Contrarian Scientist Who Says Sun is Responsible for Global Warming is Accused of Taking Corporate Cash for Science

By Tom Yulsman | February 21, 2015 6:27 pm
An eruption of plasma above the Sun's surface on Jan. 31, 2013 formed a long loop that ultimately stretched and then burst outward into space, as seen in this image from NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft. It was acquired in a wavelength of extreme ultraviolet light. (Source: NASA SDO)

An eruption of plasma above the Sun’s surface on Jan. 31, 2013 formed a long loop that ultimately stretched and then burst outward into space, as seen in this image from NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory spacecraft. (Source: NASA SDO)

Willie Soon, a prominent global warming skeptic, says “no amount of money can influence what I say or do or research or write.” If recently released documents are accurate, he is a liar. 

— ⊕ —

During a lecture on climate change in 2013, Willie Soon, a prominent skeptic of human-caused climate change, pointed to a large image showing an explosion of plasma from the Sun and then said that he was “fed up” with the scientific consensus on climate change:

They say it is always the CO2. The Sun could never do it, the Sun. You know it is changing so little, it doesn’t do anything. That’s what they say. I really don’t understand the argument.”

Soon

Willie Soon. (Screenshot from Vimeo video.)

In the lecture, he then goes on to say that “the Sun is a primary driver of climate change and requires to be studied.”

If documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act by the environmental group Greenpeace are accurate, Soon has been on the payroll of large corporate donors who have a lot to gain by blocking measures to reduce humankind’s emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases implicated in global warming.

Greenpeace and a second group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared those documents with news organizations last week, including the New York Times and The Guardian.

After reviewing the documents, here’s what the Guardian is reporting today:

A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.

The New York Times notes that Soon accepted this money:

. . . while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

And then there is this from the Times:

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.

He made that same claim in his lecture in Minnesota.

“I kind of tend to find that quite a lot of the people who call themselves scientists, they really are not independent,” Soon said. But he is, “which means no amount of money can influence what I say or do or research or write. So on and so forth. It has nothing to do with money. It’s about a quest for the truth, nothing but the truth.”

If those news reports citing the documents acquired under the Freedom of Information Act are accurate, then I don’t see how you can reach any conclusion other than Soon has been lying.

For the record, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has assessed both natural and human-caused drivers of climate change, including the Sun. In the argot of climate science, these contributions are measured in terms of “radiative forcing,” or RF. A positive radiative forcing leads to surface warming, whereas a negative RF has the opposite effect.

What has the IPCC found? Between the dawn of the industrial era in 1750 and 2011, the major greenhouse gases we’ve added to the atmosphere during that period have increased radiative forcing by 3.00 watts per meter squared (with a range of uncertainty of 2.22 – 3.78). By comparison, changes in the amount of energy reaching us from the Sun have caused an increase in radiative forcing of just 0.05 watts per meter squared (with uncertainty ranging from 0.00 to 0.10). That’s a tiny fraction of the influence coming from greenhouse gases.

The IPCC also points out that between 1986 and 2008, the radiative forcing from the Sun actually declined — even as large amounts of heat continued to buildup up in the Earth’s climate system. (To read the report, go here. Warning: It’s a big file.)

If you’re inclined to hear Willie Soon’s claims to the contrary, you can watch his 2013 lecture in the video above. Just keep in mind that it appears to have been bought and paid for by the energy industry.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Das Dabu

    Of course, you feel the same way about “consensus” scientists, that take money from “the energy industry”

    • KRS

      Like who?

    • JWrenn

      Yes yes I do…of course since none have been shown to do so without disclosing it, and none have been shown to call their products “deliverables”, we don’t really have anyone to bitch at.

      Anyone falsifying data should be thrown out of the industry. Doesn’t mean their idea is wrong just means they should be tossed out of science all together. Then we should ignore what they are saying if it is refuted.

      • Marco

        “deliverables” is a common term, also used by e.g. the EU in its funding scheme (the Framework Programme). There is nothing wrong with the term as such and its use by Soon. I wish that part would not be stressed so much, because it is by far the easiest to show overblown. The non-disclosure of his funders…now *that* is a problem.

        • JWrenn

          Don’t mean to be rude but do you have any links that agree with that? Just kind of how this stuff goes, no reference, no likey!

      • cirby

        AGW researchers will get “honest” grants from “green” organizations – which got that money from people like Tom Steyer (a billionaire who makes huge piles of money from government-funded “green” projects). So you’ll see the Precourt Institute for Energy (Stanford) funding research – but not know that it was founded and funded by a handful of “green” billionaires.

  • bookish1

    You left out the part about the IPCC falsifying data.
    http://tinyurl.com/yk3uvgn

    • JWrenn

      It was a well known issue that came out but I thought it turned out that most of it was from a small group and that the section of data that was tainted has since been carved out. I could be wrong and if I am I would like to know what happened because well…this was 6 years ago.

      I have no doubt that on every side of every argument there is always at least one person willing to lie to win. I totally agree that if there is lying going on it should be rooted out on all side. I don’t know how bad it was with these emails, but I don’t believe it was as bad as that article seemed to make it out. Will have to do some digging and see what really did happen.

      It is pretty separate from this guy though. Just a sign that there are bad people on every side. Hope they all get kicked in their faces.

      • Marco

        You are wrong indeed. There was no evidence any data was tainted, and thus no data has been carved out.

    • JWrenn

      Interesting read on what really went down with climate gate. If you ask me it is all in the slant that we all put on things we read and what the media rights to fit in to their cognitive dissonance.
      http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2011/04/history-of-climategate

    • JWrenn
      • ScaredAmoeba

        Strange as it may seem to you but a newspaper is not science. Your article is utter BS.

        Plus all the scientists concerned were completely exonerated after multiple independent investigations.

        The science continues to roll-in and it hasn’t changed much in over two centuries, except we have more data and better tools to analyse it. There is effectively no debate about the climate, it’s mostly CO2, almost entirely as a result of human activity – fossil-fuels and land-use. It’s little wonder that the fossil-fuel companies and heavy energy users want to delay carbon controls and to dig-up and burn as much of their reserves as possible. So they learned from Big Tobacco, how to delay anti-smoking legislation, but turned it towards delaying efforts to combat climate change. So they bought some scientists and Politicians used them to bamboozle the Public.

        As for Willie Soon, this isn’t news, just confirmation of what has been suspected for a long time. There’s loads about Willie Soon. See the Exxon Report.
        See: Table 2 Scientific Spokespeople Affiliated with ExxonMobil-Funded Groups

        http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

        If you want to learn more about the background to this, read the John Mashey files.
        http://www.desmogblog.com/science-article-recognizes-john-mashey

        • JWrenn

          Uhm, my article was utter bs? Was that meant to go to bookish? My articles said they didn’t do anything and that it was all just media hype.

        • Daniel Martinovich

          A crock of crap by someone that either wants to give almost unlimited power to government to control everything we do or from one who wants to be part of the government controlling everything others do.

          • Mike Richardson

            Or maybe someone that actually understands science, and would like to leave a better world for our children? Not everything is a big conspiracy by the “gubmint.” Try reading the magazine that hosts these blogs, and you’ll get a better understanding of where the science on this issue stands. Hint: It’s not with the fossil fuel propagandists.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Dude when I first got the internet back in the mid 90’s and articles and info began to flood it on Global Warming I would (violate copyright) and save them and email them to hundreds of people. I have been in this fight from the beginning. I have read hundreds of articles and their corresponding studies. It is a con simple as that run by scum who want a percentage of every business transaction made through a government mandated carbon trading scheme and those who are despots at heart and want to control everything we do. If carbon is by law declared a pollutant then they can regulate everything we do based on that. Maybe you don’t have a problem with that but history screams from the rooftops “DON’T GO DOWN THAT ROAD!”
            So don’t think you’ll be able to school me on “science” that changes daily and the pseudo science of climate change that was hatched by the same “demons’ that created the Darwinian racist scientism and its offshoot didactic materialism of the last century through which they almost destroyed civilization. They were every bit as sure of the validity of their “science” as people like you are of yours.

          • dxing

            Dude, Science is real, Climate change is real, we just had the hottest year, 2014, which century are you living in?

          • Daniel Martinovich

            No we didn’t as also says the satellite data. And more importantly; our last 100 years of keeping records of temps doesn’t give us an accurate picture of the temp variations of the last few thousand years. The last hundred years do not shows us the detrimental or beneficial effects of the natural warming and cooling periods in the millennia’s past . Nor do computer models account for natural warming or cooling that will continue to happen. This is all about control by a demonic and deluded radical minority of people over others. Sad to see your falling for it. That though is the history of mankind and despotism.

          • nik

            Climate change is a fact, the earth’s climate is constantly changing.
            The argument is the alleged causes.

          • 9.8m/ss

            “I have been in this fight from the beginning.”
            You must be pretty old, then. Scientists have been warning us about the CO2 problem since 1897.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Oh brother.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Look up Svante Arrhenius and stop making useless noises here.

          • odin2

            The guy who was debunked by Wood in 1910?

          • Mark Schaffer

            Please proceed. Link to the primary literature and show it all in context. You are grasping at straws here.

            Meanwhile:
            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

          • Mark Schaffer

            You are a late arrival to this discussion if you only got to it in the 1990’s.

            See here to catch up:
            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

          • Daniel Martinovich

            So I just went over the effects of the sun real quickly to start. To my dismay it focuses strictly on sunspot activity and the theories surrounding it. Basically dismissing any correlation between the sun and climate change as quackery. When I went there though I thought it would address the fact that the earth isn’t always the same distance from the sun, ie not constant. Nor is the tilt of the earths axis always the same, ie constant. Nor could it possibly address a hundred other factors, changes, that could exacerbate these non constants during a time period.
            This is such an obvious slight of hand and what I mean when I say con job. it portends to address the effects of the variables of solar activity yet only addresses conjecture about sun spots and walla! As if by sorcery, THE SUN HAS NO EFFECT ON CLIMATE CHANGE! BS!!! If we need scientists to tell us that the sun has no effect on climate change then we do not need scientists at all! It would mean that as a profession, they are to stupid to come to any obvious conclusions.

            Lets get back down to earth and look some recent politics in all of this.
            President Obama recently announced that via a new EPA regulation on the oil and gas industry (about regulation 4,876,234,353 on that industry alone.) That the amount of methane, (natural gas) allowed to escape when drilling will have to be cut in half. The reason for that regulation is because methane gas contributes to climate change, according to the President. So we have another cost added to our price at the pump. (And don’t say it doesn’t add to the cost, you don’t know how much it adds to the cost of the production of oil and gas.)
            My question to you is this. Did any scientist go out and come up with an estimate of how much methane is released into the atmosphere on a yearly basis naturally. Meaning naturally realesed through the earths crust, produced and released through the oceans, or the break down of billions of tons of oragnics every year and of course animals.
            My bet, as a non scientist is that what is released through drilling isn’t even measurable in comparison to what is produced and released naturally.
            Yet, the democrats continue burdening the American people and business with higher costs upon higher costs upon higher costs as a flipping religion!
            And no, it is not just doing what’s right, it is wrong, an injustice based on the feelings of religious nut job environmentalists.
            There is a cost to having a clean environment and a modern industrial world. When you destroy the wealth due to your religious beliefs that it takes to have both industry, cities and an clean environment…then you are just a destroyer, nothing else. A pawn of Satan, that simple.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Great tin foil hat rant there. I give it an eight of ten on the crank scale. It was particularly good to have no credible sources at all.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Oh and I looked this guy up. Svante Arrhenius. So what? This isn’t a scientific debate. It is a politicalreligious one between free peoples who want to remain free and those who want to use scientism as a means to rule over them. If you want to tell me the war between free peoples and those who want to use scientism to rule over free peoples goes way back, I’ll agree. Idoit Democrats embraced Darwinian racist scientism and even worse Dialectic Materialism. Hundreds of millions died and American Democrats were whole heartedly behind the scientism that was used by these would be world conquerors. Global Warming is only the latest con to come down the road (as a political tool along these lines.) Since everything humans do, their very existence produces co2….then if by law it can be declared a pollutant, then everything we do can be regulated from above. (For our own good of course.)
            Sorry, truly free people who are worthy of that freedom are capable of making decisions about what is best for them and the planet on their own. They are also prepared to fight to maintain that right. Not a threat but a fact.

          • worldwide_webster

            Oh, wow. Take your medication, dude.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Well…so far you have been free to post some epic rants.
            The ACA now includes the ability to get mental health care and this would help you tremendously.

          • dxing

            The government that will have to cleanup the mess, as climate destruction causing massive negative environmental effects. The west coast drought is now in it’s 4th year, it was too hot in Feb for snow to stick around in the Sierra snowpack!

          • Daniel Martinovich

            That the meteorologist who study the west coast draught say the same thing common sense says. It is natural and there is nothing mankind can do one way or the other means nothing to people like you who are hell bent on destroying freedom and putting depots in control of the free nations. California could try turning away from its wickedness.

        • dxing

          Science says Vaccines saves lives, Science says Earth is billions of years old, round and revolves around the sun. Science says Global warming is Real!

    • http://www.hunhuhealthcare.com/ Michael Emerson

      The Booker piece is down right fraudulent. Corrections to data to correct for equipment and changing environment are made all of the time. The reason that Paraguay is chosen is that it is the one country in the world where the corrections go up. Many other corrections go down. Berkely did a nice analysis and said that in total that corrections reduce warming by 20%. You’ll have to do better than that.

      • Daniel Martinovich

        Except the “corrections” to the data, all 30 or so of them have the temp always going up. Something that is statistically impossible but politically possible. Ie if there is an agenda behind it.

        • Conrad Dunkerson

          Sorry, but that’s just more nonsense. Booker picked out adjustments which increased the warming trend. If you look at ALL of the adjustments the overall effect has actually been to DECREASE the warming trend.

          In short, Booker lied. Yes, all of the adjustments he cited increased the warming trend… because he specifically excluded all of the data to the contrary. It was indeed statistically impossible and there was indeed an agenda behind it… Booker’s.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            I’m sorry, was I referring to Booker or was I referring to the adjustments that have been reported for the last couple of decades? Bookers stuff is just now getting into the hash it out phase. Because you claim he lied means nothing at this point and nothing about what has been going on the last couple of decades with this grand conspiracy by those who think the key to saving the planet is the reversal of economic growth. The facts are the computer models a pseudo science. Any warming that has occurred in the last century fits well within the natural historical earth cycles of warming and cooling. This is a political religious debate not a scientific one between those who seek to rule the nations (for the good of the people of course) and those who believe in freedom and the things necessary to have freedom.

    • http://www.southparkstudios.com/news Abdullah Oblongata

      You left out the part about you being a chicken. If you know they falsified data, sue them, take ’em to court, Call Sam Bernstien.

    • Mark Schaffer

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-telegraph/

      Noise on the Telegraph

      Filed under:

      Climate Science

      Communicating Climate

      In the News

      Instrumental Record — rasmus @ 11 February 2015

      Tweet

      I was surprised by the shrill headlines from a British newspaper with the old fashioned name the Telegraph: “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever”. So what is this all about?

      The story makes serious allegations, however Victor Venema explains why the Telegraph got it wrong in Variable Variability, and makes the point that three hand-picked stations from Paraguay – out of thousands – hardly matters. He also shows the effect of post-processing on the global mean temperature: it reduces the global trend compared to raw data.

      The story also sparked some discussion between colleagues at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, where I work, as several of us know the scientist cited in the paper quite well. It would be completely out of character that he’d endorse the views expressed in the article, and this is also what he conveyed to us.

      The records show that the recent high temperatures on Iceland are unprecedented, contrary to the main message from the Telegraph. And the evidence is not just in the temperature, but in a wide range of observations.

      I like to look at the numbers myself, especially since the journalist responsible for the Telegraphstory, Christopher Booker, bases some of his allegations on climate records with which I have some experience. Booker dismisses the data records and claims that

      weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.

      It is implied that such adjustments have been made to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) data as well as the data from the National Climate Data Center (NCDC).

      The purports about systematic one-way adjustments can easily be tested by comparing the trends in the GISS data with the independent North Atlantic Climate Data (NACD) or a more recent temperature analysis for Svalbard by Nordli et al. (2014).

      It is straightforward to test Booker’s claim with open-source methods and data (see R-srcipt), and when we compare the independent Svalbard temperature from Nordli et al (2014) with GISS, we see that the GISS data has a smaller annual mean trend than the independent Norwegian data set for the same years (Figure 1).

      Comparison between Nordli et al. (2014) and the GISS annual mean temperature for Svalbard.

      But is Svalbard representative for the this part of the Arctic? We can repeat the exercise for the most important temperature records from this region, and it is clear that there is no one-way adjustment, as purported in the Telegraph (Figure 2). In other words, our inspection of the actual data shows that Booker’s claim is false.

      Comparison of the trend in annual mean temperature between NACD and GISS data for a number of locations in the North Atlantic and the Barents region. The size of the blue symbols indicates the length of the temperature record.

      Another question is why there are differences between the different data sets. The GISS data are mostly taken from raw world weather records that have not been subject to the same quality control and homogenisation as the NACD or the Svalbard temperature of Nordli et al (2014).

      Homogenisation is needed to remove effects from non-climatic artifacts, such as a change in the formula over time for estimating monthly mean values. Other conditions may include relocation of the thermometer, urban encroachment, or replacement of the instruments. GISS uses the GHCN adjustments, rather than doing it itself, but the way the GHCN corrects for artifacts may be different to the local met services.

      Booker also accuses GISS and NCDC of using

      “the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken”.

      A bizzare claim, and one may wonder why it seems so natural for Booker to make assosiations with misconduct. George Monbiot, on the other hand, has referred to him as a charlatan bent on spreading misinformation. In any case, a person who writes such a misleading story shows little respect for his readers.”

      • dxing

        Iceland temperatures are at records, the earth is literally rising there from the melting glaciers, bringing increase risks of Volcanic eruptions

        • Mark Schaffer

          You just can’t fix the denier stupidity.

    • 9.8m/ss

      The UK Telegraph is a supermarket tabloid, not a science journal, and Booker and Delingpole are liars. Nobody “falsified” any data. It’s standard practice across the physical sciences to adjust raw instrument readings for known errors in the instruments. That’s not “falsification,” it’s best practice.

    • Bill

      The IPCC didn’t falsify data as much as it didn’t include all the data so you understood what they were saying. It is called Fraud by Omission.
      They didn’t talk about the cooling effect of the GHGs in the atmosphere blocking out solar heat coming into the atmosphere for example.
      It is the NET effect, not the isolated effect of GHGs in the air that must be gauged, to determine the effect of GHGs.
      The GHGs trap 56.4 watts per meter square [wpms] in the atmosphere, but that occurs after the GHGs have blocked out sun heat which NASA measures at 345 wpms.
      The NET effect of GHG in the atmosphere is that they reduce the solar energy, thus cool the earth, by more than 280 wpms! This FACT is never mentioned by the IPCC, nor by the Warmers.
      They also don’t mention scientific experiments done in labs all across the earth in which scientists recreate the earth and its atmosphere and subject it to radiant heat.

      When CO2 is added to the model, the amount of heat energy reaching the target globe of the earth shrinks, as the CO2 absorbs the heat photon and emits it back out.
      When more CO2 was added to the simulated atmosphere less, not more heat reached the earth.
      More molecules of CO2 were able to absorb more photons of heat and thus block out more heat cooling the target globe of the earth.
      This finding is in accordance with the Law of Conservation of Energy. The heat received by the target globe was reduce exactly by the amount of heat energy absorbed by the CO2 gas and emitted away from the target globe of the earth.
      They did Lie directly however, and so they were sued in court. They claimed that several scientist that had opposed their report’s findings supported it. The IPCC refused to remove their names frm the report and so they sued to force the IPCC to remove their names as suporters of the report, which the IPCC finally did to avoid the suit.
      The IPCC claimed that since these opposing scientists took part in the process of making the report they cold be cited as supporters of the report itself.
      Likewise the 97% of scientist who support man made global warming is a Lie as well. Opposing scientists who were named directly in the fraudulent 97% claim used the Freedom of Information Act to force the claimants to reveal their methodology n court.
      In court they stated that they included ‘any’ scientist who had written a paper that said that humans had some kind of impact upon climate.
      Likewise Michael Mann, the creator of the “Hockey stick”, was forced by a Court enforcing the Freedom of Information Act to give his data over for examination.
      Mr. Mann did not include the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period in his data leading up to the Industrial Revolution in order to have a flat temperature line before the 1850s!
      Each time these Warmers have been sued in court they had to admit they LIED!
      NO scientific experiment ahs verified the claims made by Man Made Global Warming people nor by the IPCC, that adding CO2 t the atmosphere will warm the earth. Experiments have shown the opposite, the CO2 insulates the earth more effectively from the sun when CO2 gas is added tot he air.

  • MichaelEN

    That must be one scary paper Dr Soon published, has it been peer reviewed yet?

    • John Samuel

      It only appears in a Chinese vanity journal. Heartland paid for its publication.

  • Mike Richardson

    NO! Say it isn’t so! A “skeptic” scientist on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. I never would have guessed it. Surely it’s just a conspiracy from all those “warmists.” (Very heavy dose of sarcasm)

    • zlop

      Research grants come from various sources.
      Hence, support for the Rothschild, Gare and Blood Carbon Tax.

      • John Samuel

        No evidence?

        • zlop

             Perverting perception — Numerous similar;
          “Grants & Grantees Featured Grantee
          The United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC)
          is highlighting projects that are building momentum towards climate change
          resilient and low-carbon programs in its Momentum for Change initiative.”

             The framework of controlling by corruption, is part of the 500 year old New World Order. Those who go along are well rewarded, others ignored, attacked, often destroyed.

          “Abel Danger 9-11-2014 $92 Trillion Dollar Carbon Disclosure Project Gambling
          on Contrived Disaster” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7QlmtOMNGM

      • midpath

        Usually the sources are acting with intelligence, and so will select proposals in line with reasonable science, as opposed to rubbish…

        • zlop

          “Usually the sources are acting with intelligence”
          Mind is in the crucible of survival. Climate science has to support CO2 warming .

        • 9.8m/ss

          Willie Soon’s sponsors (the coal and oil industries) stand to lose tens of $trillions when assets they’ve already booked are stranded by responsible public policy re waste CO2. Every month they can delay the inevitable is worth $billions. That’s why they’re spending most of a $billion/year on their misinformation campaign, which fools people like “zlop” here.

          • midpath

            No surprise that they are fighting, but their entire industry was founded on science, and then they reject science as soon as it goes against them. I wonder how many of the online nutters are being paid. I suppose the oil industry could still make plastics and petrochemicals, which is a better use for a substance that required say 50 million years to form. Another option could be to “burn” oil by stripping off the hydrogen atoms only, and leaving pure carbon behind to return underground. Would only get a fraction of the energy but better than making GHG’s.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I doubt many of these “online nutters” are being paid. I’ve seen the Hoover Institution’s PR men in action online. They were geniuses. The vast majority of “nutters” hooting and jeering in these fora are barely literate, and seem to be reciting slogans they heard on right wing talk radio. Besides, the fossil fuel industry’s PR men get weekly op-ed column space in Wall Street Journal and Forbes, and all the time they want on Fox, and the talk radio “hosts” read their press releases as if they were news. They reach an audience in the tens of millions that way, with no opponents able to reply. Why would they fool around in comment strings that a few hundred read, where they can be shown wrong by people who understand the science?

          • sadoul1

            Yay! Another institution to add to my conspiracies folder!

          • 9.8m/ss

            Save yourself some time. Take a look at the “recipients” pie chart in Robert Brulle’s 2014 paper in Climatic Change, “Institutionalizing Delay.” Some of them have been in it since the days when Big Tobacco was smearing the epidemiologists: American Enterprise, Hoover, Heritiage, Marshall. Others got into it later, but they’re leading the smear campaign against the climate scientists: Heartland, Competitive Enterprise, Cato. They call themselves “think tanks” but “public relations and lobbying firms” is more accurate.

          • Bill

            What “science” do you claim to understand?

          • Bill

            What do you have against GHGs?

            If you fear warming than you want to put GHGs into the atmosphere. GHGs absorb the heat energy the sun sends into our world. Putting more GHG into the air will block out more sun heat from reaching the earth’s surface, cooling the earth.

          • midpath

            Thanks, but sorry that’s wrong, and the concerns are very valid. http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

          • Bill

            Hi Midpath,

            “Thanks, but sorry that’s wrong, and the concerns are very valid. http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-d…”
            What are you referring too by this comment?
            What is wrong and, what concerns are very valid?
            Oh by the by, the site you sent me to, was slightly fraudulent. The depiction of the CO2 atom absorbing a photon and then emitting it acceding to the Law of Conservation of Momentum is false. Quantum interactions DO NOT OBEY that Law. Some photons will go in a direction similar to the original path but most won’t. Some photons will even go right back the way they came.
            But it does state that GHGs in the air absorb incoming and outgoing heat. OS the question is, is there more heat coming into the air or going out.
            The GHGs are just as absorbent of heart leaving as they are entering. 23% of heat energy entering and leaving is captured by the atmosphere. But since the sun is much hotter than the earth, the heat trapped out is much greater than the earth heat trapped in. Only 5% of the solar energy making it to the surface gets trapped as infrared energy by the greenhouse effect. Or in other words, about 345 watts per meter squared is blocked out vs. about 56.4 watts per meter squared trapped in. Thus, the cooling effect of the GHGs is 285 watts or so greater than the warming of the greenhouse effect.
            Thus the NET effect of GHGs in the air is a positive cooling effect, not a warming effect.

            For a warming effect to be greater than the cooling effect the earth would have to give off more heat than the sun sent in, and that is impossible.

          • midpath
          • Bill

            Hi Midpath,
            I asked a simple question, why won’t YOU answer it?
            If I said something wrong, what did I say that you disagree with?

          • Bill

            Well I’ went to your web cite.
            FIRST LIE:
            Climate Change is Man Made- Greenhouse Gas warming are the SAME THING!
            That is the Biggest lie Warmers tell. Climate change has been happening since the world existed, EVRY CLIMETOLOGIST WILL TELL YOU THAT. Whereas the Industrial Revolution began in the mid 19th century. Thus all historic climate change can’t have anything to do with the Industrial Revolution.
            SECOND lie, the Industrial Revolution is the cause of warming since the 1850s.
            There was no real industry in the world in the 19th century. A few cities had an industrial society, but most of American and Europe was still rural farmland until the mid 20th century.
            You are young Midpath and so you don’t know much about American history, but ask anyone older than 60-70 what their city was like when they were young. They will tell you it was all rural. Even big cities like Los Angeles, were mostly pastureland. The America you know didn’t happen until after World War II. Before that only the rich owned cars, and people lived in apartment buildings cause few could afford a home.
            It is not until the arrival of the automobile society that human kind start to really put CO2 into the environment. Which means, it is impossible for the atmosphere to reach a saturation point until after the 1970s, thus human kind could not possible be responsible for the warming after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1853 to the 1970s.
            As usual with these frauds, it did not talk about all the heat that is blocked out by the atmosphere. They talk about heat beig trapped in but not being trapped out. Interesting, NOT ONE TEXT BOOK says that this is possible. AND they NEVER cite a source for anything they say. NO Experimentation to prove that the atmosphere only stops heat from leaving, and not from entering.
            I’m going to give you one more chance to prove your are not a Moron.
            NASA, not me, NASA says, the atmosphere blocks out 23% of the sun’s energy cooling the earth.
            NASA, not me, says that the moon’s daytime temperature is 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
            WHAT, or WHO says NASA is lying?
            Name the source that you are relying on to say that NASA is lying? The GHG trapping in only 5% while they block out 23%, that is what NASA says. Who says otherwise?
            What scientific satellite measuremnts by whom disagrees with NASA’s measurments.
            I don’t care about anyone opinion, only the measurable facts. NASA measure more heat being kept out by GHGs than being kept in. THAT is the FACT determined by scientific instruments.
            GHGs cool the earth, they don’t warm it.
            Also, tell me who told you that the earth gets hot on overcast days when there are lots of clouds in the sky?
            It gets cooler where I live, but it gets hot where you live! Tell me what text book says that that is true. That the insulating effect of clouds warms the earth on sunny days?
            Finally 97% of Climate Scientist say mankind is causing global warming eh?
            Who said that? Tell me who did a poll of Climatologists. Where can I read this poll? I’ve never heard of it. The only poll I’ve read about was done by the BBC in London. They report that they polled over 700 climatologists from around the world and none of them said humans were causing global warming.
            For Example, it is said that if we double the CO2 content of the air it will warm the earth.
            What institution, or scientist did a lab experiment wherein he created a real model of the earth and its atmosphere shined light on it, and by increasing the CO2 content of the air saw an increase in surface heat of the model?
            In experiments I’ve done that didn’t happen.
            I shined a heat lamp through 6 fish tanks lined up end to end. # were filled with CO2, and three fish tanks with plain air in them. A glove and thermometer were set up at the other end of the line of fish tanks. CO2 at a globe of the earth at the far end of the fish tanks.
            Before I set up the experiment, I shined the heat lamp at the globe and took a temperature reading to get a base line number to compare to the experimental temperature.
            Then I shined the heat lamp through the fish tanks.
            The thermometers measured a drop in temperature, not a rise. AND when I increased the CO2 in the tanks by a factor of 2 by filling the other 3 fish tanks with CO2, the temperature dropped even more. WHY?
            As the heat entered the tanks the CO2 absorb the infrared photon, and then emitted it out of the fish tank sending most of the heat out into the room and away from the globe and thermometer at the far end. The more CO2 there was, the more molecules of CO2 there were to absorb heat from the heat lamp and so, the greater number of CO2 molecules sent even more heat away from the globe.
            This experiment has been done a hundreds of universities and institutions like mine proving that the Law of Conservation of Energy is still running the universe.
            The amount of heat energy reaching the globe was lessened by the exact amount of heat the CO2 absorbs and sent out into the room the experiment was taking place in.
            Just as the Law of Conservation of Energy said there should be.
            So what experiment showed that the Law of Conservation of Energy doesn’t work?

          • Bill

            What misinformation campaign? Did I miss something?

    • sadoul1

      nah man … chem trails … 😛

      • Mike Richardson

        Please don’t get them started on the chem trails…

    • Bill

      Mike you know the whole Man Made CO2 Global Warming Effect was started by the Nuclear Power industry in the 1970’s to sell Nuclear Power as being more ecologically friendly than Coal and oil.

  • Come on think!

    Come on, make an atmospheric impenitrable box and fill it with the current atmosphere. Add IR and see what happens. Then increase CO2 bu 10% give it the same Ir treatment and see what happens.
    Too simple, end the debate.

    • zlop

      Clear sky, Infrared Optical depth of the atmosphere is, long term, stable. More CO2 did not increase the greenhouse effect.

      • midpath

        not so look at Venus, 96% CO2 temp 850F…

        • John

          People need to stop using venus as an example.
          If you understood even a little bit about venus you would know that it atmosphere is incredibly dense, making it incredibly hot. Not sayin Co2 isnt driving our warming, just that venus is a piss poor example and an ultimately facile arguement.

          • zlop

            “Not sayin Co2 isnt driving our warming”
            How can CO2 warm, when greenhouse gases lower clouds?

          • John

            Honestly, that argument is unnecessary in this case. I didnt say co2 was driving warming, what i said was meant to mean that i can’t, won’t say that it isn’t.
            I agree that based on what I’ve been able to learn about it, is that there is good reason to suspect the science of climate change of being largely incomplete.
            Also that alot of the data they rely on is questionable at best, and that most of the science in this case is based around arbitrary numbers applied to little understood complex systems.
            The most important point to make here though, is that at this point they may be right, or not right and frankly i dont care. I choose to live a sustainable lifestyle because it actually makes sense for a huge host of other reasons, without the need for “climate change”.

          • zlop

            ” I choose to live a sustainable lifestyle”
            Choice is to be terminated by Agenda 21. Produce and consume, to be
            allowed to continue, otherwise, expect to be Georgia Guide Stoned, sooner.

          • Mike Richardson

            Somebody’s stoned, that’s for sure.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            “Also that alot of the data they rely on is questionable at best, and that most of the science in this case is based around arbitrary numbers applied to little understood complex systems.”
            As in not even including the effects or shall I say the effects of the variations in solar radiation in their computer models? Or that now scientists admit they don’t even know what causes hurricanes since they predicted more and in greater intensity in the years following Katrina and got exactly 0!!!!!! for two years! I know what caused us to get zero the year following Katrina. I prayed for it and God answered my prayer. (The God who answers prayers asked in Jesus name by the way in case your wondering.) Why did I pray? Because of the destruction to life and property by hurricanes like Katrina? Not on your life. I prayed because all of the destruction to life and property and freedom the little despots of the western world would reek on civilization if they got their way on their global warming con job.

          • midpath

            well co2 is about a third heavier than N2 so it has to be much more dense, that is what has to happen with a co2 rich atmosphere. The deniers here do not accept any evidence without declaring it to be faulty in some way, comparing to Venus gives a planet scale comparison, an example that cannot be ignored. What would temperature on Venus be is it had no atmosphere, from solar constant it would be low.

          • John

            No, Venus is a bad example of global warming. You can use whatever bits and pieces of data from venus you want. The fact is, venus is not earth, its atmosphere is not only denser but it is also way more massive. With an abundance of other known variables , and likely alot of unknowns. In any case the heating affect in both bodys is quite different in nature. One being the earth where the heat is reflected back to the surface by a few ppm and causing (and this is the newest best guess on where all the expected heat is going) the deep ocean to heat up, rather then the atmosphere or surface (first assumption shown to be wrong, followed by the second). Where as venus is something more of a black body as opposed to a green house.
            Hell, all you need to do is wiki the venus atmosphere and you will see right away that there is no meaningful comparison.

          • midpath

            Sorry, I can only agree with you a little. Venus conditions are different but when you calculate both planets with radiative forcing equations, then one obtains the observed temperatures, which shows that the greenhouse effect is what sets the temperature on each planet. The difference in mass and thickness of each is included in the calculation. Both heat the same in that the sunlight passes through to the ground, since the atmosphere of Venus and earth does not absorb visible frequencies, then the planet radiates infrared back towards space, which is captured and blocked by the CO2. The ocean is warming so that assumption is not wrong, the other significant factor on earth is that volcanic aerosol particles and maybe even air pollution aerosols are reflecting light back out to space and helping cool. If civilization collapsed and the air became cleaner, then there could be some additional warming.

        • zlop

          Near the surface, Thermodynamics interacts with and dominates radiation. Even
          Carl Sagan used Thermodynamics to calculate the surface temperature of Venus.

          More accurate is “physical nature of the so-called GH effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE), which is independent of the atmospheric chemical composition” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/29/unified-theory-of-climate/

          • Alexander Coulter

            PTE, so basically the assertion that gravity causes warming. Tell me, have you ever bothered to simulate this to even see if it is correct?

          • John

            You’re kidding right? The assertion is that it is well known and proven that pressure, whether its gravitational or mechanical, increases energy density giving a rise in temperature.

          • zlop

            Interesting is Second Law Violation in the atmosphere,
            the future of green ( but bad for the plants ) possible power generation.

            Xseed 4000, super-sized to Xseed 10000, to reach the Tropopause
            and run a lapse difference exploitation, power generator?

          • zlop

            “Tell me, have you ever bothered to simulate this to even see if it is correct?”

            Net warming, of the atmosphere, is from above the troposphere,
            where there is more energy/molecule. Kinetic + Potential (7/2)kT + mgh
            Add energy anywhere, along the path of a molecule, temperature will be increased.
            ( Arrhenius, net bottom warming, is incorrect )

  • http://www.hunhuhealthcare.com/ Michael Emerson

    This pretty much leaves Judith Curry as the only climate scientist side with legitimate credentials. And her position is pretty luke warm middle of the road.

  • ScaredAmoeba

    Paste http://tinyurl.com/o3sjxxc into into your browser to see what Willie Soon has been up-to. Note it’s not just Soon!
    Soon is an astrophysicist, he should stick to that. What does Soon know about Polar Bears?
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Willie_Soon_arg.htm

    • 9.8m/ss

      Soon doesn’t actually have a degree in astrophysics. He works at a place with astrophysics in its name, and lets people guess that he’s an astrophysicist. He’s got a PhD in aeronautical engineering.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Actually, Soon is not even an astrophysicist. He is an aerospace engineer.

  • Jack Wolf

    Meanwhile the discussion has moved on to what to do about climate change. Considering the importance of climate in the functioning of earth systems, scientists here will be interested in these two reports from our National Academy of Science that deal with intervening in the climate system to abate fossil fuel driven climate change. As you know, the Arctic is melting, permafrost is thawing, extreme weather is becoming the norm, mega droughts are now common across the world, and clathrates are melting. These feedbacks are amplifying climate change. Sea levels are rising as well and inundating our coastal wetlands. Since the world continues to pump out greenhouse gases at increasing scales year after year, the National Academy of Sciences has put together these two reports discussing methods of intervention. Below is their press conference:

    https://vimeo.com/120094498

    • nik

      The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, not CO2!
      More sun – more water vapour = more energy in the atmosphere, and increased weather phenomena.
      If you start with a falsehood, ie CO2 is a greenhouse gas, then any results calculated from it must be false, however spectacular they may seem.

      • Jack Wolf

        Gee, you should immediately telephone NASA with that information. Seems that for all their brilliance and their studies over many decades, you, Nik, thinks they are wrong. Here is their phone number:

        1 (202) 358-0001

        • nik

          NASA is funded by government,
          He who pays the piper, calls the tune!
          How do you explain the Mars anomaly?

          • sadoul1

            Which one? The Face? The Cydonia ‘Complex’? The Plume? The Potato-rock Rat? Baron Munchhausen?

          • nik

            No, the fact that as Mars has an atmosphere of 95% CO2, then it should have a greenhouse atmosphere.
            if CO2 was a significant greenhouse gas, [which it isn’t.], why isn’t it roasting hot, instead of being colder than Antarctic. Guess? [It has no water in its atmosphere.]

          • 9.8m/ss

            Mars’ “atmosphere” is practically a vacuum. It doesn’t behave anything like Earth’s. Among other things, there’s no water vapor to amplify CO2’s heat trapping effect.

          • nik

            Water cannot ‘amplify’ anything. Water is the main greenhouse gas on earth.
            CO2 is NOT a significant greenhouse gas, anywhere. especially on earth, where it comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere, a totally insignificant amount.
            CO2 has been a far greater component in the atmosphere in the past, and everything on earth thrived, more plant growth, more for animals to feed on.
            The ‘CO2 causes global warming religion’, is a scam, and nothing more.
            The laws of physics are the same on Mars as on Earth, if CO2 is not a greenhouse gas on Mars, then it cannot be a greenhouse gas on earth either.

          • sadoul1

            like 9.8 said, church!

            CO2 can’t do its greenhouse thing if it has no molecules to hold on to in the first place

            Earth’s atmosphere is a totally different story from Mars, like comparing apples to potatoes

            i mean, sure you can make salad with both, but you would only really want to drink juice from one of the two, right?

            also, there is that whole inert magnetic field business

            hard to hold on to an atmosphere without even so much as scotch tape!

            trust me, Slartibartfast and I have tried it for centuries!

          • nik

            LoopY

          • Some Guy Somewhere

            I really like potato juice… properly fermented, of course.

            I wouldn’t recommend arguing with willfully ignorant people. If the poster is going to make up their own facts to push their own pet theories while disregarding obvious, gaping issues with said pet theory, they are not interested in truth; they just want attention. It’s best not to feed trolls.

          • Roberto Nazario

            The difference is that water can cycle through the hydrosphere, and has a lifetime of about a week in the atmosphere. There isn’t an analogous mechanism for CO2. It lasts thousands of years in the atmosphere, without enough plants to absorb it.

          • nik

            Water vapour is a continuous cycle, it never reduces to zero, while there is liquid water, and can even evaporate from ice directly to vapour.
            It is not only plants that remove CO2, it is also absorbed by water, amongst other things.

          • Roberto Nazario

            That’s not even relevant. A water molecule in the air will cause warming, a water molecule in liquid or solid water will not, so what is important is how long water remains in its gaseous state in the atmosphere, whether or not other sources of condensation and vaporization exist.

            Plants do remove CO2, but the biosphere is only equipped to remove as much CO2 as it did back when it was still in equilibrium. We are emitting too much CO2, and too fast, to allow the biosphere to adjust to be able to offset the extra CO2.

            And yes, the ocean absorbs a lot of carbon dioxide, which is one of the main reasons why the warming hasn’t been as bad as predicted. The problem is that carbon dioxide in water forms carbonic acid, which is detrimental to sea life which relies of carbonic shells, especially coral reefs.

          • Bill

            Oh Nik I’m sorry I misunderstood your post above. Well now you have the math to show there is no Greenhosue effect on Venus.

            Oh its Venus that has the 95% CO2 atmosphere not mars.

          • Roberto Nazario

            95% of almost nothing is still almost nothing.

          • Bill

            Actually Nik, if you read the data from the Russians, they put 8 landers on Venus. Their data shows that Venus gets less sunlight and heat on its surface than the earth does. It is the same as that received by the earth on a n overcast day.

            Venus is 3/4ths the distance of the earth from the sun and gets twice as much heat and light from the sun than the earth does being farther away from the sun.

            If the earth, sitting where it is now, had the same 90 atmospheres of atmospheric pressure than Venus does, the earth’s surface temperature would be over 41,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

            When the atmospheric pressure is equalized to earth’s 1 atmosphere, the temperature of Venus is -444 F. That is pretty cold Nik.

            NASA’s web cite gives you the temperature and Atmospheric pressure of Venus, just get the formula for the GAY-LUSSAC’S LAW, which is this:

            P1/T1 = P2/T2.

            This says that the Starting Pressure (P1) [in atmospheres] divided by the starting Temperature (T1) [in degrees Kelvin] is equal to the ending Pressure (P2), divided by the ending Temperature (T2).

            If you prefer multiplication to fractions it is written this way:

            P1 x T2 = P2 x T1

            The starting Pressure times the ending Temperature is equal to the ending Pressure times the Starting Temperature.

            We want to know the temperature of Venus at 1 atm like the Earth. So we are looking for T2, the ending temperature at the lower pressure of 1 atm. We need to rewrite the formula to find the ending temperature T2 of Venus which looks like this:

            T2 = (P2T1)/P1.

            We just moved P1 to the left side of the formula, which reversed the multiplication to division.

            Now we put in the numbers which looks like this:

            T2 = (1atm x 735K)/90atm

            1 times 735 = 735.

            735 divided by 90 is 8.166666K.

            So T2 = 8.166666K which is -264.983334 degrees C, or -444.969994 degrees F!!!!!!!!!!

            Venus’ heat is a TRICK people use on the uneducated. Do the math yourself, do’t trust me.

            Google “Gay Lusacc’s Law” yo’ll see.

        • Bill

          NASA DENIS GHG warming Jack.

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

          go there and read. GHG block out more heat than the trap in.

      • Dadamax

        What is your evidence that “more sun” is responsible for the warming of the last 50 years?

        • nik

          The earth is on a 100,000 year cycle, caused by the orbit change combined with precession. There have been 7 ice ages in the last 700,000 years, The earth has been warming continuously since the middle of the last ice age due to this cycle, some 40+ thousand years.
          Other influences like sunspot activity, and volcanism cause minor fluctuations,
          Earth is approaching the 100,000 year peak,
          Your last 50 years is included in that process.
          The graph is asymptotic, so the rate of change increases rapidly towards the maximum peak.

        • Bill

          Dadamax,

          The cycles Nik is speaking of are Milankovic cycles. This YOUTUBE vid will give you the rundown on them and how they cause ice ages and inter-glacial ages.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQSHxY5ZR6w

          • Dadamax

            Thanks Bill, I’m well aware of Milankovitch cycles. The obliquity has a periodicity of 41k years, the precession 23k, and the eccentricity about 100k. Much too slow to be responsible for the precipitous warming of the last 50 years. The warming of the Holocene peaked with the Holocene Climatic Optimum ~8k years ago. We should be slowly sliding into the next glacial period over the next several thousand years. Not warming rapidly.

            Incremental variations in insolation and seasonality caused by orbital forcing are wholly insufficient to account for the level of climate sensitivity evident in the ice core record. The warming and cooling are exponentially amplified by positive climate feedbacks like ice-albedo and GHGs, including CO2. The few actual skeptics in the scientific community believe the value of climate sensitivity is slightly overestimated. To claim things like “there is no greenhouse effect” or “CO2 is not a greenhouse gas,” as nik did, is flat-Earth, crackpot stuff.

          • Bill

            Hi Dadmax,

            I didn’t say it was. The warming of the last 50 years he? Dosen’ that surprise you? The little ice age ended in 1855, so how come we haven’t seen significant warming over the entire period, why only in the last 50 years when we KNOW the earth has been warming steadily since the end of the little ice age?

            Also, remember, the last ten years of the little ice age saw global temperatures rise 9 degrees Fahrenheit in only ten years time. That is a lot more than the .03 degrees the warmers are complaining about.

            If you can’t figure out why the warming suddenly started to warm up faster in the 1970’s just say so and I’ll give you a climate history lesson. It has to do with the LAG EFFECT of the Little Ice Age, a 500 year period of declining temperature on the earth in which there was advancing glaciation on all the continents.

            Galileo’s drawings of the sun spots on the sun tell us what the sun was going through. A solar minimum. It was sending out less heat. That ended in 1855 so why did it take over 170 years for the earth to start to significantly warm up?

          • Dadamax

            The LIA was caused by a confluence of factors. Not just the Maunder Minimum. There was also increased volcanic activity and possibly a slowdown in the thermohaline circulation. European reforestation due to depopulation from the Black Death could have even contributed.

            Whatever the case, we can say with certainty that an increase in solar irradiance is not responsible for the recent warming. Total solar irradiance has been in a negative trend for the last 30+ years. The current solar cycle is on track to have the lowest number of sunspots ever recorded. Some solar scientists believe we are entering into another grand minimum. Meanwhile, heat continues to accumulate in the climate system.

            There are several signatures that indicate the warming is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. A radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Nights warming faster than days, winters warming faster than summers, a cooling stratosphere coupled with a warming troposphere. Pretty much the opposite of what we would expect from warming due to increased insolation.

            Warming has been occurring since the Industrial Revolution, but global dimming caused by industrial aerosols mitigated it in the mid-20th century. Most of the warming has occurred since the 70’s because that is when most of the CO2 emissions have occurred.

          • Bill

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

            NASA has already proven the GHG’s block out more heat than the trap.

            If you are going to argue otherwise please state the source of your statistics so I can review them.

            The Industrial Revolution is meaningless in a study of climate. It came at the end of the Little Ice Age and at that time, was so meager it can’t possible be responsible for the ending of the LIA. Since the end of the LIA the earth has been steadily warming and the Industrial Revolution had nothing to do with it.

            I never said anything about “solar radiance”. I asked you to tell me why it took 170 years for the heating effect you are speaking of “in the last 50 years” to happen, when the earth has been warming since the end of the LIA ending in 1855.

            What happened in the 1970’s to start it off and running.

            What announcement in 1972 by the NOAA is responsible for the run up in heat?

            170 years no big change, then in the 1970’s we see a speeding up in temperature, WHY what happened in 1972 that the NOAA was talking about a heat effect in the North Atlantic?

          • Dadamax

            As the NASA page you link to illustrates, GHGs make the atmosphere opaque to certain wavelengths of thermal infrared – which means less is radiated back to space. Without the greenhouse effect the average surface temperature of he Earth would be 33°C colder – a frozen wasteland. You may want to check out Dr. Roy Spencer’s (a global warming skeptic) skeptical arguments that don’t hold water. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

            The reason warming picked up in the early 70’s is two fold. CO2 emissions cranked up and the EPA cleaned up industrial aerosols that were causing global dimming.

          • Bill

            Hi Dadamax,

            Oh by the way cool name.

            As the NASA web page states, the Greenhouse effect caused by insulating gases in the air has TWO PROPERTIES:

            1. It blocks out 23% of INCOMING heat, cooling the earth!

            and

            2. It blocks 5% of earth emitted heat from leaving, slowing down the rate at which the earth looses heat to space.

            Remember, GHG DON’T WARM THE EARTH.

            To warm the earth they would have to make heat. Like an oven, or heat lamp, or the sun. They all burn a fuel and convert its energy into heat. You cannot get heat without burning a fuel. GHGs DON’T burn anything, they are just insulation, they slow down the rate at which the earth looses heat.

            Sun sends out heat earth’s way.

            GHGs in the air block out 23% cooling the earth 23% from what it would be with out GHG in the air. Remember the Moon’s day- time surface temperature is 250 degrees F! It has no atmosphere to block out the sun’s energy, so all the heat makes it tot he Moon’s surface.

            77% of the sun’s heat makes it to the earth’s surface warming the earth.

            The earth gives off 17% of this heat as heat, and cools off a further 17%.

            GHGs in the air reflect 5% of this heat given off by the earth back towards the earth lowering the amount of cooling from 17% to only 12%.

            NASA states clearly that 12% of the 17% of the heat given off by the earth as infrared radiation gets all the way through the atmosphere and out into space, cooling the earth by 12%.

            AS to the reason warming picked up in the early 1070’s, your are wrong.

            The EPA started to regulate aerosols in the 70’s they didn’t remove all of them.

            While the number of cars in the 1970’s did increase, the increase was not so much different than that of the 1960’s and there was no big increase in temps in the 1960s as you pointed out. But the CO2 levels increasing only means that the heat blocked out by them would increase.

            Unless you can cite a source that counters NASA’s findings you’re going to have to give up on the CO2 warming thing. The satellite data proves it is ca’t happen.

            In 1972, the NOAA announced that for the first time in human record keeping, surface water temperatures in the North Atlantic rose!

            117 years after the end of the Little Ice Age, the North Atlantic had warmed enough, that the cold deep ocean waters being welled up by the CONVEYOR CURRENTS in the North Atlantic ocean, were not cold enough to absorb the atmospheric heat and take it away a they had been doing for the previous 117 years. Instead, the ocean now was at its equilibrium temperature with the atmospheric temperature.

            Remember for 500 years, he oceans were giving up their heat to the atmosphere which was much colder during the Little Ice Age.
            So after 500 years the oceans were colder than they were 500 years earlier.

            During the Sun’s 500 year Solar Minimum, the Milankovic cycle continued to move the earth closer to the sun, but the sun was in a Minimum and so the earth didn’t warm gradually as it would have done if the Little Ice Age Solar Minimum had never happened.

            When the Minimum did finally end and the sun’s output rose to normal, The earth was 500 years closer and got all that heat dumped on it all at once. The ocean however, covers 5/8th of the earths surface and it was really cold now and just sucked up the extra heat and drew it down into the deep water via the CONVEYOR CURRENTS. Plus of course, the extra snow and ice covering the earth then cut off some of the Albedo effect, and also acted as a heat sink on land, soaking up the added heat the sun was giving off.

            By 1972 however, the North Atlantic ocean are risen in temperature so much that it was now at the same temperature it would have been at, if the Little Ice Age Solar Minimum had never happened. It was now at the EQUILIBRIUM temperature with the sun.

            The South Atlantic , Indian and Pacific did not see a rise in temps, they are much bigger oceans and so it will take a lot more time for them to reach equilibrium with the sun’s current heat. Eventually however, they like the North Atlantic will see surface temperature rise.

            With out the North Atlanic absorbing heat like it was, heat was able to build up faster in the North Atlantic and also start to melt the Arctic. The Ant-arctic has seen significant ice increases, while the arctic is at its 6th lowest level for winter ice.

          • Dadamax

            Sorry, but you are seriously confused. You really should take the advice of your fellow respected climate skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer.

            “Clouds, aerosols, water vapor, and ozone directly absorb 23 percent of incoming solar energy.”

            Clouds and aerosols are not greenhouse gases. In fact they are not even gases. water vapor and ozone are greenhouse gases, but they do not drive the greenhouse effect like CO2 and CH4, for various reasons. All that statement is saying is that the Earth’s surface would be warmer if it didn’t have an atmosphere that absorbs heat. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.

            Greenhouse gases do add to Earth’s energy budget:

            “Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.

            Effect on Surface Temperature

            The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere. The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy. The Earth’s surface responds to the “extra” (on top of direct solar heating) energy by raising its temperature.”

            I’m glad you bring up the Moon. As you note, it has no clouds to block incoming radiation, no atmosphere to absorb heat, no oceans to uptake heat. It has a lower albedo than Earth. The average surface temperature of the Moon should be much warmer than Earth’s. Yet it is about 90°C colder, because it has no greenhouse effect.

            Compare Venus to Mercury. Mercury is closer to the sun, no clouds, low albedo. Venus is farther from the sun, 100% cloud cover, extremely high albedo, only about 5% of the insolation at the top of the atmosphere reaches the surface. Because of this the effective radiating temperature of Venus is actually colder than Earth’s – the surface of Venus should be colder than Earth’s. But in reality is hot enough to melt lead, and is actually hotter than the surface of Mercury – even hotter than its sunward side alone. Because Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.

            The satellite data does not negate 150+ years of atmospheric physics going back to Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius. All it shows is a moderation in the rate of warming in the troposphere for the last 15 or so years, which has been attributed to a negative PDO phase during that time. It’s just internal variability – not a slowdown in warming. The atmosphere is only one component of the climate system. 90% of the radiative imbalance in Earth’s energy budget is being absorbed by the oceans, and global ocean heat content has continued to climb.

            The warming of the Holocene due to the Milankovitch cycles peaked during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, oddly enough (scientists can be quite literal sometimes). We’ve been slowly cooling ever since. The MWP and LIA were minor perturbations. We have now overwhelmed the orbital forcing by enhancing the greenhouse effect.

            Antarctic sea ice extent increase is due to strengthened Westerlies, in part due to CO2, in part due to stratospheric ozone depletion. Antarctic land ice continues to decay precipitously. The warmest temperature ever recorded on the continent of Antarctica was measured a few weeks ago. The Arctic sea ice winter maximum extent last month occurred prematurely and was the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record. March 2015 extent was also the lowest March extent on record. Arctic ice is in a death spiral.

          • Bill

            Hi Dadamax,

            Sorry for taking so long to respond to your post.

            This is going to be a bit long so I’ll answer your post in multiple post. I answered it week ago but the post was so long I guess the site didn’t put it up for some reason.

            ……………………………………………………………………………………
            “Sorry, but you are seriously confused. You really should take the advice of your fellow climate skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer”

            What advice is that?
            ……………………………………………………………………………………….

            “Clouds and aerosols are not greenhouse gases. In fact they are not even gases. water vapor and ozone are greenhouse gases, but they do not drive the greenhouse effect like CO2 and CH4, for various reasons. All that statement is saying is that the Earth’s surface would be warmer if it didn’t have an atmosphere that absorbs heat. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect.”

            Clouds are water vapor, just in high density, while aerosols are also, like clouds, suspended droplets of largely water, and so have the same effect as water vapor.

            Yeah we know vapors are not gases, but Hey it is NASA that’s said that they are greenhouse gases. Write and tell NASA’s scientists that they are wrong. Also google the question

            “What is the most powerful green house gas?”

            You’ll find EVERY web site list Water Vapor as the most important greenhouse gas.

            So tell me what web cite or text book are you quoting as saying the Carbon-dioxide and Methane are the most important greenhouse gas factors?it the world against you on that score.

            ……………………………………………………………………………………..

            “Greenhouse gases do add to Earth’s energy budget:

            “Because greenhouse gas molecules radiate heat in all directions, some of it spreads downward and ultimately comes back into contact with the Earth’s surface, where it is absorbed. The temperature of the surface becomes warmer than it would be if it were heated only by direct solar heating. This supplemental heating of the Earth’s surface by the atmosphere is the natural greenhouse effect.”
            NO they don’t ADD anything. Insulation DOESN’T ADD HEAT TO ANYTHING, IT ONLY SLOWS THE RATE OF HEAT LOSS. How can you not understand something so simple.
            A dead man wearing your winter coat is not warm, but you are, why?
            Because your body is burning food energy producing HEAT, the dead guy is dead, his body is not converting food energy into heat, so he is dead cold.
            Google “INSULATION”. What web site says insulation ADDS heat energy? Doing so would violate the First Law of Thermo-dynamics and the Law of Conservation of Energy.
            Heat is Energy it has to come from somewhere. Insulation doesn’t convert fuel into heat so how can it add heat?
            As NASA’s said, 5% of the heat THAT THE EARTH RADIATES OUT, heat the earth already has from the sun, is reflected back at the earth.
            Mirrors reflect light, they don’t create light, they don’t add light.
            To “Add” means to increase the amount of something.
            The insulating effect of the GHGs means the earth is 23% cooler to start off with and, the Greenhouse effect means the earth is less cooler not that it is warmer.
            Without the GHG in the air all 17% of the heat radiated off the surface would leave, with the GHGs only 12% leaves. The earth isn’t warmer it is less cool. Before the 17% was radiated the earth’s surface had all that heat. It gave up 17%, but the GHG insulating effect kept the heat loss to only 12%. Thus the earth only cooled by 12% instead of 17%. Nothing was added here, 12% of the heat was lost. The earth is still cooler, it has lost 12% of its heat energy.

          • Bill

            Part Two.

            “The natural greenhouse effect raises the Earth’s surface temperature to about 15 degrees Celsius on average—more than 30 degrees warmer than it would be if it didn’t have an atmosphere.”

            Again, insulation doesn’t add heat, it slows down how fast you loose heat.

            The heat you speak of, is the heat the earth already has, it isn’t heat made by the GHGs and sent to the earth. The GHGs are alike a mirror, they reflect some of the heat the earth had and has radiated out, back at the earth. The GHGs didn’t create that heat and add it to the earth’s heat, IT IS THE EARTH’S HEAT

            gotten from the sun. With no atmosphere insulation, the earth would loose heat faster and so cool off faster, and so be cooler.

            ……………………………………………………………………………………….

            “The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.”

            Common, dost say stupid things.

            ONLY 5% of the incoming solar heat is reflected back at the earth by the GHGs.

            If it was 100% of the 77% that reaches the earth’s surface that means that all the solar energy would be transferred into infrared radiation. Menaing the heat leaving would be equal to the heat entering.

            A simple experiment will prove that this is wrong.

            Go outside and turn your face to the sun. Feel the heat? Good. Your face is receiving 100% of the solar energy entering.

            Now, turn your face to the ground feel any heat? How much? As much heat as you felt when your face was turned to the sun?

            IF the earth is giving off 100% it gets (that’s all the heat that your face felt), then turning your face to the ground should make your face as warm as the direct sunlight did, does it?

            NO it doesn’t. The light reflected off the earth is not a warm as direct sunlight.

            ……………………………………………………………………………………..

            “I’m glad you bring up the Moon. As you note, it has no clouds to block incoming radiation, no atmosphere to absorb heat, no oceans to uptake heat. It has a lower albedo than Earth. The average surface temperature of the Moon should be much warmer than Earth’s. Yet it is about 90°C colder, because it has no greenhouse effect.”

            No it shouldn’t. The moon surface is made up of elements with notoriously poor heat capacitance. Like the desert, silicon gives up its heat quickly. Water doesn’t. Water has good heat properties. Atmosphere had lesser heat capacitance but together they help to warm the earth.

            The moon has none of these heat holding surface features and so can’t have the same warm temperatures as the earth. Its surface is like the desert largely silicone and other poor heat absorbers. If it was made of Iron instead, then things would be different. Iron would hold significant heat while turned away from the warming sun, and so have a higher average temperature.

            Comparing average temperatures of astral bodies with greatly different surface heat retention capabilities is LYING.

            The important thing to remember about the moon, is its at teh same distance from the sun as the earth, and yet its daytime temp is 250degrees F. and its nighttime temp is 264 degrees F. The earths isn’t. The atmosphere blocks out a lot of solar heat, while keep in only a little heat, but enough to keep us from getting too cold at night.
            ……………………………………………………………………………………..

            “Compare Venus to Mercury. Mercury is closer to the sun, no clouds, low albedo. Venus is farther from the sun, 100% cloud cover, extremely high albedo, only about 5% of the insolation at the top of the atmosphere reaches the surface. Because of this the effective radiating temperature of Venus is actually colder than Earth’s – the surface of Venus should be colder than Earth’s. But in reality is hot enough to melt lead, and is actually hotter than the surface of Mercury – even hotter than its sunward side alone. Because Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect.”

            Moe Lies this is getting insulting.

            The Russians put 8 lands on Venus from the 1960’s to the 1980’s. Their instruments told us that Venus gets less solar energy on its surface than the earth does. IT is the same amount of het the earth receives on an overcast day. YET VENUS IS 3/4TH the distance from the sun the earth is.

            The INVERSE SQUARE LAW tells us, Venus should get TWICE as much radiation from the sun as the earth does. Yet its surface gets LESS intense solar radiation than the earth does. BUT it surface tempetue is 800 degree F, so what’s going on.

            You see dadamax, here is where having an education in Physics helps.

            It is called the PRESSURE TEMPERATURE LAW, or

            GAY-LUSSACS LAW.

            It is one of the Laws that make up the IDEAL GAS LAW.

            Google it.

            The Law states that any change in the Temperature of a gas or its Pressure will create an equal change in the other.

            The temperature or pressure of a gas is a measure of its Kinetic Energy. It is jus that you measure it in degrees for temperature and PSI for pressure.

            How does this apply to Venus and Mars and Earth?

            Atmosphere!!

            Mercury has very little, almost none. Like the moon it is Hot on the dayside 1,130 degrees F (Venus is only 800 degrees F), then really cold on the dark side.

            The earth has more than atmosphere than Mercury but much less than Venus. Plus, Venus’ atmosphere is 95% CO2, it is much better at insulating Venus and so the surface of Venus gets less sunlight and heat from the sun.

            Because Venus’ atmosphere reflects so much of the sun’s light and heat back out, Venus is the BRIGHTEST of all the planets.

            Now the good part.

            CO2 is much heavier than nitrogen and oxygen, the two primary gases that make up earth’s atmosphere and there is a much thicker layer of atmosphere on Venus too, 60 km of it. So the pressure created by all that heavy gas gives the surface of Venus an atmospheric pressure of 90 atmosphere (90 atms). The Earth only has a 1 atm atmospheric Pressure.

            So the Pressure Temperature tells us, that Venus’ 90 atms of pressure will give Venus a much higher temperature than the earth even though less than half of the solar energy reaching Venus reaches its surface.

            Luckily the Gay-Lussacs Law give us the formula to determine the temperature of any planet if we know the planet’s starting temperature and pressure.

            This relationship was discovered by the French Chemist/Scientist Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac, and he published his findings 1702.

            In short it tells us that there are TWO TYPES OF HEAT. One is temperate heat, while the other is Pressure heat.

            Heat and Pressure are in fact… the same thing! They are measures of the amount of Kinetic Energy in a gas.

            You can increase the Kinetic energy of a gas by :

            1. Compressing it into a smaller space, or

            2, By burning a fuel and heating it.

            When we are speaking of man made global warming, we aren’t speaking about Pressure Heat, we are talking about temperate heat from the Sun.

            How does the concept of Pressure Heat apply to Venus? It is how Dadamax is lying!

            The Earth’s atmospheric pressure is 1 (one) atmosphere (atm).

            Venus however, has an atmospheric pressure of 90 atms! Ninety times greater than the Earth.

            So if we are to know the Solar Temperate Heat of Venus, we need to remove all that Pressure heat. Thankfully, Gay-Lussac drew up the formula for doing just that, it is this:

            P1/T1 = P2/T2.

            This says that the Starting Pressure (P1) [in atmospheres] divided by the starting Temperature (T1) [in degrees Kelvin] is equal to the ending Pressure (P2), divided by the ending Temperature (T2).

            If you prefer multiplication to fractions it is written this way:

            P1 x T2 = P2 x T1

            The starting Pressure times the ending Temperature is equal to the ending Pressure times the Starting Temperature.

            Makes perfect since… right?

            So, let’s do the math and find out if I’m lying, or the climate changers are lying shall we?

            We want to know the temperature of Venus at 1 atm like the Earth. So we are looking for T2, the ending temperature at the lower pressure of 1 atm. We need to rewrite the formula to find the ending temperature T2 of Venus which looks like this:

            T2 = (P2T1)/P1.

            We just moved P1 to the left side of the formula, which reversed the multiplication to division.

            Now we put in the numbers which looks like this:

            T2 = (1atm x 735K)/90atm

            1 times 735 = 735.

            735 divided by 90 is 8.166666K.

            So T2 = 8.166666K which is -264.983334 degrees C, or -444.969994 degrees F!!!!!!!!!!

            Well looky here. When we remove all of Venus’ Pressure Heat, the Solar Temperate Heat from the Sun is only MINUS (-)444.969994 degrees Fahrenheit.

            Isn’t the average temperature of the Earth (57.2 degrees F) warmer than minus

            (-)444.969994 degrees F?
            If we use the formula to determing Earth’s temperature at 90ats, it is over 41,000 degrees F. Do the math yourself. Earth’s starting temperature is 76.4 degrees F.

          • Bill

            Pat three. I said it was going to be long.

            “The satellite data does not negate 150+ years of atmospheric physics going back to Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius

            I never said it did. Atmospheric Physics says exactly what I am saying.

            You’ve not noted a single web site supporting you and the Warmers. No math, no Natural Laws, you’ve just given me your opinion while I give you Scientific Laws and mathematics proving you are wrong about GHG warming. However,modern satellite data if it deagrees with past theories does negat them.

            For instance. In 1982 I wrote my first Physics paper entitle

            ON THE VARIABILITY OF LIGHT SPEED IN MASSIVE BODY GRAVITATION.

            I said in it, that the Standard Model was wrong, there was no such a thing as massless particles. They would violate the Mass Energy Law (E=mc2).

            The Standard Model said that the Photon, Higgs Boson, and the Neutrino were all massless.

            13 years later, new more powerful Neutrino detectors were made, and they found the Neutrinos mass. The Standard Model was wrong, and I was right. IN 2012, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in Geneva was turned on, it found proof of the Higgs Boson! BUT it also found that the Higgs, HAD MASS just like I said it did in 1982!!!

            The Standard Model was wrong, I was right again.

            AS we learn more of our universe, old ideas are done away with. Science is not a religion, as new information comes in we must change what we know to match it.

            ………………………………………………………….

            “The warming of the Holocene due to the Milankovitch cycles peaked during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, oddly enough (scientists can be quite literal sometimes). We’ve been slowly cooling ever since. The MWP and LIA were relatively minor perturbations. We have now overwhelmed the orbital forcing by enhancing the greenhouse effect.


            GHG warming is impossible I’ve shown you the math, NASA has given you the percentiles, do the math and show me how GHGs are responsible for global warming? Or cite me the web site that does the math and shows that by increasing GHGs in the atmosphere we get a hotter planet?
            Show me the math? OR
            Do an experiment and show that increasing CO2 will increase the temperature of a simulated earth?
            This has already been done and the earth gets colder as CO2 blocks out more heat.
            ……………………………………………………….
            Dadamax you keep giving me your opinion or other peoples, but NO MATH NO EXPERIMENTAL PROOFS. YOU just claim that modern satellite data can’t change anything from the past.
            .
            You sound more like a priest than a scientist.
            Show me your math?

          • dadamax

            The Earth’s effective radiating temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzman law is 255K, -18°C. The actual average surface temperature of the Earth is close to 15°C. A difference of 33°C.

            The effective temperature of Venus is even colder than Earth’s, 220K, -53°C, because of its extremely high cloud albedo. The actual surface temperature of Venus is 462°C – hotter than the sunward side of Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, which has no reflective clouds and a very low planetary albedo. That’s a difference of 515°C.

            Why are Earth and especially Venus so much hotter than their effective temperatures? The greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is built on very basic physics, proven since the 19th century, it is not in any dispute in scientific circles.

            Greenhouse gases are transparent to incoming visible light but opaque to outgoing infrared radiation. They absorb infrared and re-radiate it in all directions, including back to the surface.

            We can even see the specific frequencies of infrared each gas is absorbing by measuring the outgoing spectral radiance at the top of Earth’s atmosphere. See this NASA science brief: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

            In 1896 Svante Arrhenius, (the third scientist to win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry) was the first scientist to attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect. Arrhenius used the infrared observations of the moon by Frank Washington Very and Samuel Pierpont Langley at the Allegheny Observatory in Pittsburgh to calculate the absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2 and water vapor. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, he formulated his greenhouse law. In its original form, Arrhenius’ greenhouse law reads as follows:

            if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
            The following equivalent formulation of Arrhenius’ greenhouse law is still used today:

            ΔF = αln(C/C0)

            C is carbon dioxide concentration measured in ppmv; C0 denotes a baseline or unperturbed concentration of CO2, and ΔF is the radiative forcing, measured in watts per square meter. The constant α has been assigned a value between five and seven.

            You can find a comprehensive overview of the physics here: http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

            Part 6 covers the equations of radiative transfer.

          • Bill

            Hi Roberto,

            Thanks for the site post, however, you are living in denial.

            First:
            “Clouds are not water vapor. They are not a greenhouse gas. They are not a gas. They are aerosols – a visible mass of liquid droplets or frozen crystals. They effect Earth’s energy budget but are not part of the greenhouse effect.”

            Roberto didn’t you even read the NASA site YOU cited to me?

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

            The last sentence in Paragraph 2 states”

            ” Less well appreciated is that clouds (made of ice particles and/or liquid water droplets) also absorb infrared radiation and contribute to the greenhouse effect, too. Clouds, of course, also interfere with incoming sunlight, reflecting it back out to space, making their net effect one of cooling, but their contribution to the greenhouse effect is important.”

            Don’t you tell me clouds are NOT part of the greenhouse effect then send me to NASA’s web site that says they are!

            Common read your own sites Roberto, that was VERY careless of you. Is this really the best your intellect can muster, quoting sites you haven’t read through yourself?

            No wonder you lack so much understanding, you don’t read anything completely through.

            The GREENHOUSE EFFECT ONLY refers to the back scatter radiation, it does NOT include the heat blocking effect on incoming solar radiation. It is AN effect, NOT the NET effect of GHGs in the atmosphere. YOU have to look at both effects to know what more or less GHGs will do.

            IN paragraph 6 NASA writes:

            “We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect. The remainder is made up with the other minor greenhouse gases, ozone and methane for instance, and a small amount from particles in the air (dust and other “aerosols”).”

            Thus clouds and water vapor is responsible for 75% of the GREENHOUSE EFFEC, CO2 only 20%. And this is YOUR cite, YOU sent ME there, I didn’t send YOU there!

            Also, YOU said that clouds help stave off frost at night by reflecting heat from the ground. Now you’re disagreeing with yourself?

            B. The total amount of heat kept out by GHG is over 300 watts per meter square, the total amount of heat kept in by the GHG is less that 57 watts per meter square.

            IT makes no difference where the heat, or how the heat is created. The backscatter radiation is only 56.668 watts per meter square, far less than the heat that GHGs keep out. Unless you can revers those numbers, more heat is kept out by the GHGs than kept in. Thus, if you raise the amount of GHGs in the air, you’ll block out more sun heat.

            The amount of radiation given off by a black body, is directly related to its absolute temperature not to how much visible light illuminates it. TEMPERATURE, not degree of illumination.

            Most of the sun’s heat is in the IR wavebands, and sunlight at Earth’s surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).

            Above the atmosphere visible light is 53% UV is 10% and IR is only 37%, but most UV is blocked out in the first 3 miles of atmosphere, as well as a large chunk of the Visible. Remember why the sky is blue? The Blue and indigo and violet light is scattered by the upper atmosphere stopping much of it from reaching the earth.

            IR is the majority of solar energy at the earths surface and IR has most of the sun’s heat. The heat of the visible spectrum is miniscule by comparison. Just google it.
            ……………………………………………………………
            If you increase any insulating gas, vapor, clouds or aerosols in the atmosphere, it is going to absorb MORE incoming IR from the sun, that is a simple fact, you cannot get around it. MOrE insulation will protect the earth from the sun by blocking out more heat. Less will warm the earth by blocking out less heat.
            The Earth’s surface gets ALL, 100% of its heat from the sun. If you diminish the heat the earth receives, then the earth is cooler. The moon has no atmosphere and a daytime surface temperature of 250 degrees F.
            If the Moon had an atmosphere like the earths its daytime surface temperature would be less, because the atmosphere would insulate the moon from the sun’s radiation. How is that not simple to you Roberto?
            Also, remember, water vapor and clouds are dependent upon the temperature of the earth too. Hotter temperatures create more water vapor, which means more sun blocking clouds, and NASA said the effect of clouds is a cooling one, not a warming one.

          • dadamax

            I don’t know why you’re calling me Roberto, I don’t know who that is.

            NASA: Clouds Likely Created Positive Climate Feedback In Past Decade http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/amplified-warming.html

            If you honestly believe NASA or any other scientific organization says increasing atmospheric GHGs causes cooling, you are scientifically illiterate and beyond help.

          • Bill

            Hi Dadamax,
            Did you google the Russian Venus landers? Did you read the FACTS about Venus?
            The surface of Venus gets LESS heat and light from the sun than the Earth does!!!
            The CO2 blocks out more than half of the sun the planet receives.

            I gave you the formula to calculate Venus’ temperate heat, and the earths heat at 90 atms, so don’t pretend to be stupid. You know how cold Venus is.
            I’ve given you the math, The Russians have given you the FACTS, you’ve given me nothing!
            Show me your math and experimental data. Instead you just contradict yourself:
            “The clouds help keep in heat at night and protect plants from frost”
            “The clouds are not part of the greenhouse effect.”
            All I asked you for was ONE scientific web site, or one textbook, that says GHG’s don’t block out more solar heat than they keep in, and you refuse to do that, why?
            Can’t find any that back you up?
            Who says NASA’s satellite data is wrong?
            Who says the Russian landers data is wrong?
            Venus sould have a surface temperature of over 80,000 degrees F with a pressure of 90 atms, yet it is only 800 degrees F.
            And remember also, It is just as hot on the dark side of Venus as it is on the day side. Venus is the only planet that has that characteristic.
            Every other planet in the solar system is colder on its dark side, but not Venus, its heat is caused by atmospheric pressure not the sun, so with the same pressure on the dark side as is found on the light side, even after 53 days of night, it is still 800 degrees on the dark side of Venus.
            I’ve done the math for you, and you’ve checked our the formula to make sure I wasn’t lying. So you know I got the math correct.
            Who sais I got the math wrong?
            Give me some science not your opinion. Don’t tell me what you think, Send me to a NASA web site that says GHG’s block out less heat than they keep in.
            That’s all you have to do to win this debate. Show me the satellite data that supports your opinion.
            Venus doesn’t have a runaway greenhouse effect its surface temperature when balanced for the 90 atm atmospheric pressure is -444 degrees F, that is not hot.
            Your beliefs violate the natural Laws humankind have discovered over the last 2 centuries.
            Who says the Russians and NASA are lying. That’s all you have to do.
            Prove to me that they lied about their satellite data, and you win.

          • dadamax

            You are insane and illiterate. Not worth the time.

          • Bill

            The cite your sources and prove it!

      • odin2

        CO2 is a GHG but it constitutes only .04 % of the atmosphere and it’s potency is weak. Blaming global warming on CO2 emissions has been compared to having “the flea wag the dog”.

        • nik

          As I’ve said, insignificant; and the human input is 0.01% of that, but when there are billions of dollars to be extracted in ‘back door’ taxes the politicians/bankers will keep up with the bullsh!t!

          • Roberto Nazario

            For systems in equilibrium, it is the change in a quantity which matters, not the total quantity.

            You’d know this, if you knew anything about the climate. Or systems at equilibrium in general. I mean, you’d basically have to understand differential equations and thermodynamics, which is probably a no for you, I’m guessing.

          • nik

            Thank you. I am perfectly well conversant with differential equations, and one of my specialist subjects was thermodynamics.
            However, as you’ve pointed out so eloquently elsewhere, a change in almost nothing equals almost nothing.
            I think odin2’s comment sums the situation up precisely.

          • Roberto Nazario

            Yes, 29 gigatons of human-produced CO2 per year. Yes, it’s almost nothing.

          • Bill

            NO you’re right it ins’t nothing, it does block out some more sun heat from entering the earth’s atmopshere and thus helps to cool the earth, but I’m not sure how it helps your claim of GHG warming? IF it blocks out 23% of incoming heat from the sun, how is that warming the earth?

            NASA states that 23% (365 watts per meter square) of the sun’s heat is blocked out by GHGs in the atmosphere. While the Greenhouse Effect only traps 5% or 11.5 watts per meter square.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

            This NASA web page say it all Roberto.

          • Roberto Nazario

            “IF it blocks out 23% of incoming heat from the sun, how is that warming the earth?”

            Because we aren’t warmed by the infrared radiation coming form the sun, yes, the GHG block most of that from coming in, but what DOES come in is the visible light, which hits the surface and warms it up. The warm surfaces then emit infrared, which the GHG prevent from escaping.

          • Bill

            Hi Roberto,
            You misunderstood me. I didn’t say it warms the earth, I said it cools the earth by reducing the amount of solar energy reaching the planet.
            1368 watts per meter square (wpm2) reaches the outer atmosphere from the sun, according to NASA satellites.
            Ground based station only measure 1053.36 wpm2 reaching the earth. The atmosphere blocks out 314.64 wpm2, cooling the earth by 23% of what it would be if the GHGs were not there in the atmosphere. Of the 1053.36 wpm2 of solar energy reaching the earth. NASA measures 17% (179.07 wpm2) of the solar energy that reaches the earth is converted into infrared radiation and sent back out towards space. Of that 12% (126.4032 wpm2), gets out and the other 5% (52.668 wpm2), is reflected back at the earth by the GHGs.
            The atmosphere doesn’t stop the earth from loosing its sun heat, it just slows down how quickly we loose it. Instead of loosing all 17% we only loose 12%.
            Now, the GHGs stopped 314.64 wpm2 from entering and warming the earth, while the GHGs stopped only 52.668 wpm2 from leaving.
            Thus the NET EFFECT of GHGs in the atmosphere is a cooling effect equal to 261.972 wpm2.
            The 52.668 is important to retaining earth heat at night make no mistake about it. The average temperature of the earth is about 30 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without them. But this 52.668 wpm2 cannot off-set the loss of 314.64 wpm2 that the earth looses even before it can reach the earth’s surface because GHGs are in the atmosphere to block out all that solar energy.
            For GHGs to be able to warm the earth they would have to keep in more heat than they keep out. In other words, the earth would have to give off more heat than it receives from the sun, and that is impossible.

            If we put more GHGs into the atmosphere, then that extra GHG will block out more sun energy further cooling the earth. Instead of 23% it will block out 24%. The earth will get less heat and so give off less infrared radiation. The Law controlling the emitting of infrared radiation from the earth’s surface is the Stefan-Boltzman Law.
            It tells us that any change will be mirrored by an even greater change in the amount of infrared radiation given off by a factor of the fourth power of the change. In other words if there is a drop of 2% in the heat reaching the earth, then the radiation given off by the earth’s surface will be a drop of 16%, or: 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16%.

          • Roberto Nazario

            It ONLY reduces the amount of infrared radiation coming from the sun, which we already know it does, but it does absolutely nothing to the visible light, to which it is completely transparent. THIS is the light that makes a difference, because this light gets through the atmosphere fairly well, and causes the ground to heat up. When the ground heats up it starts emitting infrared radiation, which, in the troposphere, will definitely be stopped by the greenhouse gases above, just like the infrared light from the sun is stopped from getting very far into the planet. You seem to have completely neglected this in your calculations. Carbon dioxide and water vapor are completely transparent to visible light, which is the issue here, not the infrared light coming from the sun.

          • Bill

            Hi Robert,
            Actually only the GHGs absorb the infrared wave bands. other gasses absorb the other wavebands, i.e. Ozone absorb the UV rays protecting us form the suns harmful, cancer causing UV. All wavebands of light are absorbed to a degree.

            However NASA is not missing anything. All wave bands hitting the earth are being measured by NASA’s satellites and ground stations. NASA’s scientists are well aware of the process you are talking about. That doesn’t change anything. The total amount of IR heat leaving the earth is 179.07 wpm2, and the back scatter radiation is only 52.668 wpm2.
            Unless you can cite a source that has different numbers this is the fact.
            The NET effect of GHGs in the atmosphere is a cooling effect not a warming one..

          • Roberto Nazario

            “Actually only the GHGs absorb the infrared wave bands.”

            Which are the gases we’re talking about anyway, so I don’t see the point of this comment.

            No, you’re still misunderstanding. First of all, the source you posted only deals with greenhouse gases, which means only infrared will be relevant. So, that means the values you are listing are the incoming, outgoing, and scattered amounts of IR radiation. If that is the case, then this does NOT imply a cooling effect, because the earth is not warmed significantly by the IR from the sun, but by the IR from the ground, due to the visible light which strikes it and warms it. Since CO2 is opaque to IR, it can’t have a cooling effect, because, while it WILL block solar IR from reaching the lower atmosphere, it will ALSO block IR from the ground from escaping the lower atmosphere. Once again this IR is from THE PLANET ITSELF, not from the sun.

          • Bill

            Hi Roberto,

            “No, you’re still misunderstanding. First of all, the source you posted only deals with greenhouse gases, which means only infrared will be relevant.”

            What source are you referring to?

            …………………………………………………………….

            ” If that is the case, then this does NOT imply a cooling effect, because the earth is not warmed significantly by the IR from the sun, but by the IR from the ground, due to the visible light which strikes it and warms it.”
            What scientific web site told you that?
            IR constitutes 52-53% of all the radiant energy that at reaches the earth’s surface. UV is 3% and visible light makes up the rest.
            Further, who told you visible light has a lot of heat in it? IR is referred to as HEAT because it contains much of the sun’s heat energy. There is heat in all light waves bands, but most of it is in the IR, especially the Low IR wave bands.
            What source says otherwise?
            53% of the radiant sun energy that reaches the earth’s outer atmosphere is visible, 10% is UV and the rest is IR.
            After passing through the atmosphere 53% is IR, 3% is UV and the rest is visible. What web site tells you something different, cite your sources?
            …………………………………………………………
            NASA’s figures which I’ve already provided you says you are wrong. Tell me what agency measured IR levels and found that earth emitted IR was greater than Sun IR?

            Like all Warmers Roberto, you are grossly uneducated about the subject. From now on quote each source that provides you with this idiotic fluff you’re spewing and save me the trouble of asking for it.

            In fact don’t write anything yourself, past and copy from the web sites that is giving you this stuff.

          • Roberto Nazario

            “Further, who told you visible light has a lot of heat in it? IR is referred to as HEAT because it contains much of the sun’s heat energy.”

            Are you really dumb? Visible light does not “contain” heat, but all electromagnetic radiation is energy. Heat is specifically the thermal energy that moves between systems or within a system due to temperature differences. Just because IR is referred to as “heat,” doesn’t mean that most of the sun’s energy comes in the form of IR. If you look at the sun’s measured spectrum, you’ll see that most of it is in the visible range, which is probably why we’ve evolved to see mostly in that range. When electromagnetic radiation hits a body, it is absorbed. Once equilibrium is reached, the body will emit as much as it absorbs, but in LOWER FREQUENCIES. That’s why the surface absorbs visible light, which goes through the greenhouse gases without being affected, and then once it is warm, begins emitting in the IR range, to which greenhouse gases are NOT transparent.

            Here is a scientific article dispelling your crap about greenhouse gases having a cooling effect: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr50.pdf

            Here is a book explaining blackbody radiation, which you’ve obviously never heard of, despite thinking you can have a valid opinion on whether or not visible light is absorbed and emitted back as IR by the ground, the oceans, etc. Hope your math is good, because it’s quite math heavy. Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zYUhVHzlr2IC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=ideal+black+body&ots=ePExBRjw13&sig=SKBZrPJGsYKohsLb_1Nrr3j2KSM#v=onepage&q=ideal%20black%20body&f=false

            And if you’re too dumb to understand those two sources, here’s one made specifically for kids. It might be more in your mental capacity range. It mentions how the ground heats up when visible light strikes it, and re-emits that energy as IR light. Basically even children are smarter than you. Congratulations: http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

          • Bill

            “Further, who told you visible light has a lot of heat in it? IR is referred to as HEAT because it contains much of the sun’s heat energy.”

            Are you really dumb? Visible light does not “contain” heat,

            I never said visible light has no heat. It has little heat. What scientific source says otherwise. YOU said IR heat was unimportant to the warming of the earth. What source says so? NASA, your mom, who? Give me a web site not your high school education’s opinion.

            Cite me a reliable source on radiant heat? That says you are correct? IT is a simple thing to do, you are on a computer google radiant heat and cite me a web page. But please, read the page first!
            ………………………………………………………..

            “Just because IR is referred to as “heat,” doesn’t mean that most of the sun’s energy comes in the form of IR”

            I was talking about the sun’s HEAT not the sun’s “ENERGY”. Try not to get confused. HEAT is only one form of energy.

            But again, cite a web source or textbook that supports your opinion.

            …………………………………………………………

            “If you look at the sun’s measured spectrum, you’ll see that most of it is in the visible range, which is probably why we’ve evolved to see mostly in that range.”

            53% 0f the radiant sun energy that reaches the outer atmosphere is Visible light, 10% is UV, and the rest, 37% is IR.

            After passing through the earth’s atmosphere however, the light being measured by NASA is 52% IR, 3% UV and 45% Visible light.

            Thus, IR makes up over half of all the solar energy reaching the earth’s surface.

            ……………………………………………………….

            Given standard measures the amount of energy in the Visible Light spectrum, from 400-700 nm (nano-meters) have energies that range between:

            1.7 eV (electon volts) to

            3.3 eV.

            IR has energies that range from:

            1.24 meV (million electron Volts) to

            1.7 eV.

            NOW Roberto, what scientific web site says different?

            Don’t give me your opinion, tell me who says NASA is wrong?

            …………………………………………………………

            “That’s why the surface absorbs visible light, which goes through the greenhouse gases without being affected, and then once it is warm, begins emitting in the IR range, to which greenhouse gases are NOT transparent.”

            The earth atmosphere contains more than just greenhouse gases Roberto, more visible light is filtered out by the atmosphere than IR is. What web site says otherwise?

            53% of the radiation that reaches the outer atmosphere is Visible light, 10% is UV the rest is IR. 52% of the light that strikes the earth’s surface is IR, 3% is UV and the rest is visible.

            What scientific source says otherwise?

            Further, the IR bands are far more energetic than the visible bands.

            Who says NASA is lying?

            Who says the National Meteorological Society is lying?

            Give me a web cite Roberto?

            ………………………………………………………..

            “Here is a scientific article dispelling your crap about greenhouse gases having a cooling effect.”
            “your crap” I sent you to NASA’s web site, this is NASA’s crap Roberto grow up.
            ………………………………………………………..
            Your cite about green house gases from Ramathan I’ll go over in another post as this one is getting long.

          • Roberto Nazario

            “YOU said IR heat was unimportant to the warming of the earth.”

            No, I didn’t I said that the IR FROM THE SUN wasn’t as important to the warming of the planet as the IR FROM THE SURFACE which comes from the absorbed visible light being re-emitted as IR, which you still claim is not a real thing despite also admitting that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is valid. Sounds like you don’t actually know what the Stefan Boltzmann law actually is. You can’t cite the Stefan Boltzmann law without also admitting that bodies will radiate the energy that they absorb once they reach equilibrium.

            I also see a bunch of hard numbers quoted, without actual citations, despite constantly asking me for citations, so come back with ACTUAL citations (links, for example), and then we’ll talk.

          • Bill

            “I also see a bunch of hard numbers quoted, without actual citations, despite constantly asking me for citations, so come back with ACTUAL citations (links, for example), and then we’ll talk.”

            I gave you NASA’s web site where I got all the “Hard Numbers” 25 days ago, but here it is again. If you add up all the solar energy NASA lays out in it’s diagram, 30% of the sun’s energy doesn’t get out nor is converted to IR and trapped.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

            Thus according to NASA so write to them and whine, don’t whine to me.

            23% is blocked coming in,

            25% is sent back out via evaporation

            5% is sent back out via convection, and

            17% is converted into IR 12% gets out 5% stays.

            ONLY 5% stays and contributes to the GH Effect.

            Add those number up

            23 + 25 + 5 + 17 = 70%

            30% of the sun’s soar radiation is absorbed by the earths biota and converted into food and cells and motion etc. NoO violation of the First Law nor of the Law of Conservation of Energy happens.

            Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but it can be converted into other forms of energy.

            E=mc2, all mass is made of energy.

            So where did the energy that your body is made up of come from?

            All life on the surface is made up of energy from the sun. All the food you have ever eaten was made by plants using sun energy to photo synthesize. All Meat you’ve ever eaten was from animals that ate: plants, or plant eaters.

            Animals also absorbed sunlight to metabolize vitamins and minerals just like human beings do.

            Without the sun’s energy life is impossible.. SO if the phony sun energy ballancers are correct when they say the earth sends all the solar energy it receives back out into space, then all life on earth would not exists, since there would be no sun energy for plants and animals and us to absorb since it all went back out!

            Find me a Biology, or botany text book that says otherwise?

            ………………………………………………………………….

            “No, I didn’t I said that the IR FROM THE SUN wasn’t as important to the warming of the planet as the IR FROM THE SURFACE which comes from the absorbed visible light being re-emitted as IR”

            Cite me a scientific web site that says that?

            Who told you that nonsense?

            NASA states that only 5% of the incoming sun energy is converted to IR and trapped by the GHG. Yet 23% is blocked out to begin with. What math teacher told you that 5 was bigger than 23? Even YOU should be able to do the math.

            …………………………………………………………………..

            “the IR FROM THE SURFACE which comes from the absorbed visible light being re-emitted as IR, which you still claim is not a real thing despite also admitting that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is valid.”

            I have always quoted NASA’s figures in every post. Only 17% of the solar energy reaching the planet is converted into IR, of that 12% gets out and 5% is trapped by the GHGs. While 23% is blocked out by the GHGs before it can get tot he earth.

            Adding GHGs to the earth will decease the solar heat reaching the earth, and cool the earth. Any cooling will bring a greater drop in emitted IR from the earth’s surface.

            You can’t win on this Roberto, even you can’t screw up the math.

            But hey, cite me a source that says otherwise?
            Please read it before you quote it.

          • Roberto Nazario

            “Without the sun’s energy life is impossible.. SO if the phony sun energy ballancers are correct when they say the earth sends all the solar energy it receives back out into space, then all life on earth would not exists, since there would be no sun energy for plants and animals and us to absorb since it all went back out!”

            No, wrong. This would only be the case if you started with a perfect blackbody at equilibrium at 0K. The earth sending an equal amount of energy back out would mean that it is at equilibrium, not that it doesn’t hold any of the energy, like a water tank, filled to the brim, with the same amount being poured in as is being siphoned off. It’s at equilibrium, same amount in, same amount out, but it’s not empty of water. Once again, review blackbody theory from the second link I sent you.

            Actually, your very own NASA link says ” If the atmosphere is radiating this much, it must be absorbing that much. ” Hmmm… weird. Your very own source is contradicting your claims that the energy balance is “baloney.” Weird.

            Also, the biosphere definitely does not absorb 30% of the sun’s energy. Like I said before, it’s between 1-2%, although I was generous and allowed you five percent, which is still not close to the 30% you claim. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/66191/biosphere/70865/Efficiency-of-solar-energy-utilization

            “E=mc2, all mass is made of energy.”

            But that’s now what biological systems use the energy for. They use the energy to make chemical bonds, not to make brand new atoms. The energy in chemicals bonds can be significant, but it’s not comparison to the energy you get out of E=mc^2. Consult enthalpy tables in any chemistry textbook for this data.

            So, you’ve got 30% energy unaccounted for, and the biosphere is incapable of absorbing this much energy. By the first law of thermodynamics, this energy has to go into warming up the surface and the oceans, by your own admission.

          • Bill

            Roberto

            I told you befor YOU ARE STUPID, DON’T TELL ME ANYTHING, CUT AND PAST FROM SCIENTIFIC SOURCES.

            I DON’T WANT TO HEAR ANY OF YOUR GROSS STUPIDITY ANY MORE. JUST CUT AND PASTE, YOU SHUT UP!!!

            LET SCIENTISTS TELL ME. AND READ YOUR CITES FIRST!!!

          • Roberto Nazario

            LOL, your caps lock won’t do anything. You made a very big claim, that the missing 30% is taken up by the biosphere, and I showed you a source which states that the plants only take up about 1-2% of solar energy, not 30%. You ASSUMED that the missing 30% was due to the biosphere, because it convenienced you, but you are wrong, so since I have provided a source which explicitly states that plants only absorb about 2% of solar energy, not the 30% you claimed, now you have to go find a source which states that plants take up the 30% that you claim they do.

            This source puts it at 5%, which is what I agreed to grant you for the sake of argument. https://books.google.com/books?id=C_RQdOSZ4bUC&pg=PA337&lpg=PA337&dq=how+much+energy+does+the+biosphere+absorb&source=bl&ots=jdirCkpVnv&sig=yYk_eR7Ke6qUWfHiqpUFQ205h34&hl=en&sa=X&ei=csFKVeauKYm1ogS_yYGACw&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=how%20much%20energy%20does%20the%20biosphere%20absorb&f=false

            So, now it’s your turn to explain where the other 25% is going. Since the 1st law of thermodynamics is valid, it’s not just disappearing, so… where is it?

          • Bill

            “LOL, your caps lock won’t do anything. You made a very big claim, that the missing 30% is taken up by the biosphere, and I showed you a source which states that the plants only take up about 1-2% of solar energy, not 30%.”

            Look up the definition of “BIOTA”!

            All living organisms are the earth’s biota not just plants, how do you make such dum mistakes? Do you think before you write anything? Don’t you ever look up a word in the dictionary?

            However, your mistake is helpful. You cited a source that stated that some of the earth’s solar energy is absorbed by plants and so, CANNOT GO BACK OUT INTO SPACE!!!

            So, you have just admited that NASA is wrong about the ENERGY BALLANCE. and no I didn’t not notice their mistake.

            ……………………………………………………………..
            NASA writes in Paragraph one below:

            “The Atmosphere’s Energy Budget

            Just as the incoming and outgoing energy at the Earth’s surface must balance, the flow of energy into the atmosphere must be balanced by an equal flow of energy out of the atmosphere and back to space…”

            So, NASA says that the incoming energy, all 1036 w/pm2 “must” go back out and so balance with the incoming energy.

            BUT

            You just gave me a cite that says the plants absorb some of the incoming energy and use it to make food and plant cells. Converting the sun’s energy they absorb into mass [E-mc2].

            Thus by your own admission, NOT all the energy can go back out because plants absorbed some of it and converted it into cells and food!!!!!

            Congratulations you’ve just caught a mistake. There is another one down below too, can you see it? They messed up the math, spot it?

            And it is YOU who has to say where the other 25% goes, since you admit NASA says it doesn’t leave.

            Look into the rest of the earth’s biota and tell me what do they take up?

            Interesting question what happened to the 25%. It doesn’t leave and energy cannot disappear it has to be conserved, so what happens to the 25% that the plants don’t take up?

            Let me be the first to congratulate you on proving that the “Earth Energy Balance” is a crock of poo. Good job.

          • Roberto Nazario

            That’s what biosphere means, genius. First of all, if plants, which specifically absorb visible wavelengths to produce glucose, are only 1% efficient, then the amount of sunlight absorbed by other organisms, such as by humans to produce vitamin D, will be so laughingly negligible that it is probably too low to be measured by our current technology, which is why it doesn’t affect calculations to ignore this tiny, tiny amount and focus on plants, which still make up a tiny, tiny percentage of the solar energy deficit.

            Now, the energy which plants store isn’t removed from the cycle forever. As a middle school education would have shown you, animals eat plants for energy, and other animals eat the animals which eat the plants, and this energy goes into body heat, ultimately, which is radiated back into the atmosphere. Weird, how that works huh? So no, that energy isn’t lost, it’s just moved around, which is why the planet can keep radiating what the biosphere absorbs.

            The plants which aren’t eaten eventually die and decay. Have you ever noticed how warm a compost pile becomes? Weird, it’s almost like all that energy is being released back into the atmosphere, you know, because of energy conservation. Weird.

            “Interesting question what happened to the 25%. It doesn’t leave and energy cannot disappear it has to be conserved, so what happens to the 25% that the plants don’t take up?

            Let me be the first to congratulate you on proving that the “Earth Energy Balance” is a crock of poo. Good job.”

            No, the energy balance applies to SYSTEMS AT EQUILIBRIUM. The earth is NOT at equilibrium, because for the last century we’ve been pumping a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere which had been for millions of years sequestered in the form of oil and gas. By admitting that there is about 25% energy unaccounted for, then you have ALREADY ADMITTED that the planet is warming up, because temperature is directly proportional to internal energy. You can look at any textbook on Statistical Mechanics for the proof of that statement.

            The sad part is that you’re not educated enough on thermodynamics or statistical mechanics to realize you’ve admitted the thing you were arguing against.

          • Bill

            Oh I should also correct myself, the Winds and rains are all powered by the sun’s heat and are not living organisms, so they don’t fall into the biota catagory, so I was wrong in claiming the “Biota” took it all in. Sorry me bad.
            The Earth’s Biota and natural systems absorb the 30%

          • Bill

            HI Roberto, as promised here is my reply to Mr. Raval and Mr. Ramanathan’s article from the Univ. of Chicago Dept. of Geophysical Science.

            FIRST OFF, you’ve cited an article that was published in December 1989!!!!!

            WE have actually learned some things in the last 26 years that was not available in 1989. IS there a reason you ahd to go back 26 years to find an article to quote?

            Couldn’t find an updated article from this decade eh?

            I’m not surprised!

            But hey let’s look at it anyway.
            ……………………………………………………….

            On page one the introductions states the paper looks at the effect of sea surface temperatures and water vapor on the greenhouse effect. Thus it is not examining GHGs in the atmosphere, as usual the WARMERS are not talking about all the solar energy kept out. 23% as you will remember from NASA’s web site, that actually gives us numbers to work with.

            Unfortunately I cannot cut and past from this article, I don’t know why so I’ll have to type it in, sorry.

            FIRST LIE:

            In Paragraph one they write:

            “IN its normal state, the Earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar radiation and maintains global energy balance by re-radiating this energy to space as infrared or long wave radiation.”

            On of the common lies Warmer stellis the Eenrgy balance ballony. The energy that comes in goes out, thus, we emit as much energy as wer get so we can have a definitive Greenhosue effect cause we send out as much as we get.

            As NASA’s satellite data shows, 30% of the solar energy that hits the earth’s surface stays here, t

            here is no balance, the earth runs a deficit with the sun’s energy. Plants and animals and micro-organisms absorb the sun’s energy and use it to make cells and metabolize food, as you learned in High School.

            SECOND LIE

            “The intervening atmosphere absorbs and emits the long wave radiation…”

            As everyone in science except this guy says, the trace gases in the earth’s atmosphere absorb all radiant bands sent out by the Sun not just IR.

            53% of the sun energy at the outer atmosphere is visible light, 10% is UV 37% IR. At the earth’s surface 52% of sun energy is IR, 3% if UV and 45% is visible light. All light has been diminished by the atmosphere, though IR has seen the least diminishment, as longer wave length are more able to penetrate through atmospheres and dust.

            As such telescopes in the IR and higher wave bands see more if they are in orbit around the earth, while Radio wave astronomy gets no assist from orbiting satellites, as all radio waves come through the atmosphere largely unaffected as they are very long wave bands.

            He continues saying:

            “…… but as the atmosphere is colder than the surface, it absorbs more energy that it emits upward to space.”
            NASA’s web site clearly states that of the 17% of the suns energy that reaches the earth and is converted into IR and radiated out, 12% gets sent out and ONLY 5% gets trapped in.
            So he is correct all 17% is absorbed but only 12% gets out.
            THIRD LIE
            “The energy that escapes to space is significantly smaller than that emitted by the surface.”
            12% of the 17% of the sun’s energy that reaches the earth is radiated out into space only 5% of the 17% stays. Thus 80% of all the IR energy the earth emits gets out into space versus only 20% that stays, since when is 80% significantly less than 100%? The 20% that stays is significantly les but not the 80% 80% is 4/5ths of 100%. How does this guy claim that that is significantly less?
            Oh you’re not going to like this, he writes:
            LIE FOUR
            “Because water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, the extra water vapour traps more longwave radiation and drives the temperature even higher.”
            As the Stefan-Boltzman Law meakes clear, increased amounts of CO2 would block out more incoming radiation and so cool the earth’s surface, and cause a much bigger decrease in the emitted IR radiation equal tot he change in absolute temperature taken to its FOURTH POWER. Thus it is impossible given the greater decline in emitted IR radiation from less heat for a greenhouse effect to be increased by more heat blocking CO2.
            This article does only speak of the greenhouse effect, he is not taking into account the total net effect of GHGs in the air them blocking 23% of the entering heat, but still he is lying.
            ……………………………………………………………….
            The rest of the article is cut and dry ghe math and I don’t challenge the math, it is correct, BUT …
            it doesn’t cover, nor take into effect the blockage of solar energy into the earths atmosphere by the GHGs cooling the earth and so lessening the emitted IR radiation. The GHGs a NASA measurement clearly show keep out over 300 watts per meter square, the GHGs only keep in 56.4 watts per meter square less than a sixth of what is blocked out.

        • Roberto Nazario

          Its potency is not weak. It accounts for about 20% of the heat the earth’s atmosphere traps.

          • nik

            You are misinformed.

          • Roberto Nazario

            Take it up with the researchers in the field

          • Bill

            Actually your getting turned around Roberto.

            73% of all man emitted GHG is CO2, but Water Vapor is responsible for 95% of the Greenhouse Effect.

            Remember Roberto, the warmers are ONLY talking about the heat from the Greenhouse Effect, they refuse to talk about the heat blocked out by the GHGs in the atmosphere.

            The NET effect of all the GHGs tells you if the GHGs warm the earth or cool the earth, and it cools the earth.

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

          • Roberto Nazario

            “Remember Roberto, the warmers are ONLY talking about the heat from the Greenhouse Effect, they refuse to talk about the heat blocked out by the GHGs in the atmosphere.”

            Then you must not be talking to ACTUAL scientists in the field. Climate scientists understand the dynamic climate system, and also know where the limitations are, which is why research continues into how to make better models of climate systems.

            “73% of all man emitted GHG is CO2, but Water Vapor is responsible for 95% of the Greenhouse Effect.”

            Not sure where you got 95%, but the issue is the half lives of both chemicals in the atmosphere. Water concentrations very day to day, whereas CO2 concentrations vary year to year. The main issue is that water can precipitate out of the atmosphere, but CO2 can’t do that. The other problem is that CO2 amplified the warming effect of water, because once CO2 causes enough warming, the warmer atmosphere can hold more water and cause more warming. THIS is why they focus on CO2, because we can’t do anything about the water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere, but we CAN do something about our CO2 emissions.

      • Bill

        Hi Nik,

        “More sun – more water vapour = more energy in the atmosphere, and increased weather phenomena.”

        Actually that isn’t quite true.
        First, you have to remember Heat is a Kinetic Energy, it is an moving energy, it doesn’t just sit in the atmosphere. When an atom absorbs a photon, it immediately emits it. Heat moves from hot to cold, so whatever gets hot, give its heat off to its cooler surroundings. Heat doenst’ stay in the air, either it is sent out into space, or it is sent back to the ground.
        Second, insulating gases also protect us from the sun’s heat and light. The atmosphere doesn’t just block out harmful UV rays, it also blocks out heat. 23% of the suns heat coming into the earth’s atmosphere, about 1365 watts per meter square, is sent back out into space according to NASA’s satellite and ground based measurements. The amount of heat kept out, about 340 watts per meter squared, is 6 times greater than the heat kept in 56.4 watts per meter squared.
        With no atmosphere, the Moon’s daytime temperature is 250 degrees Fahrenheit.
        While its night time temperature drops to -264 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. The Earth’s atmosphere keeps the earth from having the Moon’s wide swings in temperature by acting as an insulator keeping some heat out and a smaller, but significant amount of heat in.
        With no GHG’s in the atmosphere there would be nothing to absorb the sun’s infrared heat and we see Moon like daytime temperatures.
        Just remember when the sky is overcast, it doesn’t get warmer even though clouds are the most insulating thin in nature. It gets cooler because clouds keep a lot of the sun’s heat from reaching the surface of the earth. GHGs do the same thing just not as well.

        • nik

          You are a little confused, kinetic energy has nothing to do with heat.
          if you climbed to the top of the Eiffel tower, you would have potential energy, roughly proportional to the energy you used to get there. If you then jumped off the Eiffel tower, you would then have kinetic energy while you were falling. When you hit the ground, that kinetic energy would be converted to a small amount of heat energy, however, the evaporation of body fluids would probably neutralise most of the heat produced.
          When the sky is overcast, the earth stays warmer, as the heat trapped is reflected back to earth. Also heat from the sun, that is absorbed by the earths surface is re-emitted at night.This is why starlit nights produce frosts, and cloudy nights invariably do not.
          Insulation obviously works both ways, so clouds that trap heat, also reflect heat, both back to earth, and back into space. However the insulation of the atmosphere, including clouds, is not perfect, so quite a lot of light gets through it, and what does is then converted to heat. So, if you have had a sunny day, and then a cloudy night the heat given off by the earth would be trapped, and temperatures would rise above those expected if the night was cloudless.

          • Bill

            Nik thanks for the reply.

            Nik seriously, you are at a computer, google something and read about it before you talk about it. There is no reason for you to write such stupid things about heat. Google “Heat energy” and read before you write.

            The Kinetic Theory of Heat holds that heat is the total amount of “kinetic” energy in the body you are measuring.
            Atoms move, they collide with each other and create heat doing so. The more frequent their collide the greater the heat produced.

            Here are two short videos on Heat. One is on the Gay-Lusacc Law.
            And the other is a video for kids.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Oq7bCSDPxE

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tx4sGVfSSw
            ………………………………………………………..

            “When the sky is overcast, the earth stays warmer, as the heat trapped is reflected back to earth.”

            Really Nik.

            Here in Southern California and everywhere else, when the sky is overcast during the day, it gets cooler. In fact you can even feel the drop in temperature when a lone cloud passes over you putting you in shade. But that doesn’t happen where you are eh?

            You make a video showing temperatures rising when clouds are in the sky and put it on youtube an let me know where it is.

            You admit that clouds reflect heat back into space, thus cooling the earth’s surface by stopping the earth’s surface from getting hotter. They also reflect heat given off by the earth back at eh earth, but there is so little heat coming off the earth during an overcast day that it does little to offset the cooling of the clouds. Thus, the NET effect of the cloud cover is a general cooling effect not a warming one.

            The Greenhouse effect is controlled by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law discovered in 1885. It tells us that the amount of heat radiated by any body warmed above Absolute Zero is proportional to its absolute temperature taken to its forth power. Meaning a small change in temperature will create a much larger change in the amount of radiation given off by the warm body.
            If the temperature of a body drops by 2%, then the amount of radiation it gives off will drop by 2 to the forth power, or:
            2 x 2 x 2 x 2 = 16%.
            Clouds, in blocking out sunlight and sending it back out into space, cause a big drop in the earth’s surface temperature. The drop in heat given off by the earth therefore is much greater. So it is easy to see how clouds cut the knees off of the greenhouse effect.
            I’d like to give you a good video on this law but it is a complicated subject and there are no videos for laypersons like yourself. However you can go to Youtube.com and search for Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and try watching some. IT is pretty complicated stuff that you’d have difficulty understanding but it is worth a try.
            Best

    • Bill

      The changes in climate you mention Jack, have been happening for over 12,000 years, ever since the end of the last Ice Age.

      There is nothing that can be done to stop or change it. AS to GHG warming

      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

      go here and read the truth. GHGs block out way more heat than they trap in cooling the earth,

    • Bill

      Hi Jack, thanks for the vid post. I found it some what interesting but lacking in science. The speakers state that by removing GHG’ specifically CO2, we’d cool the earth.
      That’s insane. The MOON has no GHGs, it’s daytime temperature is 250 degrees Fahrenheit. That is not cooler than the earth.

      As your high school science teacher told you, the earth’s atmosphere acts as an insulator, blocking out heat from the sun so we don’t have the extreme high temperature of the Moon, and also helps keep in some heat at night so we don’t see the -260 degree temperatures that the dark side of the Moon sees.
      NASA satellites measure the total amount of energy reaching the earth from the sun at about 1365 watts per meter square. NASA’s ground stations only record about 1032 watts per meter square reaching the surface of the earth.
      Of that energy 17% is converted into infrared heat and sent back out. 12% of that 17% makes it out to space and the other 5% is absorbed by the GHG and directed back to the earth. Thus, NASA measures 56.4 watts per meter squared being kept in by the earth’s atmosphere.
      Remember however, over 300 watts per meter squared is being blocked out by the atmospheres GHGs. So the cooling effect of the het kept out is over 6 times greater than the warming caused by the heat that is kept in.
      If we remove GHGs from the air, then they wont’ be there to block out as much sun heat, and so more heat will get to the planet. If we remove all GHGs from the air, then all the sun’s heat will get in and like the moon, we will see 250 degree day time temperatures

  • RandyRW

    “In the lecture, he then goes on to say that “the Sun is a primary driver of climate change and requires to be studied.””

    While changes in solar insolation (energy from the sun) drive climate over eons through Milankovich cycles, Soon is wrong about the changes in energy from the sun driving recent global temperature increases. Energy received from the sun decreased from 1372.1 Watt/square meter in 1980 to 1360.5 W/square meter in 2010 while global average temperature increased by 0.6 C.

    See
    Ermolli et al Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3945–3977, 2013

    • cirby

      You (and the IPCC) are conflating “radiative forcing” with “insolation.”

      “Radiative forcing” is a compound measurement which includes (and is mostly composed of) the greenhouse effect – not the actual amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun. Even the IPCC admits that there has been a small increase in total insolation – but that’s not the issue, and not what Soon contends.

      The big issue isn’t really total energy – it’s the different spectra that make up that average energy, combined with changes in the solar wind that alter things like incoming cosmic rays and high-altitude chemistry. A small increase in UV (with a corresponding change in the energy from visible and IR light) leaves total insolation the same – while changing the Earth’s temperature due to changes in high-altitude clouds and other effects.

      • RandyRW

        Yes UV is important because of potential heating of the ozone layer, but if you read the paper you will that UV irradiance has also fallen since 1980

        • cirby

          That’s not the reason UV is important. You’re confusing the static (not lowered) UV effect on the amount of ozone in the ozone layer with the other effects the UV level has on the atmosphere – and there are many.

          There are also multiple frequencies of UV to deal with – and some are much, much more important than others.

          • RandyRW

            Read the paper. These factors are all discussed in detail. The most important wavelengths for Ozone forcing are 200-240 There is a figure show how they have varied and declined overall.

          • cirby

            You should probably read it, too – the biggest theme is “we can’t really measure UV very consistently because the instruments in the satellites die quickly.” The second-best theme is “we can’t actually make observed UV match the AGW climate models, so we have to fudge a lot.”

            …and they even admit, flat-out, that “TSI alone does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere and therefore SSI variations have to be taken into account in climate models.”

            Which they currently are not…

          • RandyRW

            All of the measurement show both total solar isolation and irradiance in the UV decreasing. The uncertainty is in how much.

          • cirby

            …over the last decade or so – which matches up quite nicely with the LACK of warming.

            On the other hand, the AGW-based climate models have completely blown their predictions at this point – because they completely botched the problem of solar irradiance.

          • RandyRW

            Actually the decrease in total solar insolation goes from about 1960 but only data from 1980 on are given in the paper. The paper discusses specific decreases in 220-240 UV irradiance but the figures show it has decreased or at least not increased since 1980.
            As to no warming the odds are good that 2014 was the warmest year on record, even without an el-nino, surpassing 2010 and 2005 which were el-nino years. The 5-year running average temperature continues to increase.

          • cirby

            As others have pointed out, the “2014 was the warmest” silliness didn’t actually happen.

            …not to mention that we’re nearly a half of a degree BELOW the predictions of the AGW folks (and have been for a while now). Which, incidentally, completely breaks the theory – although they’re still frantically trying to ignore that.

            The “TSI since 1960” bit is, of course, wrong – since the satellite measurements only seriously started in 1980 or so, and your own cite admits that matching the observations across the short-lived UV instruments is pretty nearly impossible. They wave their hands a lot, but the real answer is “UV has a noticeable impact on AGW models – and isn’t accounted for in the theory.”

          • Mark Schaffer

            Too bad GISS disagree with your, obviously, wrong assertions about 2014:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20150116/

          • cirby

            Unfortunately, the GISS temps have been “adjusted” to make AGW seem like it’s still happening – and even with their discarding of the “cool” stations, they’re still about a half-degree below AGW predictions.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/18/hansens-nasa-giss-cooling-the-past-warming-the-present/

            Of course, NASA’s temperature records are overseen by James Hansen – who’s been handed about $1.6 million dollars over the years because of his support for AGW, including two separate $500,000 prizes from green-activist groups.

            No financial incentive there, right?

          • Mark Schaffer

            That you don’t know that Dr. Hansen retired a few years ago just shows how unreliable people should find you as a source.

            Further, the use of Watts as though it has any science credibility just shows how poorly educated you are.

            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Watts_Up_With_That

            “Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]”

          • cirby

            Yeah, keep attacking the messenger, and ignore the fact that when corrupt people choose replacements, those replacements are hand-picked to keep the illusion going. He retired in 2013, by the way. Since most of the problem with 2014’s temperature records stem from the pruning of stations in previous years, whining about his retirement is just a sign of how bad you lost this argument.

            …and keep quoting the AGW folks about WUWT – which keeps pointing out the problems with AGW that you guys can never actually seem to counter. So you have to attack the messengers.

            Again.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Ho hum. You, an anonymous poster with no science background, are spreading false information.

            “hand picked”. Good. Feel free to disparage your betters:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/about/management.html

          • cirby

            Yep Gavin Schmidt, another politically-oriented warmist, who served under Hansen for many years.

            Nice of you to admit it. And that you think warmists are “betters.”

          • Mark Schaffer

            Way to get absolutely everything wrong. Who Dr. Schmidt is, what his background is, and calling actual experts “warmists”.
            Now, other than an anonymous right wing brain dead troll lying about who it is, WHO are you really?

          • cirby

            Keep digging – that hole’s not deep enough yet.

          • Mark Schaffer

            It is deep enough that your head remains firmly buried out of sight of knowledge.
            Now, why are you lying?

          • cirby

            Let’s see… I called Schmidt a politically-connected warmist.

            Which is true.

            I pointed out that he was Hansen’s hand-picked successor.

            Which is true.

            What, specifically, do you object to?

          • Mark Schaffer

            Prove your assertions are true. So far you have zero evidence and are lying.

          • cirby

            Once again: which of those two assertions do you think are WRONG?

            Be specific, instead of just being abusive.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Assertion(s) is plural…or weren’t you aware of this.
            You have no credibility and continue to present zero evidence.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Thank you RandyRW.

  • Jim Corcoran

    Interestingly, Greenpeace is the recent subject of another whistle-blower expose’.

    The documentary Cowspiracy convincingly ties animal agriculture to not only climate change, but to the most devastating environmental problems facing humankind. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of water use, water pollution, habitat destruction and species extinction locally and globally.

    Cowspiracy filmmakers repeatedly asked Greenpeace to comment on animal agriculture’s role in the escalating environmental toll on our planet and whether or not they receive funding from trade-groups representing animal agriculture. Greenpeace refuses to comment to this day and they are not alone. Most of the largest environmental groups, also betray the public’s trust.

    Education is critical to any efforts in mitigating the onslaught of environment devastation. Arguably the most important decision we make everyday is what we choose to put on our plate.

  • LoveFreedom

    It’s interesting that Willie Soon is being vilified for accepting private sector funding when an equally important (if not larger) issue is the corruption of research, due to the acceptance of government grants.

    President Dwight D. Eisenhower discussed this in his farewell address of 1961. That speech is best remembered for his warning that “We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Few remember that he expanded on that thought as follows:

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.”

    “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”

    “Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

    • dxing

      Yeah, that’s right a University education is now a bad thing? Did you even go to college?
      Look at the most vibrant areas in the US, they are all situated near Universities, CA Bay area NC Triangle, Boston!

      • LoveFreedom

        Who said a University education is a bad thing?

    • Tom Yulsman

      LoveFreedom: The documents produced under the Freedom of Information Act show that Willie Soon’s contract with the Southern Company specified that in return for the money he would have to submit his scientific papers for Southern’s review before publication. And in the contract, they called these papers “deliverables.” If you don’t see that as a company with a political agenda buying the scientific outcome they want (and then Soon lying about it), then I don’t know what to say. Ditto if you don’t see this as a very big problem.

      As to your point about government funding, I know many dozens of scientists whose research is funded by the National Science Foundation. And I do not know a single one who is committing fraud because of that funding source. They are all, to a person, honorable people doing their best to figure out how different aspects of the Earth system work. Some of their findings may ultimately turn out to be wrong — and if so, their peers will figure that out, because that is how science works.

      • LoveFreedom

        So, on the one hand Soon’s funding is a problem. On the other hand your friend’s funding is not. Okie doki.

        All of their work is subject to review, revision, falsification, confirmation etc whatever side they are on. And, really, why do we have sides? Shouldn’t everyone be trying to find the truth and therefore on the same side?

  • tinasjogren

    Why is it accepted that Al Gore profits from the opposite belief? And why is the Sun theory so implausible considering climate change on Earth and in our solar system has been so common historically?

    • dxing

      Because the sun’s output is actually down, but temperatures continue increasing

  • Sgtsnuffy

    The laughable part is that when the SUN decreases it’s energy out put guess what. The Earth gets “COLDER” DUH !!!! When Krakatoa blew up back in the 1700’s guess what ???? All that ash and and dust cut down the sunlight reaching the planet and what happened ????? Mini Ice Age during the Revolutionary war. The Sun’s energy out put has everything to do with Global warming and cooling. And to say otherwise is a denial of known provable science. Try using a dimmer switch on a light bulb, when you turn the light bulb dimmer and dimmer what happens ????? The light bulb’s heat output decreases it’s the same principal for the sun.

    • Daniel Martinovich

      Dude, we are talking government paid and international leftist supported scientists here. They can deny 1+1=2 and spend a trillion of your dollars to propagate their denial and TMZ will broadcast 1+1=8 for free. It just shows how stupid the human race really is and in need of a savior to save them from their own devices. (That would be Jesus in case you are wondering.) Keep up the fight.

      • Mike Richardson

        I’m guessing Jesus would probably want us to use our brains to try and be better stewards of the Earth. And yes, there’s abundant stupidity in the human race. Folks who support industries polluting this planet prove it every day. Hopefully, you’re not the type to do that, right?

        • Daniel Martinovich

          Yes he would which is why He is opposed to what you are doing. You want to rumble with me over that fact?

          • Mike Richardson

            Michael Buffer is likely booked through the rest of the year, so probably no rumbling can be done in a reasonable timeframe. Not too clear on what “fact” we’d be rumbling over, anyway. Man, I never thought a science magazine’s blog site would be this entertaining.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mike: Folks like Daniel Martinovich aren’t reflective of Discover’s readership. His bloviation — and yes, you are right, it is hilarious in a sad kind of way — is a one off. I doubt we’ll see him again. Let’s hope not.

          • dxing

            i thought you folks say the earth is 6,000 years old and man was riding on dinosaurs back then?

          • Daniel Martinovich

            More like 7-8 thousand.

          • Mark Schaffer

            The trouble with crazy people like Danny is that they can’t realize they are crazy.

          • Mark Schaffer

            You talk to jesus too? Man! Are you important or what?

    • Tom Yulsman

      Sgtsnuffy: At Discover magazine, we cover science, and we discuss science. If you would like to make stuff up because it suits your political perspective, that’s fine. Just take it somewhere else.

  • jimminycrickets

    Is this a comedy piece? Cash for “science” is the only thing the Warmers have done for decades. It is not science, It is a shakedown.

    • zlop

      “Is this a comedy piece?”
      I think they seriously ignored Jesus Christ — “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of
      thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

      As for Willie Soon, he might have ignored the stupid, not even wrong, climate models
      if he was not paid to evaluate them. ( stupid knows better, green-lighted, does incorrect )

      • Mnestheus

        Sounds like Zloppy thinking to me.

    • David Rice

      The warmer what?

      • jimminycrickets

        Who?

  • RealClimateInfo

    I watched several of Dr. Soon’s videos. He makes a lot of sense, I don’t care who pays him.

    • zlop

      “What’s more like the mafia, an oil company or the government?”
      “Koch brothers and Sierra Club unite behind Tesla “

    • Mark Schaffer

      Videos are not a substitute for science:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/

      The Soon fallacy

      Filed under:

      Climate modelling

      Climate Science

      Sun-earth connections — gavin @ 24 February 2015

      Tweet

      As many will have read, there were a number of press reports (NYT, Guardian, InsideClimate) about the non-disclosure of Willie Soon’s corporate funding (from Southern Company (an energy utility), Koch Industries, etc.) when publishing results in journals that require such disclosures. There are certainly some interesting questions to be asked (by the OIG!) about adherence to the Smithsonian’s ethics policies, and the propriety of Smithsonian managers accepting soft moneywith non-disclosure clauses attached.

      However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? It’s certainly conceivable that Soon’s work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. In such a case, someone might be tempted to overlook the ethical lapses and conflicts of interest for the sake of scientific advancement (though far too many similar post-hoc justifications have been used to excuse horrific unethical practices for this to be remotely defendable).

      Unfortunately, the evidence from the emails and the work itself completely undermines that argument because the work and the motivation behind it are based on a scientific fallacy.

      Putting aside papers where Soon was only a minor contributing author, and the hopelessly slanted ‘forecasting principles’ papers with Green and Armstrong (see here for why they add nothing to the discussion), most of Soon’s work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.

      It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ (not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he did send it to his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:

      The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.

      It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

      It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon’s research – the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero. The existence of one physical factor affecting a variable in a complex system says nothing whatsoever about the potential for another physical factor to affect that same variable.

      Even if the correlations existed at the level Soon claims (and they don’t – see figure), it would still not indicate that CO2 had zero effect, and indeed, it could never do so. The impacts of CO2 on radiative transfer have been studied since the 1860s, and modern spectroscopic databases date to Air Force calculations for heat seeking missiles in the 1950s and have been validated by an enormous number of observations, both in situ and via remote sensing. The vertical fingerprint of the impact of increasing CO2 (warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere) was calculated in 1967 by [2], decades before it was observed. None of this science disappears because a regional temperature series correlates for some short time with something else.

      Figure 1. Updating the Soon (2005) correlations by correcting for an obsolete and almost certainly incorrect solar reconstruction (replacing with the SORCE reconstruction) and extending the temperature data to the present, shows an almost complete collapse of the initially impressive correlation (click for larger version).

      The only way this might even begin to make sense would be if attribution of recent global warming was based purely on a linear regression of temperature to CO2 (which it isn’t). Given that weknow there are multiple drivers of climate operating (the sun for sure, but also volcanoes, aerosols, greenhouse gas changes, land use change, etc.) the only way to do attribution properly is calculate the physical fingerprints of each of these drivers across multiple variables and see which combinations provide the best fits. Indeed, this is indeed exactly what is done. This kind of attribution is not based on single-factor correlations and is even robust to errors of magnitude in the calculated responses.

      Soon’s work has been singularly poor for over a decade, first coming to prominence with theSoon and Baliunas (2003) debacle in Climatic Research which led to the resignation of 5 editors in protest at the way the paper was handled (and see more here). Another case associated with some very obvious shenanigans was Dyck et al (2007). More recently, his presentations at Heartland’s pseudo-climate conferences have come under renewed scrutiny for their level of incoherence.

      The odd thing about this is that there is real, and interesting, science to be done on the impacts of solar forcing on climate. The chemical feedbacks due to photolytic reactions in both the stratosphere and troposphere involving ozone, NOx, and water vapour, can have significant impacts. Exploring the tremendous complexities in aerosol formation and growth and impacts on clouds and whether that is mediated by modulations of cosmic rays is fascinating (if, as yet,inconclusive). Indeed, there is a current NASA call for proposals on exactly these subjects (Notice of Intent due March 13!). But every time another one of these spurious correlations is touted, or one more fallaciously reasoned argument is put forward, it makes it harder for serious scientists to get involved at all without being tarred with the same pseudo-scientific brush.

      Moving on from this low-quality, pointless kind of solar forcing shtick can’t come ‘Soon’ enough.”

  • nik

    Money or not, he is correct.
    CO2 is NOT a significant greenhouse gas and never has been.
    The CO2 content of the Earth’s atmosphere is about 0.04%, the CO2 content of the Martian atmosphere is around 95%.
    Given that the laws of physics are the same on Mars as on Earth, [sarcasm] then Mars should have the most spectacular greenhouse climate in the solar system. It has not! Its a freezing cold – 60 deg C or lower desert.
    The sun controls the climate on Earth, Simple, No sun = No climate!
    The human input of the 0.04% CO2 on Earth is about 0.01% of the total CO2, or 0.0004%.
    If 95% CO2 cannot produce a greenhouse effect on Mars, 0.04% wont do it on Earth either.
    Global climate change is caused primarily by the sun, It has a 100,000 year cycle caused by the combination of the gradual change of the Earth’s orbit, from elliptical to nearly circular, and its precession.
    Hence in the last 700,000 years there have been 7 ice ages.
    Earth is currently approaching the peak of the 100,000 year cycle, the curve of the graph is asymptotic so the rate of change will increase up to the peak, and then fall just as rapidly.
    The human race has far more to fear from the next Ice Age than global warming. Its probably got 5000-10,000 years if its lucky before the ice caps advance again, or about the same time since they retreated and Northern Europe became habitable.
    The Current CO2 ‘religion’ is a scam of the highest order.

    • zlop

      “Earth is currently approaching the peak of the 100,000 year cycle”?
      This interglacial is almost over. 60, 200 and 1050 year cycles have peaked.
      There should have been a strong rebound. Expect Ice Age Doom.
      http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e2d17582970b-pi

      • dxing

        Nonsense, 2014 was the hottest year on record!

      • nik

        Maybe the peak has passed already, or this is just a temporary drop due to the suns variability, The damping effect of the oceans, and the consequent CO2 release due to ocean warming can confuse matters.

        • zlop

          Initial peak 7,600 years ago then decline
          Another peak 3,300 years ago, then declining peaks.
          Modern warming peak has split in two — 1930 and 2000 decades.
          This interglacial has been colder and longer than the last interglacial.

          Contrary to IPCC assertions, CO2 makes little difference.

          • nik

            Yes, the CO2 myth was started by Maggie Thatcher to justify nuclear power, and closing the Coal pits in the UK,in revenge against the miners who brought down the previous Tory government. It’s snowballed from there.
            CO2 increase is a result of warming, not the cause.
            I can only smile, when I think of all the futile efforts being instigated to stop climate warming, and the panic to reverse the process, when they find that a new ice age has started. but I wont be around for that.

          • zlop

            “I wont be around for that.”
            Average previous declines have been slow. However crop production could
            be interrupted. Then there could be a Willie the Woody Mammoth Event.
            (average global temperature is slow to decline, while land is quicker)

            An estimate, for coldest in the coming little ice age, is 2042.
            Additionally, “Sunspots: The 200-year sunspot cycle is also a weather cycle”
            Earth has lost atmosphere, since the warmer, last interglacial?

          • Mark Schaffer

            I wasn’t aware that John Tyndall lived during Thatcher’s administration. Care to explain this curious problem you have?

          • nik

            I dont have a problem, curious or otherwise.

        • Mark Schaffer

          Oceans are warming but their CO2 content is INCREASING:
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

          • nik

            There are, it has been reported, ‘lakes’ of liquid CO2 deep in the oceans, as the oceans warm, this CO2 gasifies and enters the ocean. Then, like a beer losing its ‘fizz’ the CO2 leaves the ocean and enters the atmosphere. CO2 from the oceans does not precede warming, it lags warming,
            However, as CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas, the discussion about it is pointless, when related to global climate change.
            IF CO2 was a significant greenhouse gas, then, as I have previously pointed out, Mars, with an atmosphere of 95% CO2 should have the most spectacular greenhouse climate in the solar system, At – 60 deg C or below, it seems somewhat lacking in that respect, dont you think?

    • Mark Schaffer

      We will look forward to your published research overturning John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius.

      • nik

        The research already exists, for those that care to look. there are none so blind as those the wont see.

  • Daniel Martinovich

    So, scientists who deny man made climate change, ie global warming are supposed to work for free? In the mean time the con men are getting billions from the national treasury and elsewhere to hawk their wares. The icing on the cake. We the people are supposed to believe the “scientists” who are part of the con rather than the raw data itself. No flippen Global warming! This is nothing but the fascist despot wanna-bes of the world seeking a means to control it once more. They cannot stand the idea of all the freedom and prosperity growing around the world. They, like Hitler and his Darwinist racist scientism and the Stalin with his dialectic materialism scientism have now found another scientism they thing they can dupe the masses with.

    • Mike Richardson

      Don’t forget the Reptilians and the Greys are behind this, too. Oh, wait, am I confusing my conspiracies. Damn, these voices in my head keep talking over each other. Need to add another “ism” to drown them out… must put… on … tin foil hat. Ah, much better. Where do I sign up for the Tin Foil Hat Brigade?

      • Daniel Martinovich

        Mike there is a voice that is going to be speaking to what you are attempting to do soon. He does not take kindly to those who seek to rule over his people. Doesn’t matter what justification they use. Take heed.

        • Mike Richardson

          Heeding. Heeding much. No more watching “Despicable Me,” because Minions are bad. Don’t know what I’m attempting to do, but obviously, no more Minions.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Your part of a scam Mike ( a Minion) that others are using to gain power over free peoples and to loot the wealth they are creating. The scam also keeps the impoverished developing nations impoverished by denying them access to cheap abundant energy. Both are issues that God takes quite seriously.

          • Mike Richardson

            No source of energy is more abundant than the sun. I think God put that there for a reason. Beats pulling poisonous hydrocarbons out of the ground for energy. Just saying.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            The poisonous hydrocarbons are there for a reason to Mike.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Yes. Because Benzene is GOOD for you.

          • Mike Richardson

            And see, I thought that last comment stood all on its own. Because I’m pretty sure if I asked what the reason was, I wouldn’t be getting an explanation involving long-dead organisms decaying under the right heat, pressure, and low level of oxygen to convert into hydrocarbons. I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess it might be a tad more supernatural.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Still a crank.

          • Daniel Martinovich

            Good comeback though.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Crank.

    • dxing

      They are supposed to disclose their funding to journals publishing their work!

    • Mark Schaffer

      The trouble with crazy people like you is that you don’t know you are crazy.

  • Robert J. Crawford

    Though I firmly believe in the human role in climate change, you are going to have to do better than this if you want to discredit this man.

    The article rightfully points out that he violated ethics rules in hiding the appearance of conflict of interest, but there is absolutely no proof offered to he changed his conclusions in exchange for pay or fudged his data to arrive at them. That he calls papers “deliverables” looks bad, but he may only be reverting to vocabulary that his sponsors expect in accordance with their standard operating procedures.

    Unless you can prove he arrived at his conclusions without integrity, we must respect his opinion. Let his data be scrutinized by the usual scientific peer process.

    • dxing

      His research is bunk, how’s that for for proof?

      • Robert J. Crawford

        If it is bunk, let’s scientists express that opinion as consensus – I am unaware if they have already and the article does not make that case. I don’t mean to defend him, but it is crude attempt to discredit that does his critics no credit.

        • Michael DiCato

          The article clearly explains that the sun has a negligible affect on climate (increased radiative forcing of just 0.05 watts per meter squared). The article also explains that greenhouse gases have a massive affect on climate (increased radiative forcing by 3.00 watts per meter squared). Willie Soon’s claims that tiny changes in the sun could be causing climate change are unequivocally false.

    • 9.8m/ss

      Soon’s “research” is routinely torn to shreds by his peers. I believe the only reason he can still publish is the journals are trying to show that they’re not shunning the “skeptics.”

    • Tom Yulsman

      Robert: You don’t find it concerning that Soon entered a contract with the Southern company (a utility) specifying that he would provide drafts of his papers to them for review and possible revision before publication? Do you really think this is acceptable behavior? And honestly, do you trust the science he produced?

    • Mark Schaffer

      Lucky for you this has been happening and he falls short every time:

      The Soon fallacy

      Filed under:

      Climate modelling

      Climate Science

      Sun-earth connections — gavin @ 24 February 2015

      Tweet

      As many will have read, there were a number of press reports (NYT, Guardian, InsideClimate) about the non-disclosure of Willie Soon’s corporate funding (from Southern Company (an energy utility), Koch Industries, etc.) when publishing results in journals that require such disclosures. There are certainly some interesting questions to be asked (by the OIG!) about adherence to the Smithsonian’s ethics policies, and the propriety of Smithsonian managers accepting soft moneywith non-disclosure clauses attached.

      However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? It’s certainly conceivable that Soon’s work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. In such a case, someone might be tempted to overlook the ethical lapses and conflicts of interest for the sake of scientific advancement (though far too many similar post-hoc justifications have been used to excuse horrific unethical practices for this to be remotely defendable).

      Unfortunately, the evidence from the emails and the work itself completely undermines that argument because the work and the motivation behind it are based on a scientific fallacy.

      Putting aside papers where Soon was only a minor contributing author, and the hopelessly slanted ‘forecasting principles’ papers with Green and Armstrong (see here for why they add nothing to the discussion), most of Soon’s work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.

      It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ (not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he did send it to his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:

      The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.

      It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

      It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon’s research – the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero. The existence of one physical factor affecting a variable in a complex system says nothing whatsoever about the potential for another physical factor to affect that same variable.

      Even if the correlations existed at the level Soon claims (and they don’t – see figure), it would still not indicate that CO2 had zero effect, and indeed, it could never do so. The impacts of CO2 on radiative transfer have been studied since the 1860s, and modern spectroscopic databases date to Air Force calculations for heat seeking missiles in the 1950s and have been validated by an enormous number of observations, both in situ and via remote sensing. The vertical fingerprint of the impact of increasing CO2 (warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere) was calculated in 1967 by [2], decades before it was observed. None of this science disappears because a regional temperature series correlates for some short time with something else.

      Figure 1. Updating the Soon (2005) correlations by correcting for an obsolete and almost certainly incorrect solar reconstruction (replacing with the SORCE reconstruction) and extending the temperature data to the present, shows an almost complete collapse of the initially impressive correlation (click for larger version).

      The only way this might even begin to make sense would be if attribution of recent global warming was based purely on a linear regression of temperature to CO2 (which it isn’t). Given that weknow there are multiple drivers of climate operating (the sun for sure, but also volcanoes, aerosols, greenhouse gas changes, land use change, etc.) the only way to do attribution properly is calculate the physical fingerprints of each of these drivers across multiple variables and see which combinations provide the best fits. Indeed, this is indeed exactly what is done. This kind of attribution is not based on single-factor correlations and is even robust to errors of magnitude in the calculated responses.

      Soon’s work has been singularly poor for over a decade, first coming to prominence with theSoon and Baliunas (2003) debacle in Climatic Research which led to the resignation of 5 editors in protest at the way the paper was handled (and see more here). Another case associated with some very obvious shenanigans was Dyck et al (2007). More recently, his presentations at Heartland’s pseudo-climate conferences have come under renewed scrutiny for their level of incoherence.

      The odd thing about this is that there is real, and interesting, science to be done on the impacts of solar forcing on climate. The chemical feedbacks due to photolytic reactions in both the stratosphere and troposphere involving ozone, NOx, and water vapour, can have significant impacts. Exploring the tremendous complexities in aerosol formation and growth and impacts on clouds and whether that is mediated by modulations of cosmic rays is fascinating (if, as yet,inconclusive). Indeed, there is a current NASA call for proposals on exactly these subjects (Notice of Intent due March 13!). But every time another one of these spurious correlations is touted, or one more fallaciously reasoned argument is put forward, it makes it harder for serious scientists to get involved at all without being tarred with the same pseudo-scientific brush.

      Moving on from this low-quality, pointless kind of solar forcing shtick can’t come ‘Soon’ enough.

      • Robert J. Crawford

        Mark, your response is far better than the article. It is exactly what I thought was missing, bringing in expertise I would be unable to furnish. I hope you write this up and publish it formally if you haven’t.

        • Mark Schaffer

          Oops! I failed to give proper attribution to the proper source which is here:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/

          Sorry for that.

          • http://www.aquaticape.org/ JDM

            And the Real Climate article also points to the fact that Soon’s work has been shown to be crap for more than a decade. Robert Crawford is using the “I’m ignorant about the subject” defense for Soon; one hopes he’s being innocently foolish in doing so.

  • http://oneroomschool.net Principalwilkins

    Of course the frauds who perpetuate the lie of global warming are funded by the government, but that is not a problem I suppose, at least not for the believers.

    • Mark Schaffer

      That darn Bush Sr. and Jr. administration! Funding real research.

  • OWilson

    Good heavens!

    A scientist being paid for his work?

    And here I though that scientists (and journalists) worked for free :)

    • Mike Richardson

      It isn’t getting paid that’s the problem. It’s not disclosing what certainly looks like a clear conflict of interests. Ethics do matter.

      • OWilson

        I assume you never voted for Clinton’s second term, and wouldn’t vote for his, ahem, wife?

        • Mike Richardson

          Well, with politicians, it’s always gonna be the lesser of two evils. I’ve never had a chance to vote for a Republican candidate that seemed the lesser one, and as they seem to keep getting worse, I likely never will.

  • Christopher Bowen

    Calling HIM a denier? What a joke. The real denial is the millions who have been brain washed into falling for their taxation scheme to create a global government. There is man-made climate change, but it is caused by a global spraying program that has been kept a secret for over 17 years.

    • Mark Schaffer

      Hello crank.

  • OWilson

    In the interest of “balance”, here’s another new “accusation”.

    “”A TOP UNITED NATIONS climate change official has pulled out of a
    key meeting in Kenya next week as Indian police investigate a sexual harassment complaint against him, officials have said.

    Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), withdrew due to “issues demanding his attention”, the UN body said in a statement late Saturday.””

    You’ll never win a scientific argument unless you address the message, not the messenger.

    • Mark Schaffer

      Next you will be accusing John Tyndall of fraud.

  • Dan

    You do realize that this is a defensive attack, the left is desperate to counter the right because they to survive on funding, mostly tax funding. What I would like to see is not accusations and criticism, but rather hard facts that his research is bogus, because I can not trust them either. We are all aware of the lies generated by the left lets see their proof and see how they were funded. Discrediting is not proof.

    • Mark Schaffer

      Here you go:

      The Soon fallacy

      Filed under:

      Climate modelling

      Climate Science

      Sun-earth connections — gavin @ 24 February 2015

      Tweet

      As many will have read, there were a number of press reports (NYT, Guardian, InsideClimate) about the non-disclosure of Willie Soon’s corporate funding (from Southern Company (an energy utility), Koch Industries, etc.) when publishing results in journals that require such disclosures. There are certainly some interesting questions to be asked (by the OIG!) about adherence to the Smithsonian’s ethics policies, and the propriety of Smithsonian managers accepting soft moneywith non-disclosure clauses attached.

      However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? It’s certainly conceivable that Soon’s work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. In such a case, someone might be tempted to overlook the ethical lapses and conflicts of interest for the sake of scientific advancement (though far too many similar post-hoc justifications have been used to excuse horrific unethical practices for this to be remotely defendable).

      Unfortunately, the evidence from the emails and the work itself completely undermines that argument because the work and the motivation behind it are based on a scientific fallacy.

      Putting aside papers where Soon was only a minor contributing author, and the hopelessly slanted ‘forecasting principles’ papers with Green and Armstrong (see here for why they add nothing to the discussion), most of Soon’s work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.

      It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ (not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he did send it to his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:

      The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.

      It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

      It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon’s research – the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero. The existence of one physical factor affecting a variable in a complex system says nothing whatsoever about the potential for another physical factor to affect that same variable.

      Even if the correlations existed at the level Soon claims (and they don’t – see figure), it would still not indicate that CO2 had zero effect, and indeed, it could never do so. The impacts of CO2 on radiative transfer have been studied since the 1860s, and modern spectroscopic databases date to Air Force calculations for heat seeking missiles in the 1950s and have been validated by an enormous number of observations, both in situ and via remote sensing. The vertical fingerprint of the impact of increasing CO2 (warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere) was calculated in 1967 by [2], decades before it was observed. None of this science disappears because a regional temperature series correlates for some short time with something else.

      Figure 1. Updating the Soon (2005) correlations by correcting for an obsolete and almost certainly incorrect solar reconstruction (replacing with the SORCE reconstruction) and extending the temperature data to the present, shows an almost complete collapse of the initially impressive correlation (click for larger version).

      The only way this might even begin to make sense would be if attribution of recent global warming was based purely on a linear regression of temperature to CO2 (which it isn’t). Given that weknow there are multiple drivers of climate operating (the sun for sure, but also volcanoes, aerosols, greenhouse gas changes, land use change, etc.) the only way to do attribution properly is calculate the physical fingerprints of each of these drivers across multiple variables and see which combinations provide the best fits. Indeed, this is indeed exactly what is done. This kind of attribution is not based on single-factor correlations and is even robust to errors of magnitude in the calculated responses.

      Soon’s work has been singularly poor for over a decade, first coming to prominence with theSoon and Baliunas (2003) debacle in Climatic Research which led to the resignation of 5 editors in protest at the way the paper was handled (and see more here). Another case associated with some very obvious shenanigans was Dyck et al (2007). More recently, his presentations at Heartland’s pseudo-climate conferences have come under renewed scrutiny for their level of incoherence.

      The odd thing about this is that there is real, and interesting, science to be done on the impacts of solar forcing on climate. The chemical feedbacks due to photolytic reactions in both the stratosphere and troposphere involving ozone, NOx, and water vapour, can have significant impacts. Exploring the tremendous complexities in aerosol formation and growth and impacts on clouds and whether that is mediated by modulations of cosmic rays is fascinating (if, as yet,inconclusive). Indeed, there is a current NASA call for proposals on exactly these subjects (Notice of Intent due March 13!). But every time another one of these spurious correlations is touted, or one more fallaciously reasoned argument is put forward, it makes it harder for serious scientists to get involved at all without being tarred with the same pseudo-scientific brush.

      Moving on from this low-quality, pointless kind of solar forcing shtick can’t come ‘Soon’ enough.”

  • MrGuy

    What a whacko! The sun warming the earth!? The things people will believe!

  • odin2

    This is a smear campaign to avoid discussing the paper (for which Soon received NO compensations) which offered an explanation why ALL of the climate models that the IPCC relied on failed when projected temperatures were compared to observed temperatures. We have spent billions on those models (unless the scientists and institutions involved with the models donated their time and resources) and they ALL failed.

    • Mark Schaffer

      A complete discussion of why Soon’s work is a joke among reputable scientists is here:

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/

      The Soon fallacy

      Filed under:

      Climate modelling

      Climate Science

      Sun-earth connections — gavin @ 24 February 2015

      Tweet

      As many will have read, there were a number of press reports (NYT, Guardian, InsideClimate) about the non-disclosure of Willie Soon’s corporate funding (from Southern Company (an energy utility), Koch Industries, etc.) when publishing results in journals that require such disclosures. There are certainly some interesting questions to be asked (by the OIG!) about adherence to the Smithsonian’s ethics policies, and the propriety of Smithsonian managers accepting soft moneywith non-disclosure clauses attached.

      However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? It’s certainly conceivable that Soon’s work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. In such a case, someone might be tempted to overlook the ethical lapses and conflicts of interest for the sake of scientific advancement (though far too many similar post-hoc justifications have been used to excuse horrific unethical practices for this to be remotely defendable).

      Unfortunately, the evidence from the emails and the work itself completely undermines that argument because the work and the motivation behind it are based on a scientific fallacy.

      Putting aside papers where Soon was only a minor contributing author, and the hopelessly slanted ‘forecasting principles’ papers with Green and Armstrong (see here for why they add nothing to the discussion), most of Soon’s work has been related to finding correlations of a very specific solar reconstruction (see figure below) to some observational time-series. There are very real criticisms that can be made of the solar forcing time-series he uses, and of course, of the cherry picking of specific time-series without mentioning that correlations to others (such as the global mean) are very low, but even accepting all that, there is a much more fundamental problem.

      It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote ‘It’s the Sun, stupid’ (not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he did send it to his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:

      The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.

      It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”

      It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soon’s research – the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero. The existence of one physical factor affecting a variable in a complex system says nothing whatsoever about the potential for another physical factor to affect that same variable.

      Even if the correlations existed at the level Soon claims (and they don’t – see figure), it would still not indicate that CO2 had zero effect, and indeed, it could never do so. The impacts of CO2 on radiative transfer have been studied since the 1860s, and modern spectroscopic databases date to Air Force calculations for heat seeking missiles in the 1950s and have been validated by an enormous number of observations, both in situ and via remote sensing. The vertical fingerprint of the impact of increasing CO2 (warming troposphere, cooling stratosphere) was calculated in 1967 by [2], decades before it was observed. None of this science disappears because a regional temperature series correlates for some short time with something else.

      Figure 1. Updating the Soon (2005) correlations by correcting for an obsolete and almost certainly incorrect solar reconstruction (replacing with the SORCE reconstruction) and extending the temperature data to the present, shows an almost complete collapse of the initially impressive correlation (click for larger version).

      The only way this might even begin to make sense would be if attribution of recent global warming was based purely on a linear regression of temperature to CO2 (which it isn’t). Given that weknow there are multiple drivers of climate operating (the sun for sure, but also volcanoes, aerosols, greenhouse gas changes, land use change, etc.) the only way to do attribution properly is calculate the physical fingerprints of each of these drivers across multiple variables and see which combinations provide the best fits. Indeed, this is indeed exactly what is done. This kind of attribution is not based on single-factor correlations and is even robust to errors of magnitude in the calculated responses.

      Soon’s work has been singularly poor for over a decade, first coming to prominence with theSoon and Baliunas (2003) debacle in Climatic Research which led to the resignation of 5 editors in protest at the way the paper was handled (and see more here). Another case associated with some very obvious shenanigans was Dyck et al (2007). More recently, his presentations at Heartland’s pseudo-climate conferences have come under renewed scrutiny for their level of incoherence.

      The odd thing about this is that there is real, and interesting, science to be done on the impacts of solar forcing on climate. The chemical feedbacks due to photolytic reactions in both the stratosphere and troposphere involving ozone, NOx, and water vapour, can have significant impacts. Exploring the tremendous complexities in aerosol formation and growth and impacts on clouds and whether that is mediated by modulations of cosmic rays is fascinating (if, as yet,inconclusive). Indeed, there is a current NASA call for proposals on exactly these subjects (Notice of Intent due March 13!). But every time another one of these spurious correlations is touted, or one more fallaciously reasoned argument is put forward, it makes it harder for serious scientists to get involved at all without being tarred with the same pseudo-scientific brush.

      Moving on from this low-quality, pointless kind of solar forcing shtick can’t come ‘Soon’ enough.”

      • odin2

        Michael Mann himself admitted in a climategate email that the purpose of Real Climate was to win the PR wars. I have found that Believers expend most of their vitriol on people and sources they fear the most. If it’s the sun, Brlievers can’t control it.

        • Mark Schaffer

          The problem with your assertions is that they don’t stand up to the facts which can be found here:

          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/

          The short answer to your second assertion is that you don’t understand the models or the science or you would never have asked such an ignorant question:
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/one-year-later/

          Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause

          Filed under:

          Climate Science — mike @ 26 February 2015

          Tweet

          No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.

          Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.

          It is true that Earth’s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn’t mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors (see the discussion my piece last year inScientific American). These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming thathas occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming “speed bump”. In fact, I have.

          Some have argued that these oscillations contributed substantially to the warming of the globe in recent decades. In an article my colleagues Byron Steinman, Sonya Miller and I have in the latest issue of Science magazine, we show that internal climate variability instead partially offset global warming.

          We focused on the Northern Hemisphere and the role played by two climate oscillations known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or “AMO” (a term I coined back in 2000, as recounted in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars) and the so-called Pacific Decadal Oscillation or “PDO” (we a use a slightly different term–Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation or “PMO” to refer to the longer-term features of this apparent oscillation). The oscillation in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures (which we term the Northern Hemisphere Multidecadal Oscillation or “NMO”) is found to result from a combination of the AMO and PMO.

          In numerous previous studies, these oscillations have been linked to everything from global warming, to drought in the Sahel region of Africa, to increased Atlantic hurricane activity. In our article, we show that the methods used in most if not all of these previous studies have been flawed. They fail to give the correct answer when applied to a situation (a climate model simulation) where the true answer is known.

          We propose and test an alternative method for identifying these oscillations, which makes use of the climate simulations used in the most recent IPCC report (the so-called “CMIP5” simulations). These simulations are used to estimate the component of temperature changes due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and other human impacts plus the effects of volcanic eruptions and observed changes in solar output. When all those influences are removed, the only thing remaining should be internal oscillations. We show that our method gives the correct answerwhen tested with climate model simulations.

          Estimated history of the “AMO” (blue), the “PMO (green) and the “NMO” (black). Uncertainties are indicated by shading. Note how the AMO (blue) has reached a shallow peak recently, while the PMO is plummeting quite dramatically. The latter accounts for the precipitous recent drop in the NMO.

          Applying our method to the actual climate observations (see figure above) we find that the NMO is currently trending downward. In other words, the internal oscillatory component is currently offsetting some of the Northern Hemisphere warming that we would otherwise be experiencing. This finding expands upon our previous work coming to a similar conclusion, but in the current study we better pinpoint the source of the downturn. The much-vaunted AMO appears to have made relatively little contribution to large-scale temperature changes over the past couple decades. Its amplitude has been small, and it is currently relatively flat, approaching the crest of a very shallow upward peak. That contrasts with the PMO, which is trending sharply downward. It is that decline in the PMO (which is tied to the predominance of cold La Niña-like conditions in the tropical Pacific over the past decade) that appears responsible for the declining NMO, i.e. the slowdown in warming or “faux pause” as some have termed it.

          Our conclusion that natural cooling in the Pacific is a principal contributor to the recent slowdown in large-scale warming is consistent with some other recent studies, including a study Icommented on previously showing that stronger-than-normal winds in the tropical Pacific during the past decade have lead to increased upwelling of cold deep water in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Other work by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that the there has been increased sub-surface heat burial in the Pacific ocean over this time frame, while yet another study by James Risbey and colleagues demonstrates that model simulations that most closely follow the observed sequence of El Niño and La Niña events over the past decade tend to reproduce the warming slowdown.

          It is possible that the downturn in the PMO itself reflects a “dynamical response” of the climate to global warming. Indeed, I have suggested this possibility before. But the state-of-the-art climate model simulations analyzed in our current study suggest that this phenomenon is a manifestation of purely random, internal oscillations in the climate system.

          This finding has potential ramifications for the climate changes we will see in the decades ahead. As we note in the last line of our article,

          Given the pattern of past historical variation, this trend will likely reverse with internal variability, instead adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades.

          That is perhaps the most worrying implication of our study, for it implies that the “false pause” may simply have been a cause for false complacency, when it comes to averting dangerous climate change.”

          • odin2

            ROFLOL. Real Climate debunking a statement about Real Climate byMichael Mann. Who could question that?

          • Mark Schaffer

            No one who can read for context…which you have no ability to do.

          • odin2

            Whatever.

          • odin2

            You cite RC to refute something Mann said about RC? ROFLOL. Mann admitted in a climategte email that the purpose of RC was PR.

            The rest of your rant is an attempt to explain your beloved climate models’ failure to predict the 18+ year pause and to model solar and ocean cycles as well as other natural forces. The climate models have failed spectacularly. Get over it.

          • Mark Schaffer

            “Mann admitted in a climategte email that the purpose of RC was PR.”
            Feel free to link to the actual material with all context shown.
            You are spectacularly stupid on the models and always will be.

          • odin2

            Attempts at insults indicates a lost argument.

          • Mark Schaffer

            And yet you cannot provide a single credible source regarding the meaning or context of your Dr. Mann assertion.

            Meanwhile back in reality:
            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/climate-oscillations-and-the-global-warming-faux-pause/

            “Climate Oscillations and the Global Warming Faux Pause

            Filed under:

            Climate Science — mike @ 26 February 2015

            Tweet

            No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.

            Despite widespread such claims in contrarian circles, human-caused warming of the globe proceeds unabated. Indeed, the most recent year (2014) was likely the warmest year on record.

            It is true that Earth’s surface warmed a bit less than models predicted it to over the past decade-and-a-half or so. This doesn’t mean that the models are flawed. Instead, it points to a discrepancy that likely arose from a combination of three main factors (see the discussion my piece last year inScientific American). These factors include the likely underestimation of the actual warming thathas occurred, due to gaps in the observational data. Secondly, scientists have failed to include in model simulations some natural factors (low-level but persistent volcanic eruptions and a small dip in solar output) that had a slight cooling influence on Earth’s climate. Finally, there is the possibility that internal, natural oscillations in temperature may have masked some surface warming in recent decades, much as an outbreak of Arctic air can mask the seasonal warming of spring during a late season cold snap. One could call it a global warming “speed bump”. In fact, I have.

            Some have argued that these oscillations contributed substantially to the warming of the globe in recent decades. In an article my colleagues Byron Steinman, Sonya Miller and I have in the latest issue of Science magazine, we show that internal climate variability instead partially offset global warming.

            We focused on the Northern Hemisphere and the role played by two climate oscillations known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or “AMO” (a term I coined back in 2000, as recounted in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars) and the so-called Pacific Decadal Oscillation or “PDO” (we a use a slightly different term–Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation or “PMO” to refer to the longer-term features of this apparent oscillation). The oscillation in Northern Hemisphere average temperatures (which we term the Northern Hemisphere Multidecadal Oscillation or “NMO”) is found to result from a combination of the AMO and PMO.

            In numerous previous studies, these oscillations have been linked to everything from global warming, to drought in the Sahel region of Africa, to increased Atlantic hurricane activity. In our article, we show that the methods used in most if not all of these previous studies have been flawed. They fail to give the correct answer when applied to a situation (a climate model simulation) where the true answer is known.

            We propose and test an alternative method for identifying these oscillations, which makes use of the climate simulations used in the most recent IPCC report (the so-called “CMIP5” simulations). These simulations are used to estimate the component of temperature changes due to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and other human impacts plus the effects of volcanic eruptions and observed changes in solar output. When all those influences are removed, the only thing remaining should be internal oscillations. We show that our method gives the correct answerwhen tested with climate model simulations.

            Estimated history of the “AMO” (blue), the “PMO (green) and the “NMO” (black). Uncertainties are indicated by shading. Note how the AMO (blue) has reached a shallow peak recently, while the PMO is plummeting quite dramatically. The latter accounts for the precipitous recent drop in the NMO.

            Applying our method to the actual climate observations (see figure above) we find that the NMO is currently trending downward. In other words, the internal oscillatory component is currently offsetting some of the Northern Hemisphere warming that we would otherwise be experiencing. This finding expands upon our previous work coming to a similar conclusion, but in the current study we better pinpoint the source of the downturn. The much-vaunted AMO appears to have made relatively little contribution to large-scale temperature changes over the past couple decades. Its amplitude has been small, and it is currently relatively flat, approaching the crest of a very shallow upward peak. That contrasts with the PMO, which is trending sharply downward. It is that decline in the PMO (which is tied to the predominance of cold La Niña-like conditions in the tropical Pacific over the past decade) that appears responsible for the declining NMO, i.e. the slowdown in warming or “faux pause” as some have termed it.

            Our conclusion that natural cooling in the Pacific is a principal contributor to the recent slowdown in large-scale warming is consistent with some other recent studies, including a study Icommented on previously showing that stronger-than-normal winds in the tropical Pacific during the past decade have lead to increased upwelling of cold deep water in the eastern equatorial Pacific. Other work by Kevin Trenberth and John Fasullo of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that the there has been increased sub-surface heat burial in the Pacific ocean over this time frame, while yet another study by James Risbey and colleagues demonstrates that model simulations that most closely follow the observed sequence of El Niño and La Niña events over the past decade tend to reproduce the warming slowdown.

            It is possible that the downturn in the PMO itself reflects a “dynamical response” of the climate to global warming. Indeed, I have suggested this possibility before. But the state-of-the-art climate model simulations analyzed in our current study suggest that this phenomenon is a manifestation of purely random, internal oscillations in the climate system.

            This finding has potential ramifications for the climate changes we will see in the decades ahead. As we note in the last line of our article,

            Given the pattern of past historical variation, this trend will likely reverse with internal variability, instead adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades.

            That is perhaps the most worrying implication of our study, for it implies that the “false pause” may simply have been a cause for false complacency, when it comes to averting dangerous climate change.”

          • odin2

            Go to notrickszone.com
            Click on Climaregate 2.0
            Go to Communicating Climate Change and you will find the following email:

            Mann: “the important thing is to make certain they are losing the PR battle. That is what the site [Real Climate] is all about.”

            There are many more climategate emails at this site and they are very interesting and disgusting (if you care about science and the scientific method). For more context read:

            “Climategate” by Brian Sussman and ” Climategate: The Crutape Letters” by Steven Mosser and Thomas Faller. The emails are even more disgusting with more context.

            Repeating your rant ( or Mann’s rant) about your beloved computer climate models’ failure to model the real world a/k/a using nature as your excuse, does not make the rant any more credible. You lost all credibility the first time.

          • Mark Schaffer

            A bunch of out of context tidbits that add up to nothing unless you are mentally disposed toward conspiracy theories.
            Please point to any articles on Real Climate where they got the science wrong and explain in your own words, without referencing discredited sites such as Watts what the science says.
            You can’t do this because all you have is a poor educational background and paranoia.

          • odin2

            I can read and decide for myself. I don’t need a propagandist like yourself to tell me what to think. Other people can read the emails and the books I referenced and make up their own minds. The email by Mann speaks for itself.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Your posts here make it clear that your thinking ability is minimal at best.

            For people uninterested in the rants of anonymous posters such as “odin2” you can read about the science here:

            http://www.realclimate.org/

            And for a complete debunking of incompetent book writers on the so called “climate gate” tempest in a teapot see here:
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked-advanced.htm

            “Exhibit No. 1 of the climate conspiracy theory is a collection of emails stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA), which appeared on the internet in November 2009.

            Founded in 1972, CRU is only a small research unit with around 16 staff. CRU is best known for its work, since 1978, on a global record of instrumental temperature measurements from 1850 to the present, or CRUTEM. CRU’s land surface temperatures are combined with the UK Met Office Hadley Centre’s sea surface temperatures to form the global land-ocean record HadCRUT. CRU has also published reconstructions of pre-1850 temperatures based on tree rings, and CRU scientists have been involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

            The 1,073 emails span 13 years of correspondence between colleagues at CRU. Much of it is mundane, but in this digital age it took only a matter of hours for contrarians to do some quote-mining. Contrarians alleged that the CRU scientists had manipulated temperature and tree ring data to support predetermined conclusions, that they had stonewalled Freedom of Information (FoI) requests for data, and that they had corrupted the peer review and IPCC processes.

            The story was quickly dubbed “Climategate”, and it spread rapidly from arcane contrarian blogs through conservative columnists to the mainstream media. The hyperbole was turned up to eleven. Conspiracy theorists had a field day, claiming that anyone even mentioned in the emails, or remotely connected to CRU, must also be part of a conspiracy. In this way, the Climategate conspiracy theory snowballed to include the entire field of climate science. The Climategate emails were held up as “the final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic global warming”, and the media were only too happy to play up the controversy.

            The CRU scientists have been cleared

            In the months that followed, there were several inquiries into the allegations resulting from the emails. When a few of the more suggestive email quotes are reeled off by pundits without much context, they can sound pretty damning. But each and every one of these inquiries has found no fraud and no conspiracy.

            The most comprehensive inquiry was the Independent Climate Change Email Review led by Sir Muir Russell, commissioned by UEA to examine the behaviour of the CRU scientists (but not the scientific validity of their work). It published its final report in July 2010. This inquiry was no whitewash: it examined the main allegations arising from the emails and their implications in meticulous detail. It focused on what the CRU scientists did, not what they said, investigating the evidence for and against each allegation. It interviewed CRU and UEA staff, and took 111 submissions including one from CRU itself. And it also did something the media completely failed to do: it attempted to put the actions of CRU scientists into context.

            The Review went back to primary sources to see if CRU really was hiding or falsifying their data. It considered how much CRU’s actions influenced the IPCC’s conclusions about temperatures during the past millennium. It commissioned a paper by Dr Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, on the context of scientific peer review. It asked IPCC Review Editors how much influence individuals could wield on writing groups. And it reviewed the university’s FoI processes and CRU’s compliance with them. Many of these are things any journalist could have done relatively easily, but few ever bothered to do.

            The Review also commented on the broader context of science in the 21st century. To paraphrase from Chapter 5: the emergence of the blogosphere requires significantly more openness from scientists. However, providing the details necessary to validate large datasets can be difficult and time-consuming, and how FoI laws apply to research is still an evolving area. Meanwhile, the public needs to understand that science cannot and does not produce absolutely precise answers. Though the uncertainties may become smaller and better constrained over time, uncertainty in science is a fact of life which policymakers have to deal with. The chapter concludes: “the Review would urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand”.

            The Review points out the well-known psychological phenomenon that email is less formal than other forms of communication: “Extreme forms of language are frequently applied to quite normal situations by people who would never use it in other communication channels.” The CRU scientists assumed their emails to be private, so they used “slang, jargon and acronyms” which would have been more fully explained had they been talking to the public. And although some emails suggest CRU went out of their way to make life difficult for their critics, there are others which suggest they were bending over backwards to be honest. Therefore the Review found “the e-mails cannot always be relied upon as evidence of what actually occurred, nor indicative of actual behaviour that is extreme, exceptional or unprofessional.” [section 4.3]

            So when put into the proper context, what do these emails actually reveal about the behaviour of the CRU scientists? The report concluded (its emphasis):

            Climate science is a matter of such global importance, that the highest standards of honesty, rigour, and openness are needed in its conduct. On the specific allegations made against the behaviour of CRU scientists, we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.

            In addition, we do not find that their behaviour has prejudiced the balance of advice given to policy makers. In particular, we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

            But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognize not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science. [1.3]

            These general findings are more or less consistent across the various allegations the Review investigated. Its specific findings are summarized in the following rebuttals: “Did CRU tamper with temperature data?”, “What does Mike’s Nature trick to ‘hide the decline’ mean?”, “Climategate and the peer-review process”, “Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC?”, and “Climategate and the Freedom of Information (FOI) requests”.

            The science is unchanged by Climategate

            The argument that Climategate reveals an international climate science conspiracy is not really a very skeptical one. It is skeptical in the weak sense of questioning authority, but it stops there. Unlike true skepticism, it doesn’t go on to objectively examine all the evidence and draw a conclusion based on that evidence. Instead, it cherry-picks suggestive emails, seeing everything as incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy, and concludes all of mainstream climate science is guilty by association. This is not skepticism; this is conspiracy theory.

            In reality, Climategate has not thrown any legitimate doubt on CRU’s results, let alone the conclusions of the entire climate science community. The entire work of CRU comprisesonly a small part of the evidence for AGW. There are all sorts of lines of evidence for global warming, and for a human influence on climate, which in no way depend on the behaviour of the CRU scientists. Global warming has been observed not just on land but also over the oceans and in the troposphere, as well as being confirmed by many other indicators such as ocean heat content, humidity, sea level, glaciers, and Arctic sea ice. And while the hockey stick tells us that humans have caused a profound disturbance to our climate system, we don’t need it to know that humans are causing global warming. The pattern of warming we observe is the same as that long predicted for greenhouse warming: the stratosphere is cooling, nights have warmed faster than days, and winters faster than summers.

            But this reality doesn’t fit into the narrative that the contrarians would like to tell: that AGW is a house of cards that is falling down. It is very difficult to attack all of these diverse lines of evidence for global warming. Instead they tend to focus on some of the better publicized ones and try to associate them with a few individuals, making a much easier target. Yet while contrarians have been nosing around in scientists’ emails, the actual science has, if anything, become more concerning. Many major studies during 2009 and2010 found things may be worse than previously thought.

            Far from exposing a global warming fraud, “Climategate” merely exposed the depths to which contrarians are willing to sink in their attempts to manufacture doubt about AGW. They cannot win the argument on scientific grounds, so now they are trying to discredit researchers themselves. Climategate was a fake scandal from beginning to end, and the media swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The real scandal is the attacks on climatescience which have done untold damage to the reputation of the scientists involved, public trust in science, and the prospects of mitigating future warming.

            Last updated on 15 January 2011 by James Wight.”

          • odin2

            There is lots of propaganda in your post designed to convince people not to read the climategate emails and the two books I referenced. Ironically, All that you have is no empirical evidence and 18 + years without any global warming with only failed computer models to show for the billions in wasted taxpayer dollars.

            BTW, your attempted insults are amusing.

          • Mark Schaffer

            It would help if you could learn the meaning of “empirical”.

            http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

            “Drafting Authors:
            Lisa V. Alexander (Australia), Simon K. Allen (Switzerland/New Zealand), Nathaniel L. Bindoff
            (Australia), François-Marie Bréon (France), John A. Church (Australia), Ulrich Cubasch
            (Germany), Seita Emori (Japan), Piers Forster (UK), Pierre Friedlingstein (UK/Belgium), Nathan
            Gillett (Canada), Jonathan M. Gregory (UK), Dennis L. Hartmann (USA), Eystein Jansen
            (Norway), Ben Kirtman (USA), Reto Knutti (Switzerland), Krishna Kumar Kanikicharla (India),
            Peter Lemke (Germany), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France),
            Gerald A. Meehl (USA), Igor I. Mokhov (Russian Federation), Shilong Piao (China), Gian-Kasper
            Plattner (Switzerland), Qin Dahe (China), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA), David Randall
            (USA), Monika Rhein (Germany), Maisa Rojas (Chile), Christopher Sabine (USA), Drew Shindell
            (USA), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Lynne D. Talley (USA), David G. Vaughan (UK), ShangPing
            Xie (USA)
            Draft Contributing Authors:
            Myles R. Allen (UK), Olivier Boucher (France), Don Chambers (USA), Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen
            (Denmark), Philippe Ciais (France), Peter U. Clark (USA), Matthew Collins (UK), Josefino C.
            Comiso (USA), Viviane Vasconcellos de Menezes (Australia/Brazil), Richard A. Feely (USA),
            Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), Arlene M. Fiore (USA), Gregory Flato (Canada), Jan Fuglestvedt
            (Norway), Gabriele Hegerl (UK/Germany), Paul J. Hezel (Belgium/USA), Gregory C. Johnson
            (USA), Georg Kaser (Austria/Italy), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), John Kennedy (UK),
            Albert M. G. Klein Tank (Netherlands), Corinne Le Quéré (UK), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Timothy
            Osborn (UK), Antony J. Payne (UK), Judith Perlwitz (USA), Scott Power (Australia), Michael
            Prather (USA), Stephen R. Rintoul (Australia), Joeri Rogelj (Switzerland/Belgium), Matilde
            Rusticucci (Argentina), Michael Schulz (Germany), Jan Sedláček (Switzerland), Peter A. Stott
            (UK), Rowan Sutton (UK), Peter W. Thorne (USA/Norway/UK), Donald Wuebbles (USA)”

            http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/bams-sotc-2009-brochure-lo-rez.pdf

          • odin2

            Appeals to authority are not empirical evidence. Neither are unproven theories- no matter how eligent.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Is there anyone left foolish enough to believe this anonymous right wing brain dead internet troll?http://www.skepticalscience.com/

          • odin2

            Is that all you have? Pathetic.

          • Mark Schaffer

            What is pathetic is that you didn’t carefully look over the linked site to see how it uses primary source research.

            Which of these thousands of peer reviewed research papers are you going to read?

            http://www.jamespowell.org/Piecharts/styled/index.html

            “I had previously reviewed peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2013 with the topics, or keyword phrases, “global warming” and “global climate change,” [see here]. They numbered 1,911. I have now also reviewed articles from 2013 with the keyword phrase “climate change,” finding 8,974. Combining the searches, 2013 saw 10,885 articles under one or more of the three phrases. Only two articles [see here and here] in my judgment rejected anthropogenic global warming. Download the chart above here or from Wikipedia Commons here.
            Combining this result with my earlier studies (see here and here), over several years I have reviewed 25,182 scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals. Only 26, about 1 in 1,000, in my judgment reject anthropogenic global warming. I describe my methodology here.

            Instead of coalescing around a rival theory to anthropogenic global warming, the rejecting articles offer a hodgepodge of alternatives, none of which has caught on. The dissenting articles are rarely cited, even by other dissenters. A groundswell this is not. The 26 rejecting articles have had no discernible influence on science.

            Very few of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.

            What can we conclude?

            1. There a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.

            2. Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.

            These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.

            On the one side, we have a mountain of scientific evidence, on the other, ideology and arm-waving. On that basis, we are endangering our grandchildren’s future and pushing humanity toward the destruction of civilization.”

          • odin2

            Powell is one of those True Believers who claims to have done an exhaustive review of the peer reviewed literature. His “review/survey” is debunked in two articles in ProTech. Among other things, he used the Web of Science database that does not filter out non-peer reviewed papers and the search results do not show context. His survey is unscientific and biased (like the other surveys designed to show “consensus”). Go to PopularTechnology.net and search for James Powell. The first article is entitled “13,950 Meaningless Search Results”. Like most surveys of this type, Powell also engages in a straw man argument because almost all skeptics agree that human actvities contribute something to climate change. They just believe that the contribution is insignificant when compared to other natural forcers like clouds, ocean cycles, solar cycles and other causes. Skeptics also believe that there are many positives about warmer climate like greening the planet. Warmth is much better than cold. Humans evolved out of the tropics.

            Arguing from consensus is a propaganda technique used to avoid discussing substantive issues.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Isn’t it funny how your presidential heroes viewed Dr. Powell:

            “James L. Powell was born in Berea, Kentucky and graduated from Berea College with a degree in Geology.
            He holds a Ph.D. in Geochemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and several honorary degrees, including Doctor of Science degrees from Berea College and from Oberlin College.

            He taught Geology at Oberlin College for over 20 years.

            He served as Acting President of Oberlin, President of Franklin and Marshall College, President of Reed College, President of the Franklin Institute Science Museum in Philadelphia, and President and Director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.

            President Reagan and later, President George H. W. Bush, appointed Powell to the National Science Board, where he served for 12 years.

            Asteroid 1987 SH7 is named for him. He is the author of eleven books, including Four Revolutions in the Earth Sciences: From Heresy to Truth, published by Columbia University Press. Powell currently serves as Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium.”

          • odin2

            His study is seriously flawed as pointed out by ProTech.

          • Mark Schaffer

            In your incompetent opinion that is.

            Feel free to do your own:

            http://www.jamespowell.org/styled-2/DIY/diy.html

            Get back to us in year or so when you know something.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Using a site that has no science and poor reasoning confirms you have poor thinking skills and are incompetent at source selection. This is no surprise.

          • odin2

            When they have nothing of substance Believers attack the source. It is a well known propaganda technique. ProTech exposed the flaws in Powell’s “methodology” such as it is.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Sure. Whatever the anonymous right wing brain dead troll writes…

            Meanwhile back on Earth:

            http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

            List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations(Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action)

            Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile

            Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal

            Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana

            Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela

            Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala

            Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico

            Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia

            Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru

            Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

            Académie des Sciences, France

            Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada

            Academy of Athens

            Academy of Science of Mozambique

            Academy of Science of South Africa

            Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)

            Academy of Sciences Malaysia

            Academy of Sciences of Moldova

            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic

            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran

            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt

            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand

            Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy

            Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science

            African Academy of Sciences

            Albanian Academy of Sciences

            Amazon Environmental Research Institute

            American Academy of Pediatrics

            American Anthropological Association

            American Association for the Advancement of Science

            American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)

            American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

            American Astronomical Society

            American Chemical Society

            American College of Preventive Medicine

            American Fisheries Society

            American Geophysical Union

            American Institute of Biological Sciences

            American Institute of Physics

            American Meteorological Society

            American Physical Society

            American Public Health Association

            American Quaternary Association

            American Society for Microbiology

            American Society of Agronomy

            American Society of Civil Engineers

            American Society of Plant Biologists

            American Statistical Association

            Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

            Australian Academy of Science

            Australian Bureau of Meteorology

            Australian Coral Reef Society

            Australian Institute of Marine Science

            Australian Institute of Physics

            Australian Marine Sciences Association

            Australian Medical Association

            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

            Bangladesh Academy of Sciences

            Botanical Society of America

            Brazilian Academy of Sciences

            British Antarctic Survey

            Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

            California Academy of Sciences

            Cameroon Academy of Sciences

            Canadian Association of Physicists

            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

            Canadian Geophysical Union

            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

            Canadian Society of Soil Science

            Canadian Society of Zoologists

            Caribbean Academy of Sciences views

            Center for International Forestry Research

            Chinese Academy of Sciences

            Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences

            Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)

            Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research

            Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences

            Crop Science Society of America

            Cuban Academy of Sciences

            Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters

            Ecological Society of America

            Ecological Society of Australia

            Environmental Protection Agency

            European Academy of Sciences and Arts

            European Federation of Geologists

            European Geosciences Union

            European Physical Society

            European Science Foundation

            Federation of American Scientists

            French Academy of Sciences

            Geological Society of America

            Geological Society of Australia

            Geological Society of London

            Georgian Academy of Sciences

            German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina

            Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

            Indian National Science Academy

            Indonesian Academy of Sciences

            Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management

            Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology

            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

            Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK

            InterAcademy Council

            International Alliance of Research Universities

            International Arctic Science Committee

            International Association for Great Lakes Research

            International Council for Science

            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

            International Research Institute for Climate and Society

            International Union for Quaternary Research

            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

            International Union of Pure and Applied Physics

            Islamic World Academy of Sciences

            Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities

            Kenya National Academy of Sciences

            Korean Academy of Science and Technology

            Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts

            l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

            Latin American Academy of Sciences

            Latvian Academy of Sciences

            Lithuanian Academy of Sciences

            Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences

            Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology

            Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts

            National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina

            National Academy of Sciences of Armenia

            National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic

            National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka

            National Academy of Sciences, United States of America

            National Aeronautics and Space Administration

            National Association of Geoscience Teachers

            National Association of State Foresters

            National Center for Atmospheric Research

            National Council of Engineers Australia

            National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand

            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

            National Research Council

            National Science Foundation

            Natural England

            Natural Environment Research Council, UK

            Natural Science Collections Alliance

            Network of African Science Academies

            New York Academy of Sciences

            Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences

            Nigerian Academy of Sciences

            Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters

            Oklahoma Climatological Survey

            Organization of Biological Field Stations

            Pakistan Academy of Sciences

            Palestine Academy for Science and Technology

            Pew Center on Global Climate Change

            Polish Academy of Sciences

            Romanian Academy

            Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium

            Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain

            Royal Astronomical Society, UK

            Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters

            Royal Irish Academy

            Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

            Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

            Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research

            Royal Scientific Society of Jordan

            Royal Society of Canada

            Royal Society of Chemistry, UK

            Royal Society of the United Kingdom

            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

            Russian Academy of Sciences

            Science and Technology, Australia

            Science Council of Japan

            Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

            Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics

            Scripps Institution of Oceanography

            Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts

            Slovak Academy of Sciences

            Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts

            Society for Ecological Restoration International

            Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

            Society of American Foresters

            Society of Biology (UK)

            Society of Systematic Biologists

            Soil Science Society of America

            Sudan Academy of Sciences

            Sudanese National Academy of Science

            Tanzania Academy of Sciences

            The Wildlife Society (international)

            Turkish Academy of Sciences

            Uganda National Academy of Sciences

            Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities

            United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

            University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

            Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

            World Association of Zoos and Aquariums

            World Federation of Public Health Associations

            World Forestry Congress

            World Health Organization

            World Meteorological Organization

            Zambia Academy of Sciences

            Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences”

          • OWilson

            Well, your cut and paste nonsense will fool a lot of lo info folks, I must admit. A lot of scams do, unfortunately.
            And in the big picture that is what you intend.
            But it’s a little too slick for anyone with a brain.
            The flawed logic though is clear enough.
            If you pee in the see, you are contributing to sea level rise. That is basic science. A million papers could be cited in its defence.
            But, the inference that follows is that I am responsible for the demise of the Maldives, and the washing away of New York and Miami.
            The first part is scientific fact, but the second part is speculation.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Let me know when you want to stop babbling and face reality.

          • odin2

            You are losing it …. Remain calm.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Your two books are crap.

          • odin2

            So you’ve read them?

          • Mark Schaffer

            I am uninterested in pseudo science by unqualified individuals.
            Please feel free to point to the C.V. of any of your propagandists.

          • odin2

            So you decided that they’re “crap” without reading them? That speaks volumes about you. ROFLOL

          • Mark Schaffer

            Since I have been to the lectures by atmospheric chemists, paleoclimate researchers, physicists, and other actual science researchers and I have a degree in the hard sciences I don’t need to read the junk you are falling for to know it is crap.

            Your first book’s author is a right wing crank radio show host and conspiracy nut:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sussman

            My counter reference is from the National Academy of Science and The Royal Society:

            http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/events/a-discussion-on-climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

            So laugh it up anonymous little right wing brain dead troll.

          • odin2

            Still having to resort to attempts at insults to bolster your non-existent case? The recent Berkley paper is the first in 30 years to claim any empirical evidence linked to CO2 whatsoever and even that was much less than predicted and provided no evidence of causation much less proof of significant causation. You are left with Mann’s paper blaming the failure of your beloved climate models on natural variation. That is what the skeptical scientists have been saying all along. Climate change is caused in large part by natural forcings and CO2 emissions have an insignificant impact.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Ho hum. No links to actual science just assertions by an anonymous brain dead right wing troll.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php

  • James Cranford

    and so taking money from governments who want reports that justify their position to pass regulations and raise taxes is NOT a conflict of interest? we can get rid of every human on the planet and there will still be climate change. it is a natural cycle of the earth trying to balance itself out. the sun of itself may not be the exacting influence, but rather earth’s elliptical and wobbly orbit, constantly changing how much and where the radiation from the sun hits. combine that with europe and the united states having the cleanest air in decades thus allowing more sunshine to hit the earth. there are so many cycles we know nothing about cause no one live that long, or have thought of keeping track. the sun is an example. we are just now finding it out it has numerous cycles, some as short as 14 years, and others at least 80 years. more CO2? more plant growth. unless we find a way to get rid of all the water, the earth cannot become a venus. i believe the water is a factor allowing the earth to go only so far in each direction, hot or cold. but you never hear any of these scientists talking about that.

  • James Cranford

    some people are sooo simple minded. it would be wonderful and quaint that we humans are responsible for ‘climate change’. all we have to do is ‘change our behavior’. the majority of temperatures are taken in or near cities, which as they have grown, have heated up. the outside area of a city can be 10 degrees or more cooler. and the ‘mountain ranges we have built of clusters of high rises have changed wind and rain patterns on a local basis. let us not talk about that. we hate fossil fuels. why? no one has ever explained the hatred for fossil fuels. but all of this ‘man-made’ climate change has been directed towards only one activity of man… using fossil fuels. never mind we ALL benefit from this use, whether it is travel jobs or fresh food from other side of the planet. not to mention the taxes already raised by governments on the use of this fuel, whether its a tax by gallon or kilowatt.

    • OWilson

      “no one has ever explained the hatred for fossil fuels”

      Fossil fuels are the engine that has fueled the Industrial Revolution, and Capitalism.

      Communists, Islamists and assorted left wing radical groups hate Capitalism.

      They (and their fellow travellers, fifth columnists, and even just Lenin’s liberal “useful idiots”) are with us today.

      An argument can be made that they are growing more powerful these days.

      • Mike Richardson

        If you’re going to do a proper Joe McCarthy impression, you’ll need to start waving around a paper and saying you’ve got names. That’ll have those pesky communists scurrying out from under your bed in no time.
        Also, I really don’t think you can make a good argument that hatred of capitalism goes hand in hand with rejection of fossil fuels. The Soviet Union certainly underwent massive industrialization using fossil fuels, just like the West. And Beijing’s air quality is in the toilet today thanks to their unregulated expansion of coal consumption. I don’t think they’re capitalists.
        And on a parting note, I’m trying to understand your standards of a civil debate — my pointing out to you irrational behavior is insulting, but referring to an entire group of people as “useful idiots,” is totally cool? Just looking for a little consistency here, and not surprisingly, finding none.

        • OWilson

          “Useful Idiots” – Wiki

          “In political jargon, “useful idiot” is a term for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause. ……… The use of the term in political discourse has since been extended to other propagandists, especially those who are seen to unwittingly support a malignant cause which they naïvely believe to be a force for good.[7]

          • Mike Richardson

            So you consider it acceptable, right, as long as it’s a group you’re insulting and not an individual? So if I were to say these global warming articles seem to be shaking all the nuts out of the crazy tree, it’s okay as long as I don’t put names to nuts? Just asking.

  • rell87

    Climate change alarmists never try to argue their case with science. They always make blind appeals to authority and quote some bogus claims about what 97% of scientists believe.
    Tell me why this scientist is wrong, why the sun isn’t a factor, and why the alarmists must adjust the data for it to reflect what they claim. We all know all of them take money from various sources that want a specific result.

  • caltenn11

    What a joke!! All of the GW so called scientists have been on the Government take for decades..Those that don’t buy the Warmers’ line get cut off from funds..

    • Mark Schaffer

      Soon has been publishing for how long again?

  • David Rice

    No, Dr Soon is not a skeptic: he’s a denier. The skeptics were all convinced by the evidence decades ago.

  • David Rice

    The sun did not cause and is not causing the warming of any planet in the Solar System.

  • herb Stevens

    Meanwhile, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is going to accept funding for research from Aramco(Saudi Arabia) and an Italian oil entity. Since when is government research money pristine, pure, and free of some level of pre-determination? Gotta be careful when you start chucking rocks around the greenhouse…

    • Inquisitive Squirrel

      So true. The hypocrisy runs exceptionally deep.

  • Inquisitive Squirrel

    Lesson for today: tow the line or be brought down by the powerful green movement. Kind of dispels the argument that there isn’t group-think occurring regarding climate hysteria.

    • Mike Richardson

      I think this guy’s own lack of ethics is bringing him down. As much as I try to reject superstitious thinking, I’m having a hard time rejecting the notion of karma at this point.

  • 0-e^(i*pi)

    The tobacco industry did pretty much the same thing. Long after the matter was settled by science, and it was clear that tobacco was heavily implicated in cancer and heart/lung diseases, the tobacco lobby continued to fund propaganda using “research” from disreputable scientists who, basically, took bribes to say what their corporate masters dictated.

    Global warming deniers are no different. Scientists like Soon are simply writing propaganda clap trap for the Koch brothers and other industrialists who are getting rich off ruining the environment.

    • Buddy199

      Ah, the Koch Bros…

      “Tom Steyer, a billionaire investor and creator of the environmentalist super PAC NextGen Climate Action, has made millions off of the very industries he claims are destroying the environment. While Steyer was senior managing partner at Farallon Capital Management — a post he held until 2012 — the firm had $440 million worth of stock in oil and gas companies, about 10 percent of the company’s publicly disclosed equity portfolio.”

      • Mark Schaffer

        Are you PAID to be this stupid? Dadamax was talking about the history of science corruption by industry.
        Your non-sequitur about Tom Steyer ignores that he is interested in improving the atmosphere we all depend on while your heros are busy degrading it.

        • Buddy199

          After he made a mint on degrading it himself. It’s apparently ok to be a 1%er carbon hog or make a fortune selling it, like Steyer, as long as you’re politics are progressive.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Nice. But who cares who you respond to when you are wrong anyway.
            At least, if your claims about Steyer are even true in context, Steyer has realized he was on the wrong side of this overarching problem. You…not so much.

    • Dadamax

      Soon was actually a senior scientist at the George C Marshall Institute. They were one of the major the major think tanks (along with the Heartland Institute) who created a false public perception of scientific uncertainty over the negative effects of secondhand smoke, and the carcinogenic nature of tobacco smoking.

  • Kym

    Please don’t confuse “Skeptic” with “Denier.” A denier (of climate-change, vaccine efficacy, evolution, or whatever the topic) is one who takes a non-scientific stance on the topic, regardless of evidence (so for climate change, that would be denying humans had anything to do with the earth warming,) A skeptic, on the other hand, may be on the fence or may disagree that humans had a hand in warming; however, the fundamental difference here is that the skeptic basis his/her opinions on facts and logic, and will change his/her opinion when the facts support such a change. An easy way to tell the difference is the language the person uses: “I just believe this is the case; nothing can change my mind” is a denier, whereas “I believe this is the case, but am keeping an open mind and may change my opinion if enough evidence is presented” is a skeptic. As a skeptic (not of climate change – just a skeptic in general – that is, show me the evidence before you ask me to believe in something), I wanted to correct your usage of the incorrect term. That said, it does seem Crawford’s comments are correct; although it certainly looks bad that he took money from those who have a stake in denying human causes for global warming, it’s certainly possible he is a denier and simply took the money and wrote what he was otherwise going to write anyway.

    • goldminor

      This site along with others has tried Willie Soon in the kangaroo court of public opinion and found him guilty. That is what this is all about. To find out more detail take a read at WUWT.com. Even if some of his funding came from an oil interest, what proof is there that this influenced his science? The only claim is that some money came his way from a group that many warmists hate, ie fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel companies also give money in support of the global warming scare story. So what. I see no mention of the many tens of billions of dollars that our government gives away to scientists who do research to confirm catastrophic climate change, every year. If your research is not in support of catastrophic climate change, then you will not receive any federal funding.

    • goldminor

      This site along with others has tried Willie Soon in the kangaroo court of public opinion and found him guilty. That is what this is all about. To find out more detail take a read at WUWT.com. Even if some of his funding came from an oil interest, what proof is there that this influenced his science? The only claim is that some money came his way from a group that many warmists hate, ie fossil fuel companies. Fossil fuel companies also give money in support of the global warming scare story. So what. I see no mention of the many tens of billions of dollars that our government gives away to scientists who do research to confirm catastrophic climate change, every year. If your research is not in support of catastrophic climate change, then you will not receive any federal funding.

      • 9.8m/ss

        The source of his funding is less significant than his consistent record of being wrong.

        You’re completely mistaken about how funding for science works. Funding agencies want to advance the science. Scientists get ahead by showing their peers’ mistakes and distortions. That’s what advances the science. Science flawed by influence from grant makers is a waste of money, because it gets busted so quickly, like Willie Soon’s “it’s solar activity!” nonsense. The researcher who could really show, with math that makes sense, not the handwaving nonsense you find at Watts Up, that the last hundred years of climate related science were a big mistake, would be the new rock star of the field. She’d have more federal and foundation funding than she could spend.

        • OWilson

          Total bunk.
          “She” would have as much chance of funding as a study to find the benefits of global warming, or Gasp!, capitalism.

          • Mike Richardson

            Which scientists are the “real” scientists? Because the vast majority of them studying climate really aren’t supporting your view of things. So do you have “binders full” of the “good scientists” to counter all the steadily accumulating data from these “bad scientists?” And I think Dr. Soon might not be the best one to start out with, since we’ve pretty much covered that ground.

          • OWilson

            If you love your IPCC you can keep your IPCC
            lol

  • Buddy199

    “In the lecture, he then goes on to say that “the Sun is a primary driver of climate change and requires to be studied.””

    Since the Sun accounts for 99.8% of the mass of the solar system I’d say he raises a valid point. BTW, funding doesn’t influence the “deliverables” of AGW researchers? That would make them the first group in human history immune to monetary, political and career carrots and sticks.

    • Dadamax

      If the sun is increasing in solar activity (it is not, solar cycle 24 is on track to have the lowest recorded sunspot activity since accurate records began in 1750) Why isn’t Mercury warming? Why isn’t the Moon warming along with us?

      • 9.8m/ss

        Few deniers seem to know the difference between “solar activity” (sunspots) and solar irradiance. Willie Soon has been trying to show that “solar activity” is the main driver of modern climate change for most of his career. His peers tear his sloppy science to pieces every time, but he still gets published, and he never learns. He’s the only example I can think of of an active researcher in climate science (though without the usual credentials) who is both a denier and a skeptic. The intersection of the two sets is very, very small.

        • Buddy199

          “Denier” – with its deliberate and odious reference to the Holocaust. Why don’t you just say “heretic” – it would be more in line with your mentality.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Denier is simply the best noun in English for “one who denies.” It’s the climate science deniers themselves who raise the comparison to historical revisionism around the Holocaust. If it’s your albatross, wear it proudly. Those of us who have been following climate science for decades distinguish between ignorant deniers and scientific skeptics. Willie Soon is one of only a handful of people who are both. The two sets barely overlap.

    • 9.8m/ss

      If you knew anything about how scientific careers develop, you’d realize you’re alleging a global conspiracy involving thousands of researchers at hundreds of institutions in dozens of countries. The physical sciences are a cut throat competition, where you get ahead by showing your peer made a mistake or distorted data. Distorting data to please a grant maker leaves you vulnerable to your competitors for grant money, grad student labor, computer time, journal pages, etc. The stick of losing all those things is much stronger than the carrot of whatever you imagine the reward for distorting science might be. Grant makers get fired for exerting the pressure you imagine, because it wastes their funders’ money. It’s perhaps the most common lie you’ll hear from the anti-science smear campaign, and maybe you’ve heard it so often you’ve become credulous. For it to be true, all those thousands of scientists would have to covertly agree not to bust each other’s mistakes. That’s tin foil hat material.

      • Buddy199

        Put it this way: what are your chances of getting a grant if you have an inquisitive mind and propose researching an hypothesis that goes against the grain of AGW dogma? If you persist in your line of inquiry how are your peers likely to relate to you; what are your long term chances of gaining tenure? Getting approved for government funding by democrat administrations such as we have now? If you do publish research that goes against AGW dogma how will you be treated by your the mostly politically left-leaning and scientifically un-savvy media? – easy question: look at how “deniers” are publically crucified in the media (see above article, for instance).

        The point is that climate science is the most heavily politicized area of research that exists today. And when you also consider the oceans of grant money at stake from government and private sources how on earth can researchers pursue a line of inquiry that is completely objective?

        • 9.8m/ss

          If you have a hypotheses that makes mathematical and physical sense, and it stands to advance the science, its going “against the grain” improve your chances. Grant makers prefer to fund the research that advances the science, not the research that confirms it again. If your research confirms your hypothesis, you’re the new rock star in your field. You can recite that dirty lie about “political influences” all you like, but it’s not how the physical sciences work. There’s too much competition for corruption to survive.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/CgntvDssdnt CgntvDssdnt

    “shock”.

    a Benedict Arnold of the global science community was cowardly acting out of self interest??! you don’t say!

  • Sgtsnuffy

    So at the Discover magazine if you question them you are classified as a heretic??? I made an observation that has been known for centuries that when the Sun goes into one of it’s moods the Earth has a tendency to get colder. I’m pretty sure that they didn’t have any SUV’s or Massive coal Fired Plants going 24/7 like Your Heros of the Environment the Chinese, back during the Mini Ice Ages a couple hundred years ago. I’m not a Scientist but I’ve been trained as an Observer in more than one theater of operations around the world. Furthermore as a boy working as a brush puller/trimmer in the vineyards of western NY during the winter in the late 60′, where it got damn cold, I did notice that when the airliners crossed back and forth at high altitudes and left their contrails it had a tendency to get colder by cutting back the sunlight. Of course being a dumb kid of 14 and 15 years old I guess I really couldn’t extrapolate the causes and effects of the contrail on the environment I was working in. Silly Me. I guess I’ll just go away now and sit in the corner with the rest of the Heretics awaiting my turn a the Stake. Oh, I used to subscribe to Discover Magazine till it became to Politically Correct for a Free Man to stomach. Better Dead Than Red I always used to say when on Patrol along the Czech Border.

    • 9.8m/ss

      You’re not classified as a heretic, you’re classified as a scientific ignoramus. The sun’s “moods” account for perhaps 10% of observed climate change over the last century. The last century was the period when the instruments were good enough to measure that kind of thing. Step back from the political blogs and read some science, to keep from making a fool of yourself.

      • Buddy199

        The science didn’t accurately predict the 17 year diversion from projected global temperatures, for one thing. Perhaps there are still a few things left to discover, and you should drop the smug.

        • 9.8m/ss

          “The science” wasn’t supposed to predict it. Climate events shorter than about thirty years are completely obscured by weather events. The “17 year diversion” is weather. We’ll begin to know in another decade or two how far off they were. Twenty years ago, the global circulation models were crude compared to today’s. Among other things, they didn’t know about the decadal ocean oscillations. Are you still using your twenty year old computer?

          • Buddy199

            Gee, and I thought the science was settled back in 1998 like Al Gore said.

          • 9.8m/ss

            I see the problem now. You’re getting your science from self promoting retired politicians. Try listening to scientists instead. It works much better.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Try the mid nineteenth century:
            http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

          • OWilson

            Hey Buddy, it’s like arguing with spiritualists, crop circle believers and alien abductees.

            You can’t win but it’s a lot of fun seeing them twist themselves in knots to explain their contradictions.

          • OWilson

            So, you like new computer technology.

            Satellite technology, not so much.

            lol

  • Thomas Luczak

    sorry…..korean maybe ?

  • hogenmogen

    99 scientists find that smoking and obesity are bad for you. 1 says smoking and obesity are not bad and may actually extend your life. Who are you going to believe?

    You’d believe the 1 only if you don’t want to make the hard choices. If you face up to the truth, you’d believe the 99. Climate change deniers want to sit on their couch and never have to sacrifice or change – even in matters so small as which kind of light bulb to use – even if compact florescent bulbs actually saving money in the long run. The truth is that there is money to be made in the denial industry. The fossil fuel sponsors want to sew the seeds of doubt, and the lazy minded public wants to hear that it’s ok to keep putting off the inevitable.

    • OWilson

      One always finds the appeal to authority by the lemmings, quite amusing.
      Not so amusing if, like Galileo, you are the 1%
      Science is not a matter for Gallup.

      • Dadamax

        Any “skeptic” with a scientifically unorthodox view who reminds you that Galileo was persecuted too…ain’t Galileo.

        • OWilson

          Yeah, let’s stick to your “orthodoxy” that did quite a lot for us through history.
          lol

          • Dadamax

            The difference is Galileo had evidence for why geocentrism was wrong. Climate contrarians have no explanation/can’t agree on why the world is warming. They just insist it must be anything other than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

          • OWilson

            Here ya go!

            Check the predictions in IPCC 1990 FAR report.
            Compare to reality 25 years later.

            I know, I know, facts don’t matter to true believers!

            The Arctic melted five years ago, the Himalayan glaciers have a couple more years, and we are all going to kill each other for the last remaining penguin.

            lol

          • Dadamax

            Their emissions scenarios were on the high side. Not how temps would respond to the emissions.
            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCC_FAR_Since_1880.png

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/IPCC_FAR_Since_1880_Adj.png

          • Mark Schaffer

            Did those projections include the transfer of heat to oceans?

          • Dadamax

            Yes, though they admitted the ocean models were primitive compared to the atmospheric models. From the FAR: “However, when greenhouse gas concentrations are changing continuously, the thermal capacity of the oceans will delay and effectively reduce the observed climatic response.”

          • Mark Schaffer

            Cool. I thought so. Perhaps one day the deniers will understand what these lags mean…but not the ones posting here.

          • OWilson

            Do you guys need a license to preach how everybody should live according to your beliefs, or is your arrogance just genetic?

          • Mark Schaffer

            Perhaps if you spent actual time at a university learning about hard science you wouldn’t be so busy posting nonsense.
            Now, explain why you are lying about who you are.

          • OWilson

            Oh dear, I’m outed!.

            This idiot, thanks to his “university education” has finally figured out I’m not Socrates!

            Bingo, that’s worth at least a Nobel these days. Maybe a couple of Emmys and Pulitzers too!

            Please stay on topic,

            Tom likes it that way.

            Hint: We are discussing collected and adjusted data from the 19th century versus modern satellite technology.

          • Mark Schaffer
          • OWilson

            1880? With normalisation and adjustments.
            Gimmee a break.
            Stop denying satellite data.
            Makes you look like a dark ages shaman.

          • Mark Schaffer

            You haven’t looked at satellite data or the problems associated with it. You don’t understand science at all.

            Why are you lying about who you are?

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

      • 9.8m/ss

        Climate science, “left-right” politics, UFOs, and biology.
        Ya wanna bring out the nutters, try an evolution story at World Net Daily. 2+2=5, teach the controversy!

        I met an astrologer who made sense once. She was all about mythology and sociology and symbolism in media and how the propaganda system plays the crowd. All very upbeat and funny. She doesn’t do horoscopes.

      • Mark Schaffer

        Galileo was going against CHURCH orthodoxy. Try to not mislead people about simple history that they can look up. It just makes you look even more foolish than you already are.

    • 9.8m/ss

      CFLs were a transitional technology, and not a very good one. 2014 was the year of the LED. (Did you see the Nobel Prize for Physics?) They’re far more cost effective than CFLs or incandescents now. It doesn’t make sense to install new CFLs today.

      • Mark Schaffer

        My only caution for people buying current LED bulbs is that they still need adequate ventilation to prevent early burnout of the control electronics. Notice the heatsink?

        • 9.8m/ss

          It depends on the brand. Cree and TCP have little ventilation slits. The traditional light bulb manufacturers (GE, Fila, Philips…) have fins. This will change, as power conversion technology gets even better. Synchronous mosfet rectifiers are just beginning to replace the old PN diode with its junction drop of most of a volt at significant current. Maybe that’s why the TCP “bulbs” run so cool. The fifteen cent mosfet’s on-resistance has gone from a few ohms to a few milliohms in a decade, and there’s a way to go. This stuff is on the same improvement curve that microprocessors and memory were on in the ’90s. Never bet against silicon. I think that’s one of the things the reactionaries have gotten wrong. They’re clinging to the Iron Age. We are at the dawn of the Semiconductor Age. You ain’t seen nuthin’ yet.

          • Mark Schaffer

            I absolutely understand and use LED bulbs by Cree, TCP, and Utilitech. But I have had a failure in one of the Cree bulbs and TCP as well as a track light replacement.

            I bought a MOSFET amplifier back in the eighties for a stereo and know they can be more efficient. I now have a variation on a switching amplifier that is around ~92% efficient. The old MOSFET amp used around 180 watts at idle while the newer switching amps use around 7 watts at idle. All this is to show I understand that technology must become and is becoming more efficient.

            But, that still means you should make sure LED bulbs are able to dissipate heat buildup to maximize their life.

            Here is another example of what I am hoping for in the next year or so:

            https://www.phononic.com/

          • 9.8m/ss

            I interviewed with Tripath when they were coming up. I’m sorry I took the other offer. Now hardly anyone remembers what the T in Class-T stood for.

          • Mark Schaffer

            I remember it existed…Sorry.

            By the way, have you considered using a sig line of “Gravity, it’s the law”???

  • hogenmogen

    My dad thinks there is no global warming because 10 years ago he went to China, and his plane flew over the North Pole. He looked out the window and there was a lot of ice. There you go, warming is fake. No need for more data. Or, actually, any data.

  • Pinot Noir

    Oh yes, and sadly, that is a true fact.
    Everybody who says that climate change is only a joke created by scientists to get some governmental funding is in the same boat.
    They say that climate change is only an illusion to make us believe that Greenpeace and other green organisations wants to fool us all, but if you go outside in nature you can with your own eyes how changed is the weather.

    I hope President Obama will be able to fight all these climate skeptics and make the U.S. invest more in renewable energy instead of fossil.
    http://www.alternative-energies.net/obama-vs-republicans-on-climate-changes/

    • Buddy199

      You and many of his campaign contributors running green companies hope the same thing.

      • Mark Schaffer

        Yeah! Stupid profit motive and people who care shouldn’t ever be able to come together.
        Were you mad about the Bush, Cheney, oil corruption?

  • OWilson

    Meanwhile yet another Nobel winning charlatan leader ot the global warming “religion” (his words, not mine) can’t keep his equipment his pants.

    So after Gore, and Pachauri, we need another AGW leader.

    Who ya got left, Leonardo di Caprio, Madonna?

    • 9.8m/ss

      You’re problem is pretty obvious. You’re looking to self-promoting retired politicians and movie stars for science. Try listening to scientists instead. Science ignores Al Gore and Leonardo di Caprio. You should, too.

      • OWilson

        Well, you have scientists. Then you have weather forecasters and “climatologists”, and IPCC Leader Pachauri’s religious convictions.

        You’re getting them mixed up. lol

        • 9.8m/ss

          Not me. I learned to tell the difference between a scientist and a public relations man in a lab coat when I was about eight years old. Obviously, most of the commenters here weren’t so lucky.

        • Mark Schaffer

          Boy have your boogeymen got so many professional science organizations fooled. That is one h*lluva conspiracy you have cooked up here.

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          “Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record.

          Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

          AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

          Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

          “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2

          American Association for the Advancement of Science

          “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)3

          American Chemical Society

          “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)4

          American Geophysical Union

          “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5

          American Medical Association

          “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

          American Meteorological Society

          “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)7

          American Physical Society

          “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)8

          The Geological Society of America

          “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)9

          SCIENCE ACADEMIES

          International academies: Joint statement

          “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)10

          U.S. National Academy of Sciences

          “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)11

          U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

          U.S. Global Change Research Program

          “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12

          INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

          Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

          “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”13

          “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”14

          *IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence.

          OTHER RESOURCES

          List of worldwide scientific organizations

          The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
          http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

          U.S. agencies

          The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
          http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/federal-agencies-adaptation.pdf

          • OWilson

            Old news amigo.

            By the way, the IPCC are NOT scientists.

            Pachauri has more pressing problem than global warming.

            Check out satellite data.

          • Mark Schaffer

            Ahhh…look at the troll thinking I don’t know about the satellite data and how Roy Spencer has been attempting to fudge that data.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-study-questions-accuracy-atmospheric-temperature-measurements.html

            New study questions the accuracy of satellite atmospheric temperature estimates

            Posted on 7 November 2014 by John Abraham

            Over the past decades, scientists have made many measurements across the globe to characterize how fast the Earth is warming. It may seem trivial, but taking the Earth’s temperature is not very straightforward. You could use temperature thermometers at weather stations that are spread across the globe. Measurements can be taken daily and information sent to central repositories where some average is determined.

            A downside of thermometers is that they do not cover the entire planet – large polarregions, oceans, and areas in the developing world have no or very few measurements. Another problem is that they may change over time. Perhaps the thermometers are replaced or moved, or perhaps the landscape around the thermometers changes which could impact the reading. And of course, measurements of the ocean regions are a whole other story.

            An alternative technique is to use satellites to extract temperatures from radiative emission at microwave frequencies from oxygen in the atmosphere. Satellites can cover the entire globe and thereby avoid the problem with discrete sensors. However, satellites also change over time, their orbit can change, or their detection devices can also change.

            Another issue with satellites is that the measurements are made throughout theatmosphere that can contain contaminants to corrupt the measurement. For instance, it is possible that water droplets (either in clouds or precipitation) can influence the temperature readings.

            So, it is clear that there are strengths and weaknesses to any temperature measurement method. You would hope that either method would tell a similar story, and they do to some extent, but there are key differences. Basically, the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is heating slower than the Earth surface.

            In fact, for the time period 1987–2006, the temperatures among the four groups that collect satellite data ranges from 0.086°C per decade to 0.22°C per decade. In more recent years, the trend is much reduced, and for two of the leading satellite groups (University of Alabama at Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems), temperatures are basically flat.

            The recent flatness in satellite temperatures as surface temperatures continue to rise has presented a quandary for scientists. Are both results real? Is there some reason they diverge? Is one measurement more accurate than the other? This is one of the areas of very active research.

            A contribution to this question appeared last week by researcher Fuzhong Weng and his colleagues. The paper, published in Climate Dynamics, claimed to find the reason for much of that difference – the authors report that the satellite trends could be off (too cold) by perhaps 30%. If true, this work would go a long way toward reconciling the differences between surface and satellite measurements.

            While this paper is getting a lot of attention, I am suggesting a more cautious approach. There are a number of issues and questions which must be answered before we can close the books on this issue and the paper has received some critical attention from other scientists. Before we get into that, let’s talk about what the study found and how they made their discovery.

            For a few decades, satellites have measured radiant emission from oxygen in theatmosphere and have related these measurements to temperatures. As satellites orbit the Earth, the microwave instrument on-board scans the atmosphere below them every 8 seconds or so and scientists apply what are called weighting functions to extract information from different altitudes. Each of the microwave “channels” uses a different weighting function so as to obtain information at different heights. The four channels most associated with atmospheric temperatures are Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit channels 3, 5, 7, and 9 in the current fleet of satellites.

            The radiant emission received by the satellite can be influenced by other components in the atmosphere, in particular cloud liquid water. Many years ago, the impact of cloud liquid water was considered and various attempts were made to eliminate its influence through a filtering process. It is well known that cloud liquid water can influence the measurements, the real question is by how much?

            The vigorous debate from the 1990s has been rekindled in the present Weng study. This new work segregates the Earth system by levels of cloudiness and precipitation in theatmosphere. The authors term “clear-sky” conditions corresponding to less than 10 grams of water per square meter of surface area. The authors then envisioned a cloud layer atop a raining region whose total height extends approximately 4 km vertically from the Earth surface.

            In their analysis, they considered different droplet sizes ranging from .05 mm to 1 mm. Finally, the impact on the satellite channels (AMSU-A channels 3, 5, 7, and 9) was determined. It was found that the lowest channel (channel 3 which is primarily focused on the near surface region) was significantly impacted by the presence of cloud liquid water.

            As you move higher into the atmosphere, the impact on temperatures was much reduced. When you look at the trends (change in temperatures with time), the two lowest elevation channels are higher when the impacts of clouds are removed. What this means is, measurements made in cloudy skies gives a lower warming trend of the atmosphere.

            The authors state,

            A decrease in brightness temperature can be associated with cloud and precipitation scattering, rather than physical temperature in the lower and middle troposphere and therefore, trends from microwave sounding data could be misleading if the brightness temperature from all weather conditions are averaged as representative of atmospheric physical temperature.

            The trend calculated from the clear-sky data is thus not only larger but also more reliable … It is shown that the atmospheric warming trends in the middle latitudes are significantly larger when cloud effects are removed … The scattering and emission effect of clouds and precipitation significantly reduces the values of the warm trends in the low and middle tropospherederived from microwave data.

            Simply put, when you eliminate the effect of clouds, the atmosphere is warming faster than we thought and the divergence between land thermometers and satellites largely disappears.

            Of course, whenever a study that is this significant is published, there is deserved skepticism. We have to be guarded in our acceptance until further work is done and until other teams have had a chance to review the findings. I asked others who work in this area to find their impressions.

            Click here to read the rest”

          • OWilson

            I’ll recap for ya. No need to take up all that space.

            Ignore the satellite data, and rely on pre modern day science as well as faulty instrumentation and recording and collection methods rom 1890.

            That about right?

            What ever you say, amigo. In your world the earth is frying, in my world the earth is bountiful.

            Peace!

          • Mark Schaffer

            Your recap skill is as incompetent as the rest of what you have posted here.

          • Mike Richardson

            You certainly have every right to live in your own world, as you clearly do. Unfortunately, you’re voting in mine, where atmospheric carbon levels are rising with global temperature averages following behind, oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb atmospheric carbon, and glaciers are retreating in most places. And from the pictures coming out of Siberia, now the permafrost is starting to thaw enough to belch out methane, a super greenhouse gas. Fun! The earth may not be frying, but we’re getting some pretty clear signs that it is warming up, at least if you’re willing to spend a little less time hiding out in “your” world.

          • OWilson

            Now here comes the idiotic arrogance again. Just when I thought we had a little logic and common sense going on.

            I don’t want you to do anything different, I don’t want to fundamentally change your world. The problem is you want to impose your ideology on the whole world.

            That is your business and you are welcome to give up the fruits of the Industrial Revolution, and go and live in a cave somewhere, but neither you, the communists, or the islamists, or the warmists, will not be allowed to destroy western capitalism, which has given so much to so many.

            Not without a fight, anyways!

            Elect a leader, someone who can champion your cause internationally, and don’t let assorted left wing liberal rabble like Gore and Pachari, or that street organizer in the WH speak for you.

            There is a way to present your case to the public in an honorable way, and not trying to sneak it in by the backdoor,

            You haven’t found it yet

          • Mike Richardson

            The problem is, you’re assuming I’ve got it in for capitalism because I accept the science supporting climate change. There may well be some that see the downfall of capitalism as the only way to solve the problem, but I’m not really in favor of that approach, myself, as history shows that social revolutions are inherently unpredictable and violent. But on the other hand, they often result from resistance to incremental and necessary change that would otherwise address the problem. The French, Russians, Chinese, and others have found that out the hard way. In this country, loathe as you may be to admit it, we avoided any violent Marxist revolution in the early 20th century by making adjustments to worst abuses of robber baron capitalism. Likewise, I’d much rather see reasonable adjustments made by both the public and private sector to address the looming problem of climate change before it becomes a true crisis. I’m not the radical you fear, but if folks like you aren’t willing to accept the basic premise that some change is needed now and in the near term, you or your descendants (and unfortunately, mine as well) will indeed be contending with radicalism as reactionary forces seek to address much more drastic disruption to civilization as a result of climate-related disasters.

          • OWilson

            Real world problems abound.

            Your own pet “problem” is “looming”.

            Maybe. Depends on where you get your info, and from who.

            In my case, I see out of control spiraling debt that can never be repaid, thrust on the backs of my generations yet unborn, so that liberals can build their Utopia NOW!

            That debt is not a “looming” problem and will, as they say, come home to roost, after the liberals as usual kick it down the road.

            Effective environmentalism is a function of social economic prosperity, not the other way around.

            I’m a pragmatist with an open mind (yes, you closed minded trolls)

            But, I am biased. I am biased towards common sense.

            Face the facts. If liberalism, progressivism, socialism et al. really DID work, you would never see another conservative government elected anywhere in the world.

            There would simply be no need! lol

            But, the capitalists have to bake the pies that you liberals are so artful at sharing.

            You always make the old mistake of shutting down the ovens that bake the daily bread.

            Does it not bother you that you share your policies with communists, islamists, and the assorted tin pot dictators who control, (not run) the U.N.?

            Do low info voters even know that at the U.N. the worst human rights violators are referred to as “Your Excellency” ??

          • Mike Richardson

            Again, you keep making those straw man arguments that I’m opposed to growth. I’m only opposed to unregulated growth, which places profit ahead of the good of society. You refer to various “isms” that are so detrimental to society, yet leave out libertarianism or laissez-faire capitalism. How stable a society can you have when you reward those who’ve already done well, but punish those struggling to do better with regressive economic policies? And if it makes me a radical to think that the government does have a role to play in protecting the environment and public health, then I suppose I am one. But you might want to rethink your own position if you think you haven’t gone too far to the other side. Contrary to what Goldwater said, “extremism” in defense of liberty is still extremism, and is indeed a vice if it causes you to view people advocating reasonable and moderate policies as your implacable foes. There are indeed extremists on the left, as there are on the right, but most liberals have as much in common with communists and Islamists as the average conservative voter has in common with fascists. Just keep that in mind before you go on a tirade against a whole group of people for suggesting that we might want to consider working on solutions to a problem that most of the scientific community has already agreed needs to be addressed.

          • OWilson

            In politics, as in science, you will never go wrong if you are a little sceptical.

            Unfortunately some folk’s blind trust in government (they are humans, not gods) leads them to ruin.
            I gave you the ultimate example before of the abominable waste of human life in left wing societies, and even here in your left wing communities, the illiterate, crime infested, gangbanging ghettos.
            You say you are offended by these remarks, but your liberal sensibilities count for nothing against the obscenity of those who are destined to live on handouts from your “government”. who cynically trades on their lives for votes.

          • Mark Schaffer

            How is it that random chance beats you at being correct about AGW? It is almost as if you are being deliberately obtuse.

    • Mark Schaffer

      You could start with John Tyndall for starters you know…

      • 9.8m/ss

        I’m still waiting for one of these tin foil hatters to tell me how the grand conspiracy got to Tyndall and Fourier. So far, their answer has been to deny Tyndall and Fourier’s contributions. I guess denying can be habit forming.

        • Mark Schaffer

          Time machine. Whistles, puts hands in pockets, and strolls away…
          That was easy, just like the movies.

  • taxeye

    It’s absolutely fascinating that “science” credibility has sunk to such a low that computer model data trumps the cycles of the sun when discussing climate.

  • Bill

    I doesn’t matter what he radioactive forcing is, the FACT is, as NASA reports, The GHGs in our atmosphere, block out, 23% of all incoming solar heat. By NASA measurements that 365 watts per meter square of solar heat blocked out by GHG.

    Meaning, the earth is 23% COOLER thanks to GHGs in the atmosphere, because without them that 23% blocked out would reach the earth’s surface.

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

    As to the heat that is trapped in by the GHG, NASA reports their measurements show that 17% of the solar energy that reaches the earth’s surface is transformed into infrared energy and radiated back out towards space. Of this 12% gets out and the remaining 5% is trapped by the GHGs and radiated back at the earth (the Greenhouse Effect).

    Thus, the Greenhosue Effect traps in 11.5 watts per meter squared, while 365 watts per meter squared is kept out by the GHGs.
    Thus the NET effect is that the earth is made significantly cooler by GHGs than it is warmed by them.

    Measuring only the heat trapped in, while not taking into account the heat trapped out is lying with statistics.

  • Robert Williamson

    So Wille Soon should not take any money and him and his family starve ? Or should he take money from somewhere else ?
    I bet Al Gore has made big money on climate alarmism… I bet James “Fudging’ the Numbers” Hansen and Michael “Hockey Schtick” Mann has taken money.. …. Don’t tell me they take no money and are living on the street. I bet they are quite well off because of their Gorebull Warming alarmism.

  • MDHatfield

    5 to 6 days of the week these morons spray millions of tons of crap in the sky to block the sun .They say it is inexpensive and could run this insane program for years .I have documented this in the greater Nashville area for 3 years now and they are out of control. We rarely get any sun anymore .Who would of ever dreamed in a million years these maniacs would take our sun away. When people finally wake up and some day they will there will be a witch hunt for all those responsible for this crime against humanity .

  • http://resisttyranny.com/ Sean Ackley

    What I don’t understand is how anyone getting money from the IPCC itself wouldn’t have a conflict of interest. In the reading I have done it seems that only researchers who publish papers on the PRO side of the IPCC i.e. global warming is caused by humans and our SUV’s spewing Carbon Dioxide and coal-burning plants are evil, get all the funding. If you come up with a really well-researched paper saying that the Sun is the primary driver of warmth on this planet, or if you find out the earth goes through natural cycles over 15-30 years, you DONT get funding.

    So where do people have to go. The coal industry is like “wait a minute, if the IPCC gets to fund a bunch of scientists against us, we are going to fund a bunch of scientists for us”.

    At this point you realize the politics of global warming is much more complex than the science of global warming. Global climate change happens. pure and simple. Its not because humans are creating such a problem that our entire planetary defenses are failing, nor does it explain the Solar activity or planetary pole shifts taking place. These are completely external to anything we can do.

    But the solution always seems to be the same. Give the government and the United Nations more money and more power, and will FIX things. Really? How about you just get out of our damn lives, and the scientists can publish paper independently from research programs at Universities NOT funded through government agencies. Government is NOT the solution, Government is the PROBLEM.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

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

Collapse bottom bar
+