposing your 30+ porkies? cnsnews. com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/french-mathematicians-blast-uns-absurd-crusade-against-global#comment-2339019061

            Show some respect to the board and post empirical science to back up your claims or there is no point in your posting at all because you’re just trolling.

            ps. Bart_R, aka 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1, aka With Respect, just how many sockpuppet accounts do you post with?Sorry Bart_R, but none of that false evidence-free bluster about “body of evidence collected more recently” changes the fact that decaying vegetation has the same δ¹³ ratio as burning fossil fuels.

            “Makes one cynically wonder that the actual article title, date or text were not cited.”
            You’re trolling with lies. For Pete’s sake, I gave you a link to the journal article where all those things were given. Well, that does assume that you can read.

          • With Respect

            Rubino, Etheridge et al. A revised 1000 year atmospheric δ13C‐CO2 record from Law Dome and South Pole, Antarctica. 22 July 2013

            We present new measurements of δ13C of CO2 extracted from a high‐resolution ice core from Law Dome (East Antarctica), together with firn measurements performed at Law Dome and South Pole, covering the last 150 years. Our analysis is motivated by the need to better understand the role and feedback of the carbon (C) cycle in climate change, by advances in measurement methods, and by apparent anomalies when comparing ice core and firn air δ13C records from Law Dome and South Pole. We demonstrate improved consistency between Law Dome ice, South Pole firn, and the Cape Grim (Tasmania) atmospheric δ13C data, providing evidence that our new record reliably extends direct atmospheric measurements back in time. We also show a revised version of early δ13C measurements covering the last 1000 years, with a mean preindustrial level of −6.50‰. Finally, we use a Kalman Filter Double Deconvolution to infer net natural CO2 fluxes between atmosphere, ocean, and land, which cause small δ13C deviations from the predominant anthropogenically induced δ13C decrease.

            Kalman filter double deconvolution from 2013 overcomes your hand-drawn graph from 1961.

            But you’ve been shown this before, and pretend you haven’t.

            So nothing you’re shown will stop you from repeating your lies.

            That’s not my goal. My goal is to trot you around like a bloated pony at center ring, showing off the flaws you’re unaware of, so the audience knows without a doubt what sort of delusions you hold.

          • RealOldOne2

            “you’ve been shown this before, and pretend you haven’t.”
            Bart_R, it’s irrelevant that I’ve been shown it before because it doesn’t refute the fact that δ¹³ ratio is not unique/fingerprint of fossil fuel combustion. The confirmation of that is your inability to quote from or point to any figures which back your claim that it refutes Park & Epstein(1961)’s paper which shows that fossil fuel δ¹³ ratio and land plant δ¹³ ratio is equivalent.

            “My goal is to trot you around like a bloated pony at center ring, showing off the flaws that you are unaware of, so the audience knows without a doubt what sort of delusions you hold.”
            It’s a shame that you don’t realize that you are the “bloated pony” (actually more of a stubborn donkey, since you dodge with tl;dnr and refuse to even discuss p-r science which shows you are wrong).

            My goal is to discuss science related to climate and determine if global warming is primarily natural or anthropogenic.

            So far no one has been able to refute the peer reviewed science that I have presented which empirically shows that the late 20th century warming was natural.

            So far no one has been able to cite any peer reviewed science that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

          • With Respect

            Let’s discuss the science.

            What is your basis for the claim “that fossil fuel δ¹³ ratio and land plant δ¹³ ratio is equivalent” is meaningful? How are they equivalent? How does that equivalence appear under Kalman filter double deconvolution?

            And let’s also examine what you mean when you repeat your tired old “So far no one has been able to..” claims. You merely mean that when others have met your conditions, you move the goalposts, pretend to be blind, and deny, deny, deny until they go away or you run away.

            Which Google searches show about you.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Let’s discuss the science.”
            OK. The science is here: blogs.discovermagazine. com/d-brief/2018/04/11/ocean-current-climate-change-amoc/#comment-3858809170
            Discuss away Bart_. Quote what is wrong and explain why it is wrong. If you can’t, it confirms that everything I posted there was correct.

          • With Respect

            You’re not discussing. You’re linking, and setting terms.

            The terms of science aren’t yours to set.

            What is the basis for claiming what you claim, when tens of thousands of professional scientists quite happily accept the opposite, including the authors of the very papers you cite?

            You are in effect saying that because a question mark and an exclamation point each have a same-looking funny little dot at the bottom, they’re equivalent, because the dots at the bottom are similar. From there, you are asserting that all the works of Shakespeare were written by Ayn Rand. You’re ignoring the context, the overall shape, the facts everyone else knows, and ranting noxiously about absurdities that do not bear examination.

            That is what is wrong and why it is wrong.

            Wouldn’t you have been happier if you’d stuck with science?

          • RealOldOne2

            So you refuse to discuss science because it shows that global warming is natural not human-caused. Got it.

            “Wouldn’t you have been happier if you’d stuck with science?”
            I did stick with science. You deny science. Sad.

          • With Respect

            So. Kalman filters. Discuss.

          • RealOldOne2

            You’re dodging little pony. Discuss this peer reviewed science that empirically shows that global warming is caused by natural causes, not humans. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to post it.

            Here is just some of peer reviewed empirical science which shows that the late 20th century warming was caused by natural climate forcing, not humans.

            1) The ONLY source of “energy in” to the earth’s climate system is the solar radiation that reaches the earth’s climate system, atmosphere, land & oceans.

            2) Solar activity has increased significantly over the last 4 centuries since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1600s: climate4you. com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD. gif So even though TSI has decreased slightly over the last few decades, the mean level of TSI over the past several decades is still higher than the previous 4 centuries.

            What I am saying is supported by peer reviewed science

            “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940′”

            The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
            • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
            • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

            3) During the late 20th century warming the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming, while CO2 forcing only increased ~0.5W/m². Of course those aren’t the only factors in climate change, but we have specific quantification of those two forcings, so it is indicative of the relative contributions to warming of those two components. The following peer reviewed papers confirm the increased solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface:

            “Significant increasing trends in DSR [DownwardSurface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm⁻², respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2Wm⁻² per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” –
            Title: ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave budget’
            Author: N. Hatzianastassiou, et al.
            Journal: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
            DoP: 01 Nov 2005
            SRef-ID: 1680-7324/acp/2005-5-2847

            “The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of a nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8W/m².”
            Title: ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and Earth’s reflectance’
            Author, P.R. Goode, E. Pallé
            Journal: Journal of ATMOSPHERIC and SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS
            DoP: Sept 2007
            DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2007.06.011

            “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” –
            Title: ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’
            Author: R.T. Pinker, et al.
            Journal: Science
            DoP: 6 May 2005
            DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159
            (0.16W/m²/yr x 18 years=2.88W/m² for 1983-2001)

            “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm⁻² of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm⁻² absorbed by the surface.” –
            Title: ‘A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979-2011)’
            Author: J. Herman, et al.,
            Journal: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
            DoP: 27 Aug 2013
            DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-8505-2013

            “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” –
            Title: ‘Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’
            Author: John McLean
            Journal: Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
            DoP: October 24, 2014
            DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.44066

            More conclusive evidence from peer reviewed science which shows that the late 20th century warming was natural is that even the alarmists admit that ~93% of global warming is observed in the increase in ocean heat content, OHC.

            “The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.” – Levitus(2012) ‘World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000m), 1955-2010’

            The only ocean-atmosphere physical heat exchange process/mechanism that can transfer any significant amount of heat into the oceans on a global average basis is solar radiation. That is supported by this Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling:

            Sea-air heat exchange … On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. …
            Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter. …
            Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter. …
            On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter. …
            On global average the heat loss by evaporation is 78 watts per square meter. …” – Columbia Univ. Earth & Environ. Science Lecture, ‘Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling’, eesc.columbia. edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm. html

            Come on Bart_R, you said you wanted to discuss science of climate change.

          • With Respect

            You keep going back to the same well of tired old tricks, without dealing with the issues spotted with any one of them.

            If you can’t discuss Kalman filters, you can’t dispute claims about carbon isotopes in CO2 in the atmosphere over time based on Kalman methods. If you can’t dispute those claims, your whole argument falls apart. There is no science left to discuss, until you discuss Kalman filters.

            Running off to other subjects before you deal with that gaping hole in your reasoning is just.. what’s the word.. dodging.

          • RealOldOne2

            “dodging”
            Yes, that’s exactly what you are doing. Kalman filters have zero to do with the only “energy-in” to the climate system, solar radiation increasing significantly.

            Address the science, troll.

            Once again you discredit yourself, as a reality-denying troll. Sad.

          • With Respect

            And with that, my work is done.

            Any reader can now review the exchange and get wise to this tragic specimen’s tricks and devious nature, and so not waste time on it.

            Which means I can now join billions of others in never again wasting that time myself, courtesy of the Disqus Block User feature.

          • RealOldOne2

            “And with that, my work is done.”
            Yes, you’ve discredited yourself as you deny reality, deny science. So now you can make your final lies and denials as you bow out of the conversation in which you have humiliated yourself.

            “courtesy of the Disqus Block User feature.”
            Don’t want to cause any more cognitive dissonance from seeing true science which refutes your pseudoscience. Good plan. (but based on your previous dishonest claims, I fully expect that you won’t block me and you won’t be able to help yourself from continuing to comment to me).

          • OWilson

            The problem is the new cultists will be back with the same dissembling and demands for proof! They post rabbit hole links designed to waste your time. Or they come back under a new handle.

            Like Hollywood Scientogists, and Jehova’s Witnesses, Global Warmists are pretty dedicated folk!

          • OWilson

            You continue to put your own words in someone elses mouth!

            “You are saying….bla bla bla…!”

            Typical true believer!

            The average reader is quite capable of reading and understanding what is written, without your grossly arrogant and erroniously misleading, self serving filter!

            Try making your point from your own point of view, and stop trying to conduct both sides of the argument!

            Thank you! :)

          • RealOldOne2

            It’s obvious from his comments that he can’t win the argument unless he conducts both sides of the argument. He ignores any science that shows he is wrong and stubbornly refuses to admit any mistake. That is the behavior of doomsday religious cult fanatics. People like With Respect, aka Bart_R, aka 1xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1 show why eminent scientists recognize that climate alarmism is not science, it is religion, cult religion:

            “Global warming differs from the preceding two affairs [Eugenics & Lysenkoism]: Global warming has become a religion. … people with no other source of meaning will defend their religion with jihadist zeal.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT Source: jpands. org/vol18no3/lindzen. pdf

            Other eminent scientists have recognized that these climate alarmist aren’t doing science, they’re doing religion, cult religion:

            “This is propaganda. This is really a religious cult. And it’s a complete falsehood to say that it’s science.” – Prof. William Happer, Physics Professor Emeritus, Princeton Univ. Source: ( youtube. com/watch?v=HCDOf8Khiko#t=48 )

            “global warming has become a religion” – Nobel Laureate PhD physicist Ivar Giaever, foreignpolicyjournal. com/2016/01/01/nobel-laureate-ivar-giaever-on-climate-change/

            “Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen – Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor of Atmospheric Science.

          • Walter Goddard

            You’re the one that is supposed to be discussing science..

            “Let’s discuss the science.”

            You keep talking about imaginary scientists and all these blah blah blahs, but where is the meat and potatoes please?

            Theses experts you talk about, can’t tell me when my grand father died, or which molecules of CO2 he exhaled in his life, or the gas he expelled, or the flesh that rotted off his bones..

            But you keep telling me/us that your thousands of expert experts; know that all of the CO2 and green house gasses, are caused in the last 300 years, and it’s all from burning fossil fuel.. by men.. and not volcanos too??????

          • With Respect

            The fallacy of Impossible Expectations is strong with you.

            Try to stick to the topic.

            Carbon isotopes show that the 46% increase in CO2 levels in air come from fossil sources. Measurements of other isotopes show the sources weren’t volcanoes for over 98% of the CO2 added.

            Argument by incredulity is also a logical fallacy.

            Amazing how many people claim special access to ultimate truth who can’t even handle logical truth.

          • Walter Goddard

            Yes, Let’s discuss the science that you claim.. Start with this scenario and when you come back with BS,, Watch out for the CO2 police!

            Are you ready?

            I have a feeling that “these people” who deny the truth, of cycling climates, also do not want to hear the truth..

            They have tried to keep me from saying anything by holding/flagging my posts for spam review, for seven days now.. to prevent the truth from being told.

            Its either D-Brief and/or people on this blog, trying to block my posts..

            Perhaps its time for unbiased mangement!

            1) How much CO2 was exhaled, by all of the people and animals ever born on this planet.. The volcanos, lightning fires, war, spontaneous combustion, etc.. have all played a huge part too..

            2) Deforestation has contributed more to any type of global warming/climate change, than all of the fossil fuel ever burned by men..

            3) They can’t tell you how much fossil fuel was burned up by all of the volcanos .. But consider the geology of all of the known world’s volcanos and the gas and oil trapped in the formations that were consumed and burned up in the volcanic eruptions..

            They don’t even want to consider it at all!!!

            4) Why doesn’t one of these so called experts you/they talk about, (with all their instruments and measurements), explain why the Mason Esker and the glacial melt that caused it occurred 10,000+ years ago… almost 9,800 years before fossil fuel was discovered and used by men..

            I recently did read that some Asian cultures were reported as discovering oil about 2,000 years ago.. and used bamboo to drill with. When I attended Crew Chief V in San Angelo, TX… we never heard about such a thing.. Not in over 5 years of working on the rigs did I ever hear of it..

            Are there any petroleum engineers on here that can verify the validity of the Asian discovery?

          • With Respect

            Science, am I ready to discuss it?

            Did you just last week write, “The world doesn’t want to consider how sin against God and Man is the biggest factor in extreme weather.. The earth wobbles to and fro.. awaiting the ‘sons’ of God..?”

            One of us is ready to discuss science. Let me help the other one. Science does not operate within the sphere of ultimate truths, as science does not trade in any claim not wholly founded on pure inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission until new observation leads to amended or new inference.

            Hence, “I have a feeling,” is not science and it and everything that follows is outside the sphere of a scientific discussion.

            Claiming that there are people who deny the “truth” (ultimate, hence not a scientific truth) of “cycling climates” (assumption, hence not a statement of science) is a personalization, hence not the logic of science. Just as science takes no one’s word for anything absent inference from observation, science discriminates against no inference from observation based merely on who makes the inference, either. This is why we don’t care that grant money gets paid to scientists, except when we can discover that the grant money is paid to them to corrupt science, for example.

            Everyone’s posts, if they post long enough, get held up in moderation. That’s just the nature of a world that has wicked people in it who abuse the hospitality of those who host blogs. Make shorter posts. Be briefer. Avoid words racists use. Post with respect.

          • With Respect

            1) It is not a question of how much CO2, but whether the CO2 emission added to the total CO2 in the short surface carbon cycle from outside. In any one year, only a ratio of CO2 from fossil about the interest rate on a bank loan enters the air compared to all CO2 already in that short carbon cycle. But then, no one is paying that added loan interest down by taking the new CO2 out and mineralizing it into fossil form again, a process performed by weathering of stone or biosequestration of dead plant and animal bodies on the waters and lands of your neighbors. Why don’t you pay due rent to your neighbors for the fruits of their land you take when you dump your fossil wastes, Walter of God?

          • With Respect

            2) Your claim flies in the face of the evidence, first carefully collated by Gilbert Plass over six decades ago, expanding on observations of Hogbom half a century earlier.

            Around ten times more fossil waste CO2 is emitted every year than the net effects of all land use including forestry. We have not just careful accounting by sources, but also matching information from isotope observations under Kalman time series (for example, Rubino et al 2013) to affirm this.

          • With Respect

            3) Volcano fossil worldwide total emissions have in no year since Tambora erupted over 200 years ago exceeded 2% of present human emissions, and in most years less than 1%.

            We have measurements, and isotopes. You have speculation, assumption and ignorance of the measurements, so not science.

          • With Respect

            4) Seriously? “Your Honor, why doesn’t the prosecution call experts to talk about the Mason Esker and all the deaths that occurred 10,000+ years ago, almost 9,800 years before the gun was made my client was observed to use to shoot the victim with by multiple witnesses, with multiple lines of evidence confirming?”

            The existence of other climate forcings doesn’t disprove human climate forcings. Nature can’t trespass on your neighbors’ property: you certainly do.

            And I’m an engineer; I can confirm from The Annals of Salt Law of Sichuan Province that there was gas drilling over 2,400 years ago. So what?

          • Walter Goddard

            “So What?”

            “And I’m an engineer; I can confirm from The Annals of Salt Law of Sichuan Province that there was gas drilling over 2,400 years ago. So what?”

            Your total premise is that all of the science proves green house gasses and CO2 readings, are from burning fossil fuel since the industrial revolution..

            That makes this evidence you verified as an outlier and throws out all of your assumptions as false!

            Your demands have been to make the polluters pay..
            … But here you are since birth; adding CO2 to the atmosphere with all the things that you use; created by these corporations you condemn!

            Like the computer your posting with.. if you’re going to preach enviro-smut, please go practice it and leave the rest of us alone!

          • With Respect

            My demands?

            Since when did I ever mention polluters at all?

            My premise is Capitalism: when you take something that isn’t yours from someone you owe them a fair Market price. Me, I certainly pay my neighbors for the use of their water and land interests to dispose of all fossil waste emissions I put into the air above my own land’s ability to dispose of. Why would you assume I don’t, just because you haven’t?

            Nor am I condemning corporations; I’m condemning deadbeats who take what isn’t theirs without paying, as any citizen ought who isn’t soft on crime or some sort of socialist.

            What isn’t sent into the air as fossil waste emissions isn’t part of the problem.

            And isn’t that just like a deadbeat, to demand his creditors leave him alone.

          • Walter Goddard

            With respect, “With Respect”, Can you remember these words you wrote?

            “There are people who can say. They can show you how they worked it out. They can show you the equipment they used, and how it works. You could use that same equipment to take the same measurements and do the same math. Many others already have and their numbers are in close agreement: it’s humans burning fossil.

            No one’s talking about outlawing guns or trucks or cars. What’s being said is pay for the harm you’ve done. Going further, when you dump fossil wastes you use up resources on your neighbors’ lands: pay them for those goods you steal without their consent, at a fair Market rate.

            This soft-on-crime socialism that you’re pushing, I’m not buying. Pay what you owe.”

            Why do you insist on hiding behind a fake name, and fake science.. that is based on falsified weather data?

            The climate change/global warming camp altered and destroyed original weather records with the appearance of digitizing historical reports..

            Request the microfiche news/weather articles from all of the cities/states up North in ’82/’83 and verify these climate change numbers you claim or admit your numbers are falsified as well!

          • With Respect

            Your ramblings are incoherent. How do you propose your conclusions are linked to your premises, other than by fallacy?

            How is a name important, if you can’t specifically name these people in some ‘camp’ who did something you don’t appear to grasp the details of?

            How is the science I cite fake?

            Who exactly, and when, and how, did they falsify specifically which weather data?

            How do my remarks depend on that specific data?

            Your silly expectation that everyone run around requesting microfiches and spinning out the questions of basic Physics is blatant deadbeat delaying tactic.

            Pay up for the fossil waste dumping you’ve done; we know the chemistry of how that works in weathering of rocks and biosequestration, and no amount of “altered and destroyed original weather records” of your imagination relieves you of the burden of trespass you’ve committed.

          • Walter Goddard

            I won’t play this hidden pea in a nutshell game with you..

            If you want to keep spouting false conclusions from a spreadsheet that was programmed with arbitrary/falsified numbers, that’s on you!

            I spoke the truth related to my experiences in ’82 and ’83..

            You say that you’ve earned some engineering degree, (My guess is, it isn’t a degree in petroleum or geology..), but if it’s true that you are an engineer, than you ought to know how to request a microfiche from the data banks and search for the temperature/news reports and other corroborating evidence I referred to…

            When you take a “what if” spreadsheet and plug false numbers into it, it doesn’t matter what lies it spews out.. (Even the pretty graphs. Shame upon all of you zealots who broadcasted threats of no more chocolate or coffee too)… It is still all lies!

          • With Respect

            You’re bearing a whole lot of false witness against people you’ve never met, don’t know, know nothing about, never seen the work of, nor understand how what they do is done.

            I knew how to get copies of data long before I stepped a toe in engineering. I also know that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature research group has already done what you demand, years ago, and independently validated the work of scientists you claim to be fake.

            If you’re worried about your coffee running out, isn’t that a bit self-focused, until you pay what you yourself owe for the fossil waste disposal you’ve taken from your neighbors?

            You appear to be from that entitled generation that expects everything handed to it, and never wants to pay its due.

          • Walter Goddard

            If you’re afraid of making the request and learning the truth I understand.. I can see that you won’t even display your real name.. With all of the trash and insults you spew.. Libel, slander, defamation, bearing false witness??.. Really?
            You cannot even produce a true and accurate invoice, to pay a bill, you claim I owe!

            On January 19, 1983 it was -56F and -110F with the windchill..
            In Kalkaska, Michigan…
            Officially reported by the news outlets in Michigan..
            All of the month of February, it never got above -30F..

            For the first/only time in all 5 years of my working on the oil/gas rigs, we were told to leave the rig engine running all night when we went home for the day.. It was so cold we couldn’t get it started otherwise!
            (The engine oil cooled/froze as solid as peanut butter)

            The news outlets across the country reported it as the coldest winter of the century and Christmas as the coldest on record..

            Numerous frozen water mains were reported broken and heating credits were handed out like candy to the poor..
            People were dying from exposure and losing physical extremities due to severe frostbite..
            It was a repeated theme from all news sources, every day, all day, every hour of the day: not to venture out into the weather with out extreme diligence and preparation..

            So while you’re in my face, google the weather records and see what you find.. Even Farmer’s Almanac changed their records..
            When I considered the weather on the other side of the globe to verify the fraud, “one of your own” asked for volunteers to digitize the European weather records to follow suit with what was done on this side of the pond! That was just a few months ago on the news outlets/internet, etc..

            Now request the microfiche records and verify the recorded digital claims and those numbers that are used to spew these climate change claims.. or just go and play with your nut shell games in a corner somewhere.. and leave us honest people alone..

            Stop trying to lay tort and damages claims against my life, my future and my monies… You want to pay for a group of zealots’ lies.. Go ahead.. be the example!

          • With Respect

            You don’t seem to be a big fan of the 6th.

            It’s a sure sign you’re throwing stones to cover for your own lacks.

            Pay your debts.

          • Walter Goddard

            I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink.

            There will be an accounting, but it will not be called to order by a judge in a court room of your liking!

            My debt is paid…
            I also spoke up for all of the people who were unaware of these types of processes.. “infringement of basic civil liberties”.. against all of this ***t you talk out of both sides of your mouth..
            You won’t give a straight answer to the questions or admit that you’re wrong, when it has been laid out in laymen’s terms!

            I wish you well..
            I will not be your blind pony ride or cat to kick.. You’ll have to play your nut case games by yourself.. :)

          • With Respect

            Walter, you’ve already been the pony, lead around the spotlight, showing off what you are.

            The more you dump on your neighbors, the more you owe.

            In your case, it appears you can’t cover the debt.

          • Walter Goddard

            I have become who I am today as a result of the choices I’ve made “With Respect”..

            The words that you and the others are using can either inspire the people who: read, believe, and act upon them; to do good or to do evil!!!

            Which way will you lead people? … to be the next: Timothy McVeigh, Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolf Hitler..
            … Or the next: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Miriam Webster, Albert Einstein…

            You could use the education you have to engineer products that don’t pollute the world we live in! Maybe even develop better ways of farming and creating sustainable/cheaper/pollution free energy…
            The choice is yours to make!

            .. as a friend

          • With Respect

            Friends don’t compare friends to psychopaths and claim friendship; that’s what psychopaths do.

            You don’t know me; you don’t know how I use the education I have, other than to flee from the education I offer you in being less of a deadbeat by paying what you owe for the fossil waste dumping you’ve done.

            No engineer can force people to become moral; morality is a matter of choices. Yours have made you a deadbeat.

          • Walter Goddard

            I did extend an olive branch, still do..
            .. I didn’t compare you with a psychopath, or ask you to force people to be moral either..
            I DARED you to make a choice on which way you’ll influence the people who hear what you have to say!

          • With Respect

            Walter, you’re nothing but a topic-changing whited sepulchre, a Pharisee mouthing words you don’t mean; it’s plain you’ll never come clean, and so I want nothing from you but to use you to show others what a deadbeat will do to avoid facing their debts, how twisted deadbeats get out of their fear of paying what they owe.

            You’re doing just swell at that, with hardly any help from me at all.

          • Walter Goddard

            I still don’t know your name… What’s your first name?
            What engineering degree do you have?
            Where did you attend University?

            I chose to extend an offer of friendship, and I still make that choice for myself… It isn’t your choice to make.
            It is mine alone!
            Your’s is the choice to reject it, cast stones, insults, or just accept it!

          • With Respect

            Boring now.

            Want to extend some friendship? Pay your fossil waste dumping debts.

            Unfortunately, it’s clear you never willingly will.

            Fortunately, we have the Disqus Block User feature to let us escape the insincere glad-handing of deadbeats.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Pay your fossil waste dumping debts.”
            You are the one who needs to pay me. I paid good money for all those fossil fuels I burned that added all the beneficial CO2/plant food/fertilizer into the air. It help green the planet and contribute to the doubling of food crop yields since the mid-1900s.

            Pay up Bart_R!

          • RealOldOne2

            With Respect, aka Bart_R isn’t interested in discussing science. When you post any substantive science post that he can’t refute, he will just reply with one of his tl;dnr (too long; did not read) dodges. He has shown that he is only interested in promoting his climate alarmism.

            I totally pwned him until he blocked me because he couldn’t back up his false claims with science and he couldn’t refute the science that I posted.

        • With Respect

          Jeff Glassman’s puffed-up ‘journal’ is a defunct website with zero credibility full of sun-cycle myths long ago debunked. Citing it is an insult to readers.

          It is false to assert that climate change is not overwhelmingly unnatural caused by fossil waste dumping people who burn fossil are responsible for.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Jeff Glassman’s…”
            Bart_R, your denial of reality and your inability to refute any of the science Dr. Glassman presented ( rocketscientistsjournal. com/2010/03/sgw. html#III_A ) is noted.

            “It is false to assert that climate change is not overwhelmingly unnatural caused by fossil waste dumping”
            Wrong Bart_R. Your false evidence-free assertion just exposes that you are either:
            1) unaware of the fact that there is no peer reviewed science which empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, or
            2) unaware of the peer reviewed empirical science which shows that the primary cause of the late 20th century warming was overwhelmingly natural, caused by increased solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface and warm phases of ocean cycles, or
            3) you are just in denial of peer reviewed empirical science and in denial of reality because it disagrees with your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religious belief.

            Here is just some of peer reviewed empirical science which shows that the late 20th century warming was overwhelmingly natural.

            1) The ONLY source of “energy in” to the earth’s climate system is the solar radiation that reaches the earth’s climate system, atmosphere, land & oceans.

            2) Solar activity has increased significantly over the last 4 centuries since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1600s: climate4you. com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD. gif So even though TSI has decreased slightly over the last few decades, the mean level of TSI over the past several decades is still higher than the previous 4 centuries.

            What I am saying is supported by peer reviewed science

            “The period of high solar activity during the past 60 years is unique in the past 1150 years.” – Usoskin(2003), ‘A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since 1940′”

            The high level of recent solar activity is confirmed in:
            • Tapping(2007), Fig.10, ‘Solar Magnetic Activity and Total Irradiance Since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Scafetta(2009), Figs. 13 & 14, “…shown in Figure 14. The figure shows that during the last decades the TSI has been at its highest values since the 17th century.”, ‘Total solar irradiance satellite composites and their phenomenological effect on climate’
            • Krivova(2010), Fig.6, ‘Reconstruction of spectral solar irradiance since the Maunder Minimum’
            • Krivova(2011), Fig.8, ‘Towards a long-term record of solar total and spectral irradiance’

            3) During the late 20th century warming the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming, while CO2 forcing only increased ~0.5W/m². Of course those aren’t the only factors in climate change, but we have specific quantification of those two forcings, so it is indicative of the relative contributions to warming of those two components. The following peer reviewed papers confirm the increased solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface:

            “Significant increasing trends in DSR [DownwardSurface Radiation] and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm⁻², respectively, over the 1984-2000 period (equivalent to 2.4 and 2.2Wm⁻² per decade), indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds” –
            Title: ‘Global distribution of Earth’s surface shortwave budget’
            Author: N. Hatzianastassiou, et al.
            Journal: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
            DoP: 01 Nov 2005
            SRef-ID: 1680-7324/acp/2005-5-2847

            “The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of a nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8W/m².”
            Title: ‘Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and Earth’s reflectance’
            Author, P.R. Goode, E. Pallé
            Journal: Journal of ATMOSPHERIC and SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL PHYSICS
            DoP: Sept 2007
            DOI: 10.1016/j.jastp.2007.06.011

            “Long term variations in solar radiation at the Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate … We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 W per square meter (0.10%) per year … the observed changes in radiation budget are caused by changes in mean tropical cloudiness, which is detected in the satellite observations but fails to be predicted by several current climate models.” –
            Title: ‘Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’
            Author: R.T. Pinker, et al.
            Journal: Science
            DoP: 6 May 2005
            DOI: 10.1126/science.1103159
            (0.16W/m²/yr x 18 years=2.88W/m² for 1983-2001)

            “Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 Wm⁻² of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 2.4 Wm⁻² absorbed by the surface.” –
            Title: ‘A net decrease in the Earth’s cloud, aerosol, and surface 340 nm reflectivity during the past 33 yr (1979-2011)’
            Author: J. Herman, et al.,
            Journal: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
            DoP: 27 Aug 2013
            DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-8505-2013

            “The temperature pattern for the period 1988-1997 appears to be generally consistent with the 7% reduction in total cloud cover that occurred across the period 1987-1999. Applying that reduction to the influence of clouds in the energy budget described by Trenberth et al. [34] results in an increased average solar forcing at the Earth’s surface of about 5 Wm⁻². This increase is more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing from all anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. … Conclusions Since 1950, global average temperature anomalies have been driven firstly, from 1950 to 1987, by a sustained shift in ENSO conditions, by reductions in total cloud cover (1987 to late 1990s) and then a shift from low cloud to mid and high-level cloud, with both changes in cloud cover being very widespread. According to the energy balance described by Trenberth et al. (2009) [34], the reduction in total cloud cover accounts for the increase in temperature since 1987, leaving little, if any, of the temperature change to be attributed to other forcings.” –
            Title: ‘Late Twentieth-Century Warming and Variations in Cloud Cover’
            Author: John McLean
            Journal: Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
            DoP: October 24, 2014
            DOI: 10.4236/acs.2014.44066

            More conclusive evidence from peer reviewed science which shows that the late 20th century warming was natural is that even the alarmists admit that ~93% of global warming is observed in the increase in ocean heat content, OHC.

            “The World Ocean accounts for approximately 93% of the warming of the earth system that has occurred since 1955.” – Levitus(2012) ‘World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0-2000m), 1955-2010’

            The only ocean-atmosphere physical heat exchange process/mechanism that can transfer any significant amount of heat into the oceans on a global average basis is solar radiation. That is supported by this Columbia Univ. lecture on Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling:

            Sea-air heat exchange … On average the ocean is about 1 or 2 degrees warmer than the atmosphere so on average ocean heat is transferred from ocean to atmosphere by conduction. …
            Solar heating of the ocean on a global average is 168 watts per square meter. …
            Net back radiation cools the ocean, on a global average by 66 watts per square meter. …
            On global average the oceanic heat loss by conduction is only 24 watts per square meter. …
            On global average the heat loss by evaporation is 78 watts per square meter. …” – Columbia Univ. Earth & Environ. Science Lecture, ‘Ocean-Atmosphere Coupling’, eesc.columbia. edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/o_atm. html

            Bart_R, you can’t refute any of this peer reviewed empircal science and you can’t cite any peer reviewed science which empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

          • With Respect

            tl;dnr

            Argument by Gish Gallop is silly, and spam.

          • RealOldOne2

            “tl;dnr
            Bart_R, that’s the typical reply of trolls who have been proven wrong, but are too stubborn to admit it.

            ” Argument by Gish Gallop is silly, and spam.”
            No Gish Gallop because everything was on-topic, relevant not silly, and not spam. You are just denying it because that peer reviewed science empirically shows that the late 20th century was natural, not human-caused.

            Your inability to refute a single argument based on peer reviewed science is noted.

            It is also noted that you were unable to cite any peer reviewed science which empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming.

          • With Respect

            Here we see the specimen continue to return over and over again to the same hate-fueled tactics of personalization, pretense and backsliding.

            Observe how everything is turned toward attacking messengers, or turning what they actually say backwards and upside down. See strings of citations where what is claimed about the cite is the opposite of what the original authors wrote. A 1961 foundation for distinguishing fossil from biological fraction of CO2 source is inverted based on a single line segment in a hand-drawn graph, even while the entire text shows the very diametric opposite.

            Again and again, visiting original sources we see this same one trick our pony trots out: either the source cited says the opposite of what he claims, or it is an obsolete reference long ago refuted. This tired shammery has only one cause: our specimen feels attacked by fact, and hates it.

          • 9.8m/ss

            The shrillest climate science dismissives always turn out to be some variety of “free markets” ideologue. A handful of them get a stipend from the fossil fuel investors by way of their “conservative think tank” public relations and lobbying firms. But the vast majority seem to be volunteers, expressing their fear of scientific discoveries of problems that can’t be solved inside their oversimplified model of how power works in the world. Their self esteem depends on the correctness and superiority of their Ayn Randism (or whatever their personal prophet’s name is) so a risk to public health and safety that Rand can’t mitigate presents a direct threat of ego trauma.

          • With Respect

            Except I’m the free market ideologue in this exchange. Of course, Ayn Rand you’re right about. Perhaps Russia’s most harmful export to the West, until Donald Trump.

          • 9.8m/ss

            You’re an outlier, WR. Follow Really Old Guy for a while and you’ll see he’s peddling a different flavor of “free markets” than yours, but it’s “free markets” all the way down. Those commie egghead scientists with their fake consensus conspiracy. In a “free markets” world they’d be safely unemployed and the problems they’ve discovered wouldn’t exist.

          • With Respect

            I’m the mainstream. Those loudmouths are the outliers.

            Sure, the free market isn’t all of the solution, at least not anymore. Once upon a time, since the problem started there, it could be solved there. Sadly, that time has passed.

            Still, fixing the root cause is a necessary step to really solving the problem, as all other approaches will amount to no more than a bandaid so long as the market gives a pass to free riders for dumping fossil wastes. All the forces of the market will leverage and squeeze every actor toward increasing fossil waste dumping than would be otherwise so long as there’s no price on disposal of fossil wastes.

            And you put a price on disposal of fossil wastes as the owner of those properties that dispose of fossil wastes. No one else can do it for those owners of lands and people with interests and rights over waters. They are the ones whose failures are causing climate change. They alone can correct that root cause by demanding market rents from dumpers.

            Oh, and those egghead scientists? Largely right wing ideologues. You think James Hansen is a leftist? Richard Alley? Really?

          • jonathanpulliam

            When do you give info that ISN’T erroneous or outright falsified?

          • RealOldOne2

            “same hate-filled tactics of personalization, pretense and backsliding … attacking messengers … “
            There is no hate in my comment Bart. Just statements of fact and reality. What happened to you Bart_R? You seem to have become totally unhinged. Are you angry that Mother Nature has exposed that global warming is natural and that peer reviewed science confirms it?

            “See strings of citations where what is claimed is the opposite of what the original authors wrote.”
            That’s false, proven by your inability to quote what I wrote and quote what the authors wrote and show that it was the opposite.

            “A 1961 foundation for distinguishing fossil fuel from biological fraction of CO2 source is inverted based on a single line segment in a hand-drawn graph, even while the entire text shows the very diametric opposite.”
            Bart_R, why do you tell such lies which are so easy to expose. The words of Park & Epstein(1961) match the Fig.1 graphic,

            , ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC406107/pdf/plntphys00464-0001. pdf , match the Fig.1 graphic: “The data in figure 1 have many other interesting features. For example, coals of all geological ages have the about the same C¹³/C¹² ratios as present day plants.” – Park & Epstein(1961) ‘Metabolic Fractionation of C and C in Plants’

            So my claim “the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs” is true. And it is just as true now as it was in 1961.

            So what is the δ¹³ ratio for fossil fuel combustion CO2?

            “The isotopic composition (δ¹³ and δ¹⁸) in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) originating from gasoline and diesel vehicle exhaust and from natural gas combustion was determined. … The fleet average gasoline exhaust … was determined with a δ¹³ of -27.27 (±0.93)‰” – Semmens(2014) ‘Isotopic composition of CO2 in gasoline, diesel and natural gas combustion exhaust in Vancouver, BC…’

            So what is the δ¹³ ratio of present day plants and vegetation?

            “Vegetation removed during deforestation is also low in ¹³C, so that when it decomposes or burns CO2 with a δ¹³ value of approximately -27‰ is released into the atmosphere.” – ‘Carbon Isotope Techniques’ Coleman & Fry, Academic Press, 1991, p.174, books. google. com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0p7q5MF_h8cC&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=carbon+isotope+ratios&ots=nvIQjvlPxK&sig=eKQDkgNNuJN9XPgiC1EUt-xp3_w#v=onepage&q=carbon%20isotope%20ratios&f=false

            Yet again we see from peer reviewed science and from textbooks that my statement: “the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs” is a fact. So no, that 1961 science paper wasn’t obsolete..

            “This tired shammery has only one cause: our specimen feels attacked by fact, and hates it.”
            Perfect projection there Bart. Once again you discredit yourself.

          • With Respect

            Hrm. “Inability”. That’s a favorite word of yours. It appears to be a trigger response for you, a soother that you indulge when facing things that make you anxious.

            Who was unable in your life? Did you have a physically handicapped parent? An incompetent spouse? A child who didn’t live up to your expectations? Did you blame your failures on them, and sacrifice that relationship out of false pride?

            Kalman filters fit to time series. You take a single measurement made at a single moment in time around 1961, and pretend that because all you look at is that one instant, no one else with any amount of additional information can do what is impossible for you.

            You don’t have proofs. You have leaps to conclusions that happen conveniently in your mind to let you out of your obligation to pay for the fossil waste dumping you do. That’s not science. That’s just what deadbeats do.

          • RealOldOne2

            Come on Bart. You can do it. Admit that I was right when I stated: “the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs”.

            I just posted peer reviewed science and textbooks that proved I was correct, and that you were wrong. Stop denying reality. Stop lying. Stop your unhinged projection of your failures onto me. Stop your silly trolling.

            Your continued denial of reality, denial of peer reviewed science and textbooks just exposes you as a fanatical climate zealot.

          • With Respect

            And there we see it, as predicted. Absurdity through and through, straw man, posing and weaseling.

            Which is why having a live one like this on the line is so helpful to understanding the sorts of mania and delusion driving deniers to their antisocial behavior.

            Imagine having one as a dinner guest. Or a coworker. Or a family member.

          • RealOldOne2

            “And there we see it, as predicted. Absurdity through and through, straw man, posing and weaseling.”
            More projection by you Bart_R. Why do you absurdly deny the reality that I proved my statement: RealOldOne2:“the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs”. is correct? Again, the proof is here:

            “The data in figure 1 have many other interesting features. For example, coals of all geological ages have the about the same C¹³/C¹² ratios as present day plants.” – Park & Epstein(1961) ‘Metabolic Fractionation of C and C in Plants’, ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/pmc/articles/PMC406107/pdf/plntphys00464-0001. pdf

            So my claim “the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs” is true. And it is just as true now as it was in 1961.

            So what is the δ¹³ ratio for fossil fuel combustion CO2?

            “The isotopic composition (δ¹³ and δ¹⁸) in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) originating from gasoline and diesel vehicle exhaust and from natural gas combustion was determined. … The fleet average gasoline exhaust … was determined with a δ¹³ of -27.27 (±0.93)‰” – Semmens(2014) ‘Isotopic composition of CO2 in gasoline, diesel and natural gas combustion exhaust in Vancouver, BC…’

            So what is the δ¹³ ratio of present day plants and vegetation?

            “Vegetation removed during deforestation is also low in ¹³C, so that when it decomposes or burns CO2 with a δ¹³ value of approximately -27‰ is released into the atmosphere.” – ‘Carbon Isotope Techniques’ Coleman & Fry, Academic Press, 1991, p.174, books. google. com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=0p7q5MF_h8cC&oi=fnd&pg=PA173&dq=carbon+isotope+ratios&ots=nvIQjvlPxK&sig=eKQDkgNNuJN9XPgiC1EUt-xp3_w#v=onepage&q=carbon%20isotope%20ratios&f=false

            Yet again we see from peer reviewed science and from textbooks that my statement: “the δ¹³ ratio is the same for decaying vegetation as for burning FFs” is a fact.

            “Which is why having a live one like this on the line is so helpful to understanding the sorts of mania and delusion driving deniers to their anticocial behavior.”
            Yet more projection by you Bart_R.

          • With Respect

            Kalman filters apply to time series. You are discussing a single instant in time.

            Do you not see the difference?

            Either you do see the difference, and are ignoring it dishonestly, or you can’t see the difference and simply aren’t competent to discuss science.

            All your cutting and pasting from original works that say the opposite of what you read in them appear to support the conclusion of incompetency.

            Your tricks all revealed, your sleazy methods shown for what they are, tell us why we need do more to show readers what a sad hack you are?

          • RealOldOne2

            Dodge, deny, lie. Bart, as I lead you around the show ring little donkey, all you’re doing is braying your dodges, denials of reality and lies. Sad.

            Kalman filters have nothing to do with the fact that CO2 from fossil fuel combustion and from vegetation decay have the same δ¹³ ratio. You are just doing a handwaving clown dance. Sad.

            Poor troll, as you deny reality, deny science, you are making a total fool out of yourself and are too stupid to realize it. Sad.

          • RealOldOne2

            open. library. ubc. ca/cIRcle/collections/facultyresearchandpublications/52383/items/1.0103591

          • With Respect

            Huh. That “anticocial”.. it wasn’t in the original.

            It’s like the specimen can’t help itself but get quotes wrong. How does someone fail at cut and paste so consistently?

          • jonathanpulliam

            You are not even interesting to read.

            I liked Michael Crichton’s ( Harvard ’74, ) masterful novelization of the climate hoax “State of Fear”. It reveals how shyster lawyers like you and insane eco-terrorists and hedge fund profiteers lie about climate. He used a fully referenced foot-noted style that reveals your hoax to be an artless fraud. You are a fraud.

          • jonathanpulliam

            You lie. Discretion is not the long suit of the psychopath, which says to me you must be a psychopathic personality type. Your deviant views are supported only by the most suspect sources, rendering your conclusions wholly irrelevant. Plus no one likes you? Bring it? Oh, it’s been broughten.

        • jonathanpulliam

          “climate change is overwhelmingly natural, and anthropogenic CO2 is not the primary cause. Peer reviewed science and the empirical evidence from the real world shows this is true.”

          Mm hmm.

    • jonathanpulliam

      I just had near-death by boredom.
      Let’s sex this up with some covfefery or pooty anecdotes, hmm?

      • Walter Goddard

        Sorry Jonathan,

        but I don’t speak that language!

        I’ll take a risk and say that most of the people who refuse to believe in creation, also believe in evolution :(

        Very sad, but I think perhaps that’s the reason the Monkeys’ Uncles/Aunts, etc… go bananas when the truth is presented…

        • jonathanpulliam

          You’re right, you are sorry. God gave you a brain you resolutely refuse to employ.

          • Walter Goddard

            Ouch!!!
            And with such tough love too :)

            I honestly try to serve confused people humble pie..
            They cannot argue with the taste of sweet truth from my own experience and reasoning.

            Some day, all the blinded people will lead the rest of the blinded followers into the ditch, and recall these words of reasoning as seasoning to their bitter desert!

            You do understand that when all of the fossil fuels are outlawed, there won’t be anyone farming their (confused people) food anymore, so they’ll have to leave us alone and plow and sow and reap their own food.. with Stone Age tools :)

  • Towsman

    Re the discussions below about BC. BC produces 33 million tonnes of coal per year which equates to 100 mt of CO2 when burned. BC should have no bragging rights about low emissions until they acknowledge that they are part of the coal problem even though that coal is burned elsewhere. As a rural BC resident, I have no options to buy a truck that will haul my heavy trailers other than with a diesel engine. I pay $250 carbon tax each winter to heat my house (no other options there either). I have just retired so I doubt I will be able to afford to buy any big ticket items anyway. The carbon tax is a joke to appease the urbanites.

    • With Respect

      BC produces almost exclusively metallurgical coal.

      When slag is produced, the carbon intensity is roughly 0.55; this same slag can be used in making cement, which when made from raw limestone has a carbon intensity of 0.76.

      BC coal saves 38% the CO2 emissions of cement making. While it would be better to use net carbon-negative geopolymers over OPC, if you must have OPC for some bizarre reason 38% savings is pretty fair. Granted, it’s possible to make high grade steel with electricity from renewable sources and carbon from plants, but your point isn’t very convincing. BC saves the world 37 mT of CO2e by selling metallurgical coal to producers who use the slag to make lower CO2e cement.

      Tesla’s producing a heavy truck that will be far cheaper to run on low price BC electricity (third lowest grid price in North America), and study after study find rural residents of BC are better off under the BC Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Act than urban dwellers, who do quite fine, at 70% better off than before.. or did you want your personal income tax to go back up 25% and business taxes to rise a similar amount, like before the carbon tax?

      And $250 carbon tax to heat a house, when the carbon tax has been $30/tonne for five years means you’re burning 8.3 TONNES of carbon in your fossil fuel for winter warmth, which I find incredible.

  • sciencereader

    The scientist-author William Calvin wrote a fascinating article on this topic ten years ago in the magazine The Atlantic. Here is the reference:

    Calvin, W. H. (1998, January). “The great climate flip-flop”. The Atlantic, 281(1), 47-64.

    It is available free online and can be easily found using Google.

  • scottdouglasjohnson

    I’ve been wait for this since I first read about the Little Ice Age many years ago. I’m in Nova Scotia and this is gonna suck.

  • jonathanpulliam

    Nothing to do with climate. The magnetic poles are overdue for polarity swap. The new North Pole, where Santa will reside, will be 666 5th ave the park of the beast and the doorman’s name will be “Mabus”.

  • RealOldOne2

    “both groups say human-caused climate change is playing a role”
    They say it is, but the papers provide no empirical evidence that humans have played a role. The papers actually support natural causation.

    The first paper, Caesar(2018), makes a connection to CO2 only through climate models, not any empirical causation. And climate models are unable to model natural climate change because they don’t even include dozens and dozens of natural factors that influence the climate, thus they can’t attribute warming to anthropogenic vs. natural causes. They attribute changes to CO2 because of the omitted variable fallacy. When you don’t include variables which are part of causation, you attribute cause to a wrong variable that you did include.

    Secondly, Caesar(2018) attributed the AMOC change to changing ocean temperatures. The only physical mechanism which transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation, so the paper actually supports a natural cause, not an anthropogenic cause.

    The second paper, fails to empirically show human causation for the same two reasons. This paper admits that the change began either abruptly or gradually in 1850, a century before humans had any significant global impact, and even the IPCC attributes climate change to humans. They also admit: “Our paleoclimate reconstructions indicate that the transition occurred either as a predominately abrupt shift towards the end of the LIA, or as a more gradual, continued decline over the past 150 years. … it remains uncertain whether this trend is part of a longer-term decline, natural multidecadal variability, or a combination of both.” The study then goes on to use climate models to make its conclusions, and it admits that ocean tempertures are an important factor in AMOC.

    So there’s nothing “troubling” about this. It’s just nature doing its thing.

    • Walter Goddard

      I found a recent article in the weather fossil fuel/doom and gloom forcasts, that begs to differ on the cycle time span from snow pack until glacial melt… “Record amounts of plastic in glacial ice melt”..

      Unless of course, we learned how to make plastic containers from great grandpa neanderthal?

      https: //weather. com/science/environment/news/2018-04-25-arctic-sea-ice-microplastics-record-discovered

      https: //weather. com/science/nature/news/2018-04-23-yellowstone-supervolcano-nasa-hotspot-mantle-plume

      And here’s an article about the super volcano under Yellowstone, that they won’t tell us is the cause of any global warming :)

      I think it’s ironic that they’re using seismic technologies to discover it too!

      It’s one of the primary technologies used to discover oil and gas deposits..
      I put a couple of gaps in the URL’s.. They flagged it for review again..

  • Inga Andersdotter

    There’s really no need to be so mean about *The Day After Tomorrow.* Jake Gyllenhaal survived the apocalypse, so it had a happy ending! 😉

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

D-brief

Briefing you on the must-know news and trending topics in science and technology today.
ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+