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.

          • Peter Johnson

            Have you ever heard anyone express a negative assumption about anyone else? Look up Senator Gene McCarthy, whose claims that Congress was inflicted by communists ruined many a celebrities appeal by disclosing that at one point in their lives they had attended a communist sponsored event. the hysteria he created grew so great that many of us were willing to agree with it.

            The truth is that no climate scientists are getting rich on research grants, and scientists have continued delivering the same message during Reagan’s, H,W. Bush’s administrations, as well as during the Clinton administration–not to mention during GW’s and Obama’s terms! While scientists around the world from different religious, political and ethic backgrounds also work with various agencies which support the reality that Co2 can cause warming in the atmosphere a do to dozens of the worlds websites.

          • nik

            Yes, CO2 can cause warming, but its effect is infinitesimal, and at 0.04% in the Earths atmosphere, non-existent
            .
            In 600 million years, there has been NO noticeable effect by CO2 on Earths climate.
            In fact, at times, when CO2 increased, average temperature went down, and when CO2 decreased, average temperature increased, the opposite of the Carbon Tax Scammers claims.
            Famous quote;
            ”If the observed facts do not match the theory, then no matter how elegant the theory, the THEORY IS WRONG!”
            Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner.

            Contrary to Carbon Tax Scammers, current world average temperatures, and atmospheric CO2 are the LOWEST that they have been for 270 million years. If CO2 drops much further, to 150 ppm, then all plant life will start to die from CO2 starvation, and with it all carbon based animal life on Earth.

            The claims by the carbon tax scammers, that 95% of climate scientists agree with them is fraudulent, they dont! In a USA survey, 95% of scientists disagreed that CO2 was causing ”global warming,” or ”global climate change.”

            The Earth has had three previous low temperature periods in the last 600 million years, two were as low as current average temperature, and they lasted several million years. In two of them, CO2 was ten times present, 450 million years ago, and and five times present.at about 150 million years ago.
            So If CO2 did cause any warming, these lows would be impossible.

            Conclusion; CO2 caused climate change theory is total rubbish!

          • Peter Johnson

            Like many gases, Co2 is present in relatively small amounts but even very small amounts can make huge differences in the environment. Carbon Monoxide is odorless colorless and tasteless yet can kill human beings in very small concentrations–likewise Co2 affects the environment in very small concentrations that have big effects.

            Even though there have been times in Earth’s history when very large amounts of C02 were present, warming involved many other factors too, like the tilt and path of the Earth around the sun and/or volcanic activity. And, Co2 can cause global warming during times with heavy cloud coverage, because that cloud coverage traps heat in the lower atmosphere. Or it can cause cooling by blocking the sunlight that reaches the troposphere. The bottom line is that we have a perfect storms of climate conditions during which we are now experiencing a more rapid increase of Co2 than at any other time in hundreds of thousands of years. This gives plants, animals, and human beings very little time to adapt to climate change. So its not just the amount, but also the incredibly fast rate of increase.

            But as far as many of your statistics, I would guess you got them from denial blogs which deliberately misrepresent the effects of Co2 and its rapidly incensing concentrations. In the hands of deniers surveys and scientific facts are routinely falsified or used to mislead the public about the harmful affects of our present and rising levels of Co2. i.e. remember the lies and deceits used by big tobacco?

            As far as “carbon tax scammers,” there have been numerous proposals for revenue neutral carbon taxes which are returned to companies via other tax reductions of by reductions in fees that companies already pay in other ways. We can reduce Co2 without placing undue burdens on big oil and coal companies, But because they feel they have a good gig going they are fighting any forms of regulation which prevent them from making ever increasing profits. The facts have accordingly been distorted and misrepresents by them, not the world’s scientific community. But if you want to hold on to some ridiculous theory that scientists are getting rich via research grants, or the idea that Co2 is harmless, then I’m afraid I cannot change your mind. I only hope you will be able to eventually come around by using your own intelligence and via your own exposure to real knowledge.

          • nik

            Your guesses as to my sources are just guesses, and are wrong!
            I dont access ‘deniers blogs’
            Nor did I say that scientists are getting rich.
            I said that ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’
            NASA’s numbers have been continuously falsified, and can be seen as such by referring to earlier figures.

            CO2 has done NOTHING to affect Earths climate in 600 MILLION years, why would it suddenly do so after carbon tax was invented?

            CO2 cannot, and has no effect on Earth climate.

            REPEAT!
            Present world atmospheric CO2, and average temperature is the LOWEST it has been for 270 MILLION years!

            Reducing present CO2 levels from present, will endanger all life on Earth!

            Keep believing the propaganda myths if you wish, the same way that people believe in gods, fairies, leprechauns, and hobgoblins, because they have been told so.

            I dont see any ‘real intelligence’ in your claims, or any data to support them. This is not surprising, as there is none., and yes I’m aware of the ‘Big Tobbacco’ fraud, but like I’ve said CO2 effecting changes in Earths atmosphere is also a gigantic fraud, perpetrated for the same reason, GREED!

            600 MILLION years of climate history here;

            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

            Try rewriting 600 million years of climate history to support CO2 caused climate change.
            I think you will find it more than just difficult.

          • Peter Johnson

            You say you didn’t say that scientists are getting rich, yet you blame their supposed climate scam on Greed? Well that means you think someone who asserts the facts about global warming is getting rich or powerful or both! The most logical possibilities are coal and oil companies, which makes your attempts to deny such facts synonymous with the beliefs of deniers anyway. If not, who else is being greedy, and why?

            As far as the chart you posted, many charts are deceptive or inaccurate and are commonly offered by scientists who push denial by using them. I could post plenty of others that tell a different story, but oh, they’re only put out by shady scientific groups like NASA and NOAA and virtually every major scientific body in the world, so I guess they don’t have the same credibility of some learned denier like Lord Monckton?

            I’ve never heard PhDs in climate science or anywhere else, propose anything as silly as leprechauns, fairies and hobgoblins. But I have heard “skeptics”, deny global warming on the basis of one snowstorm or one cold spell, which has really nothing to do with proving or disproving anything proposed by climate scientists! I have also heard deniers discredit the scientific method which has helped us progress so greatly over the centuries by relying on empirical evidence, logic and deduction. That means that no one gets to accepts anyone ideas just because they are told to! But then, you have already decided that solid science can only be the work of greedy Charletons.

            We both know that nothing I can say will change your mind, and that’s entirely up to you anyway, Just like these comments are up to anyone who posts on this thread. Unfortunately, just denying something does not mean its not a fact!

            Science has, been used historically and rationally by almost all research paper publishing scientists. And far more of them affirm the scinece than does anyone who denies it!

          • nik

            Your ‘logic’ is highly defective, the ones asserting the global warming scam, are obviously the scammers concerned, to the tune of BILLIONS in carbon tax, no one else!

            ”I could post plenty of others that tell a different story,”
            OK, so please do so, I’d like to see NASA or anyone else for that matter dispute convincingly 600 million years of climate history.

            ”I have heard “skeptics”, deny global warming on the basis of one snowstorm or one cold spell,….”
            So, carbon tax scammers, who try to base their ridiculous claims on 50 years or so of climate history compared to 600 million years are more convincing?
            LOL!
            What you may have ”heard” said by ‘deniers’ is hearsay and has no substance, as has your whole argument, so far.

            Scientific method is not in question here, and never has been. What is in question is the ridiculous claims of carbon tax scammers, and their trolls.

            There is NO scientific basis for CO2 caused climate change on this Earth, and so far you have produced non.

            The graph I posted is from one of the sites using the scientific method that you hold so dear, so there cannot be any possible problem with that.

            It’s well known that the Earth goes through climate cycles caused by the regular 11 year sunspot cycle, temperatures go up, and then they go down again. What the carbon tax scammers did was to take one of the temperature rises, and extrapolate that into the stratosphere! Unfortunately the climate didnt respond to their claims.

            Average global temperatures have not changed significantly upwards in the last 20 years or more. In fact both northern and southern hemispheres have recently experienced the COLDEST temperatures on record, EVER. They have also experienced the heaviest snowfalls on record, including snowfalls in the Sahara desert! This was why the unsupportable term ”Global Warming” was dropped for ”climate change.”
            However, the only thing that is constant in the Earths climate is CHANGE, which has been occurring for the last 4.5 BILLION years!

            So far your argument has contained nothing but hearsay, empty assertions, and attempts at character smearing, which is normal practice by carbon tax trolls pushing their rubbish, because they have nothing else to push it with.

            CO2 caused climate change is an unsupportable scam!

            That is not ‘my opinion’ it is a fact, supported by 600 million years of climate history, not 20 years of bullshit!

          • Peter Johnson

            Climate scientists agree that the climate has been very different in the past including millions of years ago, but that doesn’t include Co2 levels alone. Here is a link which explains how many things were very different in the environment of millions of years ago, which caused periods of cooling even at times when Co2 in the atmosphere was very, very high. However, scientists have known about these periods for a long time and it’s not a revelation to point out that the climate is always changing—that’s true—it’s also changing this second as you read my comment. The problem has never been that it is changing, but how it’s changing, and at what rate:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

            Rather than “scammers” who you claim are somehow lining their vaults with billions in climate taxes, here is a website that explains one of the best carbon reduction methods which ultimately take no money at all from taxpayers.

            http://unfccc.int/secretariat/momentum_for_change/items/9931.php

            And here is another website which explains the benefits of such a tax:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy

            And a chart that is on the website above:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/12/1402532896966/e13c3972-8988-4edf-98a3-a7b6adc47559-620×315.png?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1d849c5c34cd0ef1a43b6d575c240e77

            And of course climate scientists base much of their knowledge on what happened during the last fifty years! Its during that time that we have experienced the largest and (most sudden rise) in atmospheric Co2 for hundreds of thousands or perhaps, even millions of years. Your complaint is similar to someone watching the evening news in April of 2017 and whining about how the news never mentions the crusades anymore, the rise of Greek and Roman civilizations or what happened in Lincoln’s administration. All those things are interesting, but the nightly news is based on the nightly news, not what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Except for knowing how the motions and tilt of the Earth can affect the climate during its travels around the sun, and how cataclysmic events which happened in the distant past brought us to where we are now, we are concerned primarily about what is happening to the Earth and sun right now—Just like we should be concerned about contemporary news events. What happened millions of years ago does have an effect on how the Earth is today, but climate science is primarily concerned with the state of the climate today, and man’s effects on it.

            What I have heard said by deniers is not hearsay, its recorded and archived in every American newspaper and their opinion pages, just as it has been written about in clear print on the pages of denier’s websites. You need to look up the definition of hearsay if you think that’s the problem. And why do you call me a troll or a climate scammer. I’m no millionaire and am not paid by scientists just as you no doubt would be quick to affirm about yourself—neither of us can verify the livelihoods of the other, but that’s all the more reason to believe that the other guy may be telling the truth.

            About sunspots and the 11-year solar cycle—again no revelation, and nothing dismissed by scientists, but something long ago proven NOT to be driving our present warming. We are in a period when the suns radiant energy is declining and has less effect on the Earth, so if anything, we should be cooling now, because the sun is not excessively warming our planet.

            Scientists have long ago studied all the natural planetary cycles of the Earth such as its tilt, angle, and nearness to the sun at various stages of its orbit—none of which can account for the rapid warming we are experiencing now. And could you please provide more details to your claim that “What carbon tax scammers did was take one of the temperature rises and (extrapolated) that onto the stratosphere?” Does it matter any that the stratosphere is one of the upper bands of the Earth’s atmosphere and the climate change that concerns us all is happening right here on Earth, in the troposphere?

            In the last twenty years or so, worldwide temperature averages have been steadily increasing except of a brief “slow down”—not a stop. Part of the reason for that is that the oceans have been absorbing increasing amounts of our heat.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            “This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” I guess we have to watch out though, these facts from NASA’s are broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit, and the NOAA—The same thieves that brought us men on the moon and knowledge about the entire climate of the world. Care to specifically tell us what website which I hold so dear, provided the graph you posted in your recent comment?

            Sorry if you perceive my purpose as being to smear you unfairly, but does my occasional sarcasm not compare with your own. It’s hard to refrain from ranting at another who seems to love insulting yourself, but facts are still facts, and that’s what I am using to rebut you now.

            In one fairly brief post you have implicated that I support global warming scammers, and that I am a Troll. If so I am a troll that refers to real facts form respected websites which are dedicated to advancing our knowledge of the climate, those you have portrayed as being crooked dispensers of falsehoods. How so? No doubt the temperature record and the respected diligence of NASA and the NOAA are not good enough for you, or the fact that hundreds of scientific bodies around the world admit the fact that human-caused global warming exists and need to be dealt with— including the entire military and tens of thousands climate scientists around the world. So apparently you would rather distrust and neglect the kinds of scientific research which brought us amazing technologies like the computer you are using now, and the many miracles of medical science. Yet you would rather believe a relatively few people who feel the need to protect and deny the motivations of companies like those which brought us the Deep Horizon oil spill?

          • Peter Johnson

            Climate scientists agree that the climate has been very different in the past including millions of years ago, but that doesn’t include Co2 levels alone. Here is a link which explains how many things were very different in the environment of millions of years ago, which caused periods of cooling even at times when Co2 in the atmosphere was very, very high. However, scientists have known about these periods for a long time and it’s not revelatory to point out that the climate is always changing—that’s true—it’s also changing this second as you read my comment. The problem has never been that it is changing, but how it’s changing, and at what rate:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

            Rather than “scammers” who you claim are somehow lining their vaults with billions in climate taxes, here is a website that explains one of the best carbon reduction methods which ultimately take no money at all from taxpayers.

            http://unfccc.int/secretariat/momentum_for_change/items/9931.php

            And here is another website which explains the benefits of such a tax:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy

            And a chart that is on the website above:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/12/1402532896966/e13c3972-8988-4edf-98a3-a7b6adc47559-620×315.png?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1d849c5c34cd0ef1a43b6d575c240e77

            And of course climate scientists base much of their knowledge on what happened during the last fifty years. Its during that time that we have experienced the largest and (most sudden rise) in atmospheric Co2 for hundreds of thousands or even, even millions of years. Your complaint is similar to someone watching the evening news in April of 2017 and whining about how the news never mentions the crusades anymore, the rise of Greek and Roman civilization or what happened in Lincoln’s administration. All those things are interesting, but the nightly news is based on the nightly news, not what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Except for knowing how the motions and tilt of the Earth during its travels around the sun, and how cataclysmic events happened in the distant past brought us to where we are now, we are concerned primarily on what is happening to the Earth and sun now—Just like we should be interested in contemporary news events. What happened millions of years ago does have an effect on how the Earth is today, but climate science is primarily concerned with the state of the climate today, and man’s effects on it.

            What I have heard said by deniers is not hearsay, its recorded and archived in every American newspaper and their opinion pages, just as it has been written about in clear print on the pages of denier’s websites. You need to look up the definition of hearsay if you think that’s the problem. And why do you call me a troll or a climate scammer. I’m no millionaire and am not paid by scientists just as you no doubt would be quick to say about yourself—neither of us can verify the words of the other, however that’s all the more reason to believe that the other guy may be telling the truth.

            About sunspots and the 11-year solar cycle—again no revelation, again nothing dismissed by scientists, but something long ago proven not to be driving our present warming. We are in a period when the suns radiant energy is declining and has less effect on the Earth, so if anything we are not cooling now, and the sun is not warming the planet. And scientists have long ago studied all the natural planetary cycles of the Earth such as its tilt angle and nearness to the sun at various times—none of which can account for the rapid warming we are experiencing now. And could you please provide more details to your claim that “What carbon tax scammers did was take one of the temperature rises and extrapolated that onto the stratosphere?” Does it matter any that the stratosphere is one of the upper bands of the Earth’s atmosphere and the climate change that concerns us is happening right here on Earth, in the troposphere?

            In the last twenty years or so, worldwide temperature averages have been steadily increasing except of a brief “slow down,” not a stop. Part of the reason for that is that the oceans are absorbing more of the heat.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            “This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

            I guess we have to watch out though, these facts from NASA’s are broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit, and the NOAA. The same thieves that brought you men on the moon and knowledge about the entire climate of the world. Care to specifically tell us what website which I hold so dear, provided the graph you posted in your recent comment?

            Sorry if you perceive my purpose as being to smear you unfairly, but does my occasional sarcasm compare with your own. Is hard to refrain from ranting against another who seems to love insulting ourselves. But facts are still facts, and that’s what I am using to rebut you.

            In one fairly brief post you have implicated that I support global warming scammers, and am a Troll. If so I am a troll that refers to real facts form respected websites which are dedicated to advancing our knowledge of the climate, and you have portrayed them as being crooked dispensers of falsehoods. How so? No doubt the temperature record and the respected diligence of NASA and the NOAA are not good enough for you, or the fact that hundreds of scientific bodies around the world admit the fact that human caused global warming exists and need to be dealt with, including the entire military and tens of thousands climate scientists around the world. So apparently you would rather distrust and neglect the kinds of scientific research which has brought of amazing technologies and miracles of medical science, and would rather believe a relatively few people who feel the need to protect and deny the motivations of companies like those which brought us the Deep Horizon oil spill?

          • Peter Johnson

            Climate scientists agree that the climate has been very different in the past including millions of years ago, but that doesn’t include Co2 levels alone. Here is a link which explains how many things were very different in the environment of millions of years ago, which caused periods of cooling even at times when Co2 in the atmosphere was very, very high. However, scientists have known about these periods for a long time and it’s not a revalation to point out that the climate is always changing—that’s true—it’s also changing this second as you read my comment. The problem has never been that it is changing, but how it’s changing, and at what rate:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

            Rather than “scammers” who you claim are somehow lining their vaults with billions in climate taxes, here is a website that explains one of the best carbon reduction methods which ultimately take no money at all from taxpayers.

            http://unfccc.int/secretariat/momentum_for_change/items/9931.php

            And here is another website which explains the benefits of such a tax:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy

            And a chart that is on the website above:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/12/1402532896966/e13c3972-8988-4edf-98a3-a7b6adc47559-620×315.png?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1d849c5c34cd0ef1a43b6d575c240e77

            And of course climate scientists base much of their knowledge on what happened during the last fifty years. Its during that time that we have experienced the largest and (most sudden rise) in atmospheric Co2 for hundreds of thousands or even, even millions of years. Your complaint is similar to someone watching the evening news in April of 2017 and whining about how the news never mentions the crusades anymore, the rise of Greek and Roman civilization or what happened in Lincoln’s administration. All those things are interesting, but the nightly news is based on the nightly news, not what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Except for knowing how the motions and tilt of the Earth during its travels around the sun, and how cataclysmic events happening in the distant past brought us to where we are now, we are concerned primarily on what is happening to the Earth and sun now—Just like we should be interested in contemporary news events. What happened millions of years ago does have an effect on how the Earth is today, but climate science is primarily concerned with the state of the climate today, and man’s effects on it.

            What I have heard said by deniers is not hearsay, its recorded and archived in every American newspaper and their opinion pages, just as it has been written about in clear print on the pages of denier’s websites. You need to look up the definition of hearsay if you think that’s the problem. And why do you call me a troll or a climate scammer. I’m no millionaire and am not paid by scientists just as you no doubt would be quick to say about yourself—neither of us can verify the words of the other.

            About sunspots and the 11-year solar cycle—again no revelation, again nothing dismissed by scientists, but something long ago proven NOT to be driving our present warming. We are in a period when the sun’s radiant energy is declining and has less effect on the Earth, so if anything we should be cooling now, yet the sun is warming the planet. And, scientists have long ago studied all the natural planetary cycles of the Earth such as its tilt angle and nearness to the sun at various times—none of which can account for the rapid warming we are experiencing now. And could you please provide more details to your claim that “What carbon tax scammers did was take one of the temperature rises and extrapolated that onto the stratosphere?” Does it matter any that the stratosphere is one of the upper bands of the Earth’s atmosphere and the climate change that concerns us is happening right here on Earth, in the troposphere?

            In the last twenty years or so, worldwide temperature averages have been steadily increasing except of a brief “slow down,” not a stop. Part of the reason for that is that the oceans are absorbing more of the heat.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            “This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

            I guess we have to watch out though, these facts from NASA’s are broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit, and the NOAA. According to you, the same thieves that brought you men on the moon and knowledge about the entire climate of the world. Care to specifically tell us what website which I hold so dear, provided the graph you posted in your recent comment?

            Sorry if you perceive my purpose as being to smear you unfairly, but does my occasional sarcasm NOT compare with your own? It’s hard to refrain from ranting against another who seems to love insulting one’s self, but facts are still facts, and that’s what I am using to rebut you.

            In one fairly brief post you have implicated that I support “global warming scammers,” and that I am a Troll. If so, I am a troll that refers to real facts form respected websites which are dedicated to advancing our knowledge of the climate, and you have portrayed these leaned scientists as being crooked dispensers of falsehoods. How so? No doubt the temperature record and the respected diligence of NASA and the NOAA are not good enough for you, or the fact that hundreds of scientific bodies around the world admit the fact that human caused global warming exists and need to be dealt with, including the entire military and tens of thousands climate scientists around the world. So apparently you would rather distrust and neglect the kinds of scientific research which have brought of amazing technologies and miracles of medical science, and would rather believe a relatively few people who feel the need to protect and deny the motivations of companies like those which brought us the Deep Horizon oil spill?

          • Peter Johnson

            virtually all of he facts and figures you use in your comment above are wrong. Here is a link to an Australian website. They are experiencing waves of denial there too:

            Since many of my comments have not been posted, I am hoping that at least Imageo will let this link become available to readers and other commenters:

            http://www.foe.org.au/the_climate_change_hoax_the_greatest_hoax_of_all

            A fairly short part of the long post at the link above:

            Vested interests and allies of the fossil fuel industry

            “It has been estimated that donors linked to oil giant Exxon-Mobil, Koch Industries and other invested parties to the fossil fuel industry have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on propagating an angle of climate change denial by using ‘junk science’ to downplay the existence of, and human involvement in global warming. For instance, it appears that Exxon has for years “campaigned to sow uncertainty about climate science, undermine international climate treaties and block legislation to reduce emissions.”
            Over 50 bodies exist in the United States alone that purport to either outright deny the existence of climate change, downplay the role of human causes, or discredit the scientists who carry out research and report on global warming. The website SourceWatch is a thorough resource to check on which organizations are actually funded by the fossil fuel industry or their allies.”

            “In Australia, notable climate change skeptics include One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts and South Australian Liberal MP, Cory Bernardi.
            Roberts has maintained that data produced by the broader scientific community including Australia’s own scientific body the CSIRO, are a product of corruption in order to satisfy personal gain for the very scientists that undertake the research. This has been widely criticized by the CSIRO and broader scientific community, with all of Robert’s claims thoroughly debunked in a number of media items and news articles that provide independently reviewed scientific information from numerous sources.

          • nik

            ”virtually all of he facts and figures you use in your comment above are wrong”

            NON of my figures are wrong!

            In 600 million years, CO2 has had no effect on climate. [You have yet to produce one of the many graphs you mentioned that would contradict the one I have shown.]
            Please explain why it should do so in the last 20 years, when CO2 is at its lowest level for 270 million years, at less than a minuscule 400 ppm.

            600 million years ago, ACO2 [atmospheric CO2] was 7000 parts per million, more than 17 times present.
            According to Carbon Tax Theory, 400 ppm is likely to cause a runaway ‘greenhouse effect.’
            If 7000 ppm did not cause one, then how will 400 ppm cause it?

            As has been said elsewhere, ACO2 is not a pollutant, it is an essential component for all life on Earth, without it, there would be NO carbon based life on Earth.

            The present level is dangerously low.
            Increasing it would be entirely beneficial for ALL life on Earth, with NO disadvantages whatsoever.

            The present low levels are starving plant life, especially trees, that require large amounts of it. CO2 starved trees are weak, and are more prone to succumb to fungal and other attacks. As they are weak they regenerate more slowly, and catch fire more easily.[Nearly dead trees are much drier than healthy trees] This leads to vast, devastating, forest fires, of which there have been many recently, world wide!

            The worlds climate is influenced by Malenkovitch cycles, NOT ACO2. When Malenkovitch cycles were first proposed, they were rubbished by the ”establishment” in the same way that plate tectonics was rubbished, but that is now taught as standard, in all schools, [except those under the influence of ”intelligent design,” maybe.]
            However as all the climatic changes were in perfect synchronisation with Malenkovitch cycles, it should have triggered someones brain to think, ”well just maybe this could be right.”
            More recent university studies have concluded that Malenkovitch cycles, combined with environmental factors are wholly responsible for the Climatic cycles that the Earth experiences, and have been for the last 10 cycles, or about one million years. and Confirmed by deep ocean and lake core drillings.

            Present higher temperatures, cause the oceans to release more CO2, in the same way that beer loses its ‘fizz’ when it warms, its an identical process. That is why ACO2 levels have risen, not because of the trivial amounts of CO2 produced by humans.

            One volcano can emit as much CO2 in one day as the USA can emit in one year, Therefore, in one year a similar volcano could emit as much CO2 as the USA has emitted since the Founding Fathers arrived there. Human produced CO2 is trivial, or was until Carbon Tax was invented.

            Before I conclude, let me clarify my position regarding trolls.

            For someone, anyone, to try and push such a ridiculous proposition that human produced ACO2 is likely to cause a runaway greenhouse effect, they either have to be a fool, or a troll for the carbon tax brigade.

            As your posts are at least literate, then you probably are not a fool, therefor my conclusion is that you are a paid troll. [or are, maybe, being blackmailed to push ”ACO2 global warming.” a bit far fetched I admit.]

            You will find that one by one countries are beginning to ignore the ACO2 climate change myth/scam. First the USA, and recently the UK.
            I expect more to follow.
            Have a good day.
            Regards,
            Nik

          • Peter Johnson

            As far as some of your claims;

            During the last 600,000,000 years Co2 levels have change many times, and often they have been associated with increased temperatures. Yes, the oceans absorb Co2 and Co2 is a critical component of life on Earth. Again this is no secret, just like the fossil and geological records of the Earth are not unknown by scientists. But there are many different influences on our climate—for instance, depending on how thick the cloud coverage is, the Earth’s heat cannot escape, or, depending on how thick our cloud coverage is, (when combined with aspects of the Milankovitch effects) the Earth’s surface receives less energy from the sun and surface temperatures plummet anyway.

            I took an Astronomy course in 1980 and all the information about the Milankovitch effects were well known and I believe they have been well known for many years before that. Yes in the beginning scientists probably expressed skepticism, but that ended when it was further examined by scientists. Almost every new theory meets with skepticism—if not scientific knowledge and therefore human progress would be in serious trouble.

            Trees and other green plants, do absorb Co2 and give off oxygen, so when large areas of forest lands are logged for lumber or cut down by encroaching civilizations this natural buffering mechanism is reduced and less Co2 can be absorbed. Current research is that some plants may benefit from Co2 and some may not, but overall, the effects on the Earth will not be good. Here is a link you should read.

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

            Part of it;

            Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?
            What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? The following points make it clear.
            1. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.
            2. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
            On the other hand, as predicted by Global Warming, we are receiving intense storms with increased rain throughout of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls down very quickly, it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it builds up above the soil then floods causing damage to the crops. The water also floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean carrying off large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
            3. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to be constantly producing artificial fertilizers from natural gas which will eventually start running out. By increasing the need for such fertilizer you will shorten the supply of natural gas creating competition between the heating of our homes and the growing of our food. This will drive the prices of both up.
            4. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
            5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.

            Even if Co2 is used in the metabolic cycle of plants, in large enough doses it is not beneficial to man i.e. H2O is very beneficial to all life on Earth but if you or I am trapped in a 10 by 10-foot area which begins to fill with water, unless the water eventually stops, we will soon drowned due to excess water ending up in our lungs.

            About the effects of volcanoes on global warming:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/coming-out-of-ice-age-volcanoes.htm

            A small portion of it:

            “the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Foster & Rahmstorf and Lean & Rind. And like those studies, they find that volcanoes have had a relatively small contribution to global warming, and in fact, likely have had a net cooling effect over the past 50-65 years (Figure 3).

            https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/Volcanic_Attribution.png

            It may have temporary cooling effects but does not increase warming nearly as much as fossil fuel emissions. Volcanic carbon is much different than atmospheric Co2 and is easily distinguished from it.

          • Peter Johnson

            Just one more post to rebut some of your claims and then I’m done! Here is an entire article from the Skeptical Science blog which addresses your claims that increased Co2 would be a boon to plant life. I decided to post the entire relatively short article:

            “Plants cannot live on CO2 alone”
            “Link to this page
            What the science says…
            Select a level… Basic Advanced”

            “More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.
            Climate Myth…”

            “CO2 is plant food
            Earth’s current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the “food” that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they “eat” (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)”

            “An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
            However, this “more is better” philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.” For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It’s more likely to make you sick.
            It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, ‘skeptics’ make their claims of beneficial botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.
            Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person’s diet won’t lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.
            What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?
            1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
            On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
            2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.
            3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
            4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the “nitrogen plateau” soon truncate this benefit
            5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.”

            So there’s the truth about large amounts of Co2 and agriculture–what you conclude when given this knowledge, is entirely up to you!

            Good night!

          • nik

            ”Perhaps the first comment to yours above that was held up yesterday will be posted now?
            I’m hoping that after a long erroneous comment like yours (believe it or not) that Imageo will allow me to post this original comment I tried to post three times recently:”

            RE;The above extract from your latest comment, which is not visible on this page, All of that comment may be very edifying, but is all entirely irrelevant, as it does not show any connection between human produced CO2 and Global Climate change.

            Your arguments tend to follow the pattern used by confidence tricksters, or conmen which is as follows.

            ‘I have said ‘A’ which was correct,’
            ‘I have said ‘B’ which was correct.’
            ‘I have said ‘C’ which was correct.’
            Therefore if I say ‘D” to ‘Z’ they must also be correct, which is obviously absurd, but when camouflaged by loads of statistics and other irrelevancies, may fool the gullible.
            I’m not one of them.

            In many countries, demanding money with menaces is a criminal offence, except when it is perpetrated by ‘taxmen’, then it suddenly becomes perfectly OK.

            All taxes are a form of theft, as they are mostly demanded and taken from unwilling but intimidated persons. It matters not, that they may well benefit others, the fact remains that the person they are collected from would in general prefer not to be parted from their hard earned money.
            Carbon Tax, is no different, and is a very damaging tax, as it can destroy complete industries, and with it, many peoples livelihoods, one of them being the much maligned coal industry, which is the mainstay of many countries economies. Destroying their economy can do nobody any good, except for those collecting the tax. and bankers who would be quick to offer gigantic loans, and thereby ‘owning’ the countries concerned.
            Modern coal fired power stations have all the technology available they need, to capture pollutants, and ensure that their emissions are not harmful. Destroying the coal industry on the pretext that CO2 is a pollutant, is dishonest, and of no benefit to society as a whole.

            The most recent predictions for the Earths climate, not by ‘climatologists’ but by scientists following solar output predictions, is that the Earth is heading for another Ice Age. Solar predictions are likely to be far more exact than climate, or weather forecasters, which is a very inexact ‘science’ and is more like intelligent guess work. Solar output, on the other hand, follows predictable cycles.

            Other scientists have been reporting that the rate of extinctions has reached a proportion exceeding that of the Permian extinction. Mainly due to habitat degradation or destruction.

            An INCREASED level CO2 would benefit all, as habitat recovery would be more rapid.

            The Carboniferous age was one of prolific plant growth, and one where vast coal fields were laid down. This was facilitated initially by high levels of CO2, and a climate that inhibited decomposition. In fact it was an ICE AGE!
            So, here again, we have a complete contradiction of the Carbon Tax theory/myth that high levels of CO2 produce a ‘greenhouse’ Earth.
            In fact, both average global temperature and CO2 eventually fell to a minimum as the world entered the Permian. Only at the end of the Permian, when global temperature had risen, and the oceans had warmed, did CO2 levels again start to rise.

          • Peter Johnson

            Personally, I can’t believe that my comment is being withheld at all. It makes me wonder what the political persuasions of the moderator are. The fact is almost all of your comments have been debunked by mainstream science, and all I did was discuss why?

            There is no collusion between climate scientists and those who promote a carbon tax. Firstly, such a tax could be borne easily by large oil companies, and secondly, with its billions in quarterly profits a company like Exxon Mobil has huge financial reserves that it could easily use to invest in green energy and the technology required to produce it. It could actually quite easily become an energy king in the kind of new industry that scientists are hoping the government will soon acknowledge.

            Scientists get no large amounts of money from research either. If you drive past the home of a climate scientists, and then the home of the CEO for Exxon mobile, (who has now been appointed Secretary of State), which one’s driveway are you most likely to see a Lamborghini parked in? In most universities scientists who do climate research are basically compensated for the time they take off from other duties, like lecturing and teaching a class, and for the costs of the equipment and the resources needed to do their research.

            As far as any political motives go, consider that climate scientists have supported the data that proves global warming is happening and mostly contributed to by man, during the Carter, Reagan, Bush Senior, Clinton, Bush Junior and the Obama administrations! Their views are not really driven by either money or politics although unfortunately that is the narrative big oil companies have attached to their research in order to discredit it.

            I’m sorry that you seem to feel so threatened by this discussion that you are likely to react with anger. As I said my goal is not to make you angry or to humiliate you, my goal is simply to comment on the topic raised on this thread!

          • nik

            I’m not angry. just amused, at your futile persistence,.in pushing a ridiculous political myth.

            I have not denied climate change.
            Climate change is normal, and has been a constant phenomena on Earth for 4.5 billion years, without any assistance from Humans, that have only been on Earth, relatively, for a blink of an eye.

            You have to differentiate between climate change, and claimed ”global warming, caused by human produced CO2”

            It may be that your comments are being blocked because they contain large amounts of totally irrelevant material, as I have pointed out to you.

            Your whole theory that human produced CO2 is causing climate change is not only wrong, but utterly ridiculous.
            There is no evidence to support the theory that CO2 has ever caused ”global warming” in 600 million years, all claims to the contrary are not supported by any evidence.

            My comments cannot have been ‘debunked’ by mainstream science, or anyone else for that matter, because they are based on 600 million years of climate history. Climate history that is accepted by all mainstream science.

            YOU have still NOT produced even ONE of your claimed ”many graphs” that contradict the one I have posted! Therefore I assume that you cannot.

            There is no necessity for large energy supply companies to spend money on ”green” energy, which is not green anyway, as to produce the equipment to produce green energy, ”un-green energy” has to be used, and the energy produced by such machines is so inefficient, that they never recover the energy cost spent making them.

            Your suggestion that carbon based energy production is not green, shows a significant and laughable level of ignorance.
            Energy production that emits CO2 is automatically ”green” because CO2 is a nutritious and essential element for green plant growth, and currently the atmosphere is CO2 deficient.

            It seems that you have swallowed the carbon tax propaganda, hook line and sinker, and are totally unable to be objective, and look at the lack of evidence to support it, and the plethora of evidence that disproves it.

            The fact that you are not aware of your arguments being similar to those used by conmen, shows lack of thought and consideration of your posts.

            There doesn’t have to be ”collusion” between climate scientists, and carbon tax scammers. The scammers control the wages and the jobs of the climate scientists, so they produce what keeps them in jobs.

            One university professor who didnt, was sacked, and had his character assassinated, so he will probably never work again, as an example to anyone else who might try to tell the truth.

            As to your comment, not visible here, [I assume removed] ”that, you can take both a horse, and me to water, but you cant make me drink,” Why would I wish to drink out of a horse trough?

            I think we have gone as far as is reasonable in this discussion, and there is no point in prolonging it further, as it is becoming boring.
            Also I have many more important things to occupy myself with.

            Bye, and regards.
            Nik

          • Peter Johnson

            What I said was–“climate scientists have supported the data that proves global warming is happening and MOSTLY CONTRIBUTED TO BY MAN….” Yet you still tried to play the climate change vs global warming card. Our current global warming is mostly caused by man, and you probably know that, just as I already know it. Do you really think that those schooled in climate science are not aware of other scientific branches, like Geology, Paleontology, chemistry, physics, and genetics which are all largely applicable to the study of our climate, as well as human-caused global warming? Quit trying to portray people like me who accept the science as being gullible (for some reason) about the fact that climate change has happened, is happening, and will continue happening in the future? If you merely want to patronize me or condescend to me in some way, you don’t have to—Climate scientists already know more about global warming and climate change then you’ll every understand. And despite the fact that most of us have already learned about its basics in grade-school.

            It incredible that at this time, in the 21st century, there are still biased people like you who fail to grasp the fundamentals of science, or else are deliberately using the public’s lack of scientific knowledge to exploit them!

            I could list the hundreds of worldwide scientific bodies that all accept the existence of AGW, or I could list all the nations that recognize the benefit green we can get from energy will be in our future. And I could tell you that the term “green energy,” does not apply to fossil fuels. Green energy is energy that is not derived from fossil fuels and not depend on fossil fuels. Co2 is created as a waste product (or by product) from the use of oil and coal used for energy. It’s totally irrelevant that plants require Co2 to grow–the problem is that humans breath oxygen and need it to live, while we exhale Co2 as metabolic waste. And if too much Co2 (among other greenhouse gasses) is created via human industries, it can help warm the troposphere in harmful ways. Have you ever had a watch with a radium dial? Do you think radiation in large quantities is harmless to human beings just because we sometime use radium and other unstable elements? The complete stupidity of such arguments which are used to rationalize the over use of Co2 is astounding. But I get it! No matter what I say or what facts I reference, they will all be denied by you in order to cement the myth you are trying to sell—even though I doubt that you are gullible enough to not know they are false. You use the (double down on lies) strategy well.

            Unfortunately, reality has a way of persuading those of us who are stubborn enough to deny it. So I hope you’ll be able to drop this charade in time enough to recognize the gravity of this issue. Labeling me as an alarmist will do you no good. Its people like you who flip out over the facts and who are the true alarmists. You reject the world’s bona fide scientists, the knowledge gained by many different branches of science, the many corporations which are starting to face reality, the entire military and even the UN as all being part of some grand effort to create a climate myth? and then you call people like me, shills for spreading global warming myths? Is there anyone at all who will not be characterized by you as “one of them.”

            I get it! Your reliance on dogma and anti climate change pseudo scinece is so complete that you won’t even allow yourself to investigate it fully. So don’t worry. I can tell its a total waste of time to respond to you. So I’ll humor you and quit!

          • nik

            It’s simple, CO2 CANNOT cause climate change.
            Therefore human produced CO2 CANNOT cause climate change!
            Get it?
            There Earths atmosphere is deficient in CO2, and without it all carbon based life will die.
            Reducing CO2 further is effectively committing suicide for all life on Earth.
            Get it?
            CO2 is not a pollutant, it is essential for all life on Earth,from whatever source, and however it is produced.
            Get it?
            Human caused climate change is an arrogant pseudo science myth, with no scientific basis whatsoever.
            Get it?
            CO2 has been 17 times higher than present with NO ill effects.
            Get it?
            Mentioning radium, is just one of those conman tricks that I mentioned.
            Get it?
            ”No matter what I say or what facts I reference, they will all be denied by you in order to cement the myth you are trying to sell—even though I doubt that you are gullible enough to not know they most of your contentions are false.
            You use the (double down on lies) strategy very well.”
            You are very obviously a ‘carbon tax’ troll, paid to push your crap and pseudo science.
            If you feel insulted by these facts, and ‘put down’ then so be it, its wholly justified.
            Have a good day!

          • Peter Johnson

            Actually EXCESS AMOUNTS OF CO2 CAN HELP CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. And yes its simple!
            If you continue ot deny the facts and tell lies long enough others will eventually respond to those lies.

          • Peter Johnson

            Peter Johnson nik • 4 minutes agoHold on, this is waiting to be approved by Imageo.

            This is a post in its entirety which can be accessed at this link. It is relatively brief so I thought posting the entire article would be alright.
            https://skepticalscience.co

            I hope the moderator will accept it, or at least accept the link to it:

            Since it most recent update on 7-8-15 it does not include current figures about Co2 ppm atmospheric concentrations. I should add that currently, I believe, it has exceeded the 400 ppm.

            “Plants cannot live on CO2 alone”
            Link to this page
            What the science says…
            Select a level… Basic Advanced

            “More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.”
            Climate Myth…
            “CO2 is plant food”

            “Earth’s current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the “food” that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they “eat” (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow. (source: Plants Need CO2)
            An argument made by those who prefer to see a bright side to climate change is that carbon dioxide (CO2) being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. This conjecture is based on simple and appealing logic: if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
            However, this “more is better” philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an old saying, “Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.” For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, it does not follow that taking four is likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It’s more likely to make you sick.
            It is possible to boost growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions inside of greenhouses. Based on this, ‘skeptics’ make their claims of benefical botanical effects in the world at large. Such claims fail to take into account that increasing the availability of one substance that plants need requires other supply changes for benefits to accrue. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will see an increase in deserts and other arid lands, reducing the area available for crops.
            Plants cannot live on CO2 alone; a complete plant metabolism depends on a number of elements. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth? Just as increasing the amount of starch alone in a person’s diet won’t lead to a more robust and healthier person, for plants additional CO2 by itself cannot make up for deficiencies of other compounds and elements.
            What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?
            1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
            On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
            2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.
            3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
            4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the “nitrogen plateau” soon truncate this benefit
            5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects.”

          • nik

            Actually, CO2 has not caused any detectable effect on climate in 600 million years, so your claim to the opposite is RUBBISH!

            One of the typical characteristics of a Carbon Tax Troll, is that anything that they cannot disprove, they call lies.
            As you have not, so far denied that you are a troll for the carbon tax brigade, it is very obvious that you must be one.

            A headline in the ”New York Times” TODAY;

            ”Scientists compiling a record of the atmosphere based on air trapped in Antarctic ice found that rising carbon dioxide has accelerated plant growth!”

            Well!. Who’d have thought it?

            From you;
            [sic] ”I could say mentioning plants and Co2 is one of those conman tricks also. And that mainstream science is by definition, not pseudo-science. That’s created by deniers who want to hid the real scinece in order to benefit the fortunes of large polluters!”

            CO2 is not a pollution, only a complete ignoramus, or a C Tax troll would call it so.

            From you;
            ”You just delivered a rude insult to horses everywhere!” etc etc, (I wont repeat the rest.)
            Insults are the resort of those with nothing of substance to contribute.
            To give you an alternative ‘horsey’ fable, your attempts to convince intelligent people that CO2 is a pollutant, and is liable to cause a ‘run away’ green house’ is ”flogging a dead horse.”

            Also from you,at present awaiting moderation…

            ”climate scientists have supported the data that proves global warming is happening and MOSTLY CONTRIBUTED TO BY MAN.”

            Is just your usual rubbish. Human produced CO2 is a trivial, 0.01% and as CO2 has caused NO detectable effects to climate in 600 million years, even when it was 7000 ppm, 0.01% produced by humans can have no effect whatsoever, EVER!

            From you, not visible,
            ”Collusion implies a secret agreement that allows two or more parties to benefit. etc etc,…….” all irrelevant, because it still doesn’t prove that CO2 can cause climate change, which it cannot.

            I think in my earlier post I may have made a mistake, when I suggested the ‘A is correct, B is correct, etc…..’
            What I should have written was, ”If B to Z is correct, then ‘A’ must be correct” which would be more in keeping with the loads of baloney that you post in an effort to support an argument that is unsupportable.

            Your next post, again not visible here,

            “Plants cannot live on CO2 alon……. etc,. etc. etc………….!”
            Has to be one of THE most stupid comments ever!

            Its like saying ‘Humans cannot live on Oxygen alone,’ but they wont live very long without it, and the same applies to plants.

            Just because some food plants may not produce more food, with more CO2, doesn’t stop the other billions of plants. of which many also provide food, from benefiting from increased CO2. Especially billions of trees which cool the climate, and provide food and habitat for billions of wild creatures that are now becoming extinct, because of habitat destruction, by humans, is not regenerating fast enough, due to CO2 deficiency.
            Also as I’ve mentioned earlier, during the Carboniferous period, which commenced with CO2 levels that were significantly higher than present, plant growth was prolific, and laid down the vast coal fields that humans are now benefiting from, and it was an ice age. So NO global warming there!
            In addition many agriculturists pump CO2 into their vast greenhouse installations purely to increase food production.
            That costs money, lots of it!
            So if it had no effect in increasing food production, they certainly would not do it.
            Any attempts to convince intelligent people that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would not be beneficial to plant and food production, is doomed to failure.
            You’ve failed!

            Again from you;
            ”Here are some interesting graphs and charts for you–they may include some of your own:”

            I’ve looked at them, and NONE of them refer to 600 million years of climate history, but only to short term effects, that should not, and cannot be used to make any predictions that are likely to have any significance or accuracy whatsoever.
            NASA freely admits that their climate figures over the last 10-15 years, have been ”adjusted” (falsified) on an annual basis, to make them fit the predictions.

            Again, the ”B to Z” irrelevant rubbish, to try and support ‘A’

            Well, ”Peter Johnson” as you may be aware, many artists have a very recognisable style, eg. Van Gogh, Henry Moore, Jacques David, Monet, etc. Also many writers also have a recognisable style, this includes carbon tax trolls.
            I am fairly certain that we have discussed this matter on this and other sites at other times, with you operating under one or more of your myriad of aliases. Your style, is recognisable, because in spite of your current guarded and mostly civilised comments, your occasional slips still identify you.

            If you think you have proven that CO2 can cause ”Global Warming” you have FAILED, because global warming has not happened.
            If you think that you have proven that CO2 can cause climate change, then you have FAILED, because it has not done so in 600 MILLION YEARS, even when at 7000 ppm plus, levels, so It cannot do so now, AT A MERE 400 PPM, or ever!

            Climate change is NORMAL, and cannot be adjusted by humans with their present technology, and resources, and certainly not by CO2.
            If humans have increased A CO2 in the last 100-200 years, then it probably saved the Earth and all life on it from a catastrophe, and needs to be perpetuated, not reduced.
            I think you need to seek a new occupation, perhaps one as a carbon tax collector, would be more successful.
            Regards
            Nik

          • Peter Johnson

            There’s really not much I want to say about your above rant laced with insults while calling me on some of my minor transgressions again.

            But, consider firstly that even if Co2 had no effect on warming, the fact that larger and smaller amounts of Co2 have existed during the entire 4 billion years of East’s history in itself, means that what has been in the atmosphere then or is now, has always had an effect on the climate, including nitrogen, lava, Methane and dinosaur poo etc.–even your own assertion that increased Co2 is beneficial to plants and that lacking enough of it endangers life, logically asserts its very real effects in the climate! I’ve been trying to post some comments about the geologic past to show you that Co2 is not the lone influence on climate change—there are many other factors and some of them have been integral during times when very high levels of Co2 are known to have existed even during glaciation or colder periods. And, oh about this:

            “A headline in the ”New York Times” TODAY;”

            ”Scientists compiling a record of the atmosphere based on air trapped in Antarctic ice found that rising carbon dioxide has accelerated plant growth!”

            Well!. Who’d have thought it?”

            Do you want the answer?–well, almost every single climate scientist in the world knows that fact—and no one is trying to deny it. Scientists have been doing extensive research on the effects of Co2 on plant growth for many decades in fact, and they know it can accelerate plant growth, however it’s not really that simple. Here is a link to read if you are truly interested:

            https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

            And yes, global warming is normal–another non-secret that you seem to think discredits climate scientists!

            The one chart you have included in one post includes a 600 million year timeline as do many that chart millions of years in the charts at the link I gave. And all the rest of your statement amounts to projecting your own mistakes and dislikes on climate scientists.

            From you, not visible,
            ”Collusion implies a secret agreement that allows two or more parties to benefit. etc etc,…….” all irrelevant, because it still doesn’t prove that CO2 can cause climate change, which it cannot.

            Dude, you’re the one that brought up the idea that the government was threatening scientists with cutting off their research grants if they didn’t deliver the desired results. I never said that such an arrangement, which had to be accepted by scientists also, proved or disproved anything about how Co2 affects global warming, What it does prove is the fact that you think the big bad government is creating the issue of global warming for its own benefit. But again let me ask you which administration that was—Carter’s, Reagan’s, Bush senior’s, Clinton’s, Bush Junior’s or Barack Obama’s administration? How come scientist kept delivering the same message about the causes and risks of global warming during all those administrations—why during Reagan’s,or both Bushes terms? Why didn’t all of these downtrodden scientist simply let the cat out of the bag, and expose the fact that they had been victims of extortion? Can you imagine the popular outrage that would happen in their support?

            How about scientists in France, Germany, Denmark, Russia, India, China, Canada and Japan? Were all of them also under the control of conspiring governments? Did they never have a chance to expose thier leaders when others without the same agenda were elected?–just how large IS this conspiracy?

            You don’t consider Co2 to be a pollutant, because you’re thinking of things like smoke, soot and particulate matter. But in general any excess of chemicals, compound or substance in the atmosphere that can produce a detrimental and toxic affect on human life (as well as other species), can be considered a form of pollution!

            “Its like saying ‘Humans cannot live on Oxygen alone,’ but they wont live very long without it, and the same applies to plants.”

            Yes, absolutely! Did anyone say they wanted to eliminate all Co2 or all oxygen–the problem is obviously about excessive quantities–So Good night!

          • Peter Johnson

            At this Link:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

            muoncounter at 06:29 AM on 26 March, 2010
            Wow. This topic just came up in the current Greenland melting discussion (#52) so I spent a few minutes looking at denial sites. Widespread indeed is the notion that very high CO2 in geologic past coincided with glaciation and that somehow negates today’s relatively paltry 370 ppm CO2. Graphs like this abound: — from the “Frontiers of Freedom” website. There are a couple of very straight-forward holes in these denialist arguments. 1. Ordovician CO2 over 4000 ppm and glaciation proves CO2 doesn’t matter! Nope: Look at the distribution of continental landmasses of the Ordovician (~450 MY). Those “glaciers” were the south-polar ice cap. There wasn’t much in the way of land in the northern hemisphere. 2. Warming and cooling is purely cyclical! CO2 variation is natural! Sure, there are natural cycles. But something very important and very obvious changed over the geologic time scales involved that makes such simple comparison irrelevant: Plants. Lots of plants. Gymnosperms (conifers etc) originated in the late Devonian-early Carboniferous (380-300 Mya) and angiosperms (flowering plants) in the Cretaceous (100 Mya). All that carbon in the Carboniferous coalbeds? Dead plants that took CO2 out of the atmosphere. The downward trend apparent in the graph above from the Cretaceous forward? More plants. And now we’ve turned the downward CO2trend around despite a world rich in plants… maybe we can hope that a whole new class of plant life comes to our rescue… but that would require evolution and the science is still uncertain on that to

            This is a comment made in the comment section of the website above. Note how it mentions that he saw it on a deniers site, and that although popular with deniers he points out some flaws in their conclusions?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/49af54d394d71d12a43590b1945bcd467af7bb9099822dc17991c1c06c45c2b1.gif

          • nik

            This graph!
            I originally found it on a USA state site, describing the climate history of that state, throughout its geological history, so relax, it was not a ‘deniers blog site.’ It’s one you can trust to be accurate.

            Also, although your posts may not appear on the page, they are sent to me as an email, so I still get to see them, and comment, as I have done.

            Another point, when I state that I think you are a Carbon Tax Troll, that is not meant to be an insult, and should not be taken as such. Its just a statement of fact, as I see it.

            In a way I have sympathy for you, because if you have to earn a living that way, it must be very difficult. Trying to prove the impossible must be very soul destroying.

            No matter what you say, CO2 cannot cause climate change on Earth; First because its action is almost negligible, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, it blocks more heat energy from reaching Earth, than it reflects back; Second, because at 0.04% there is so little of it that its effect would be infinitesimal.

            A while back, I mentioned Malenkovitch cycles, and that those, combined with ‘environmental factors,’ were wholly responsible for the cyclic changes in the Earths climate. This has been supported by deep ocean, and lake core drillings world wide.

            Let me describe those environmental factors.
            Over the Ten Thousand years, or so, of inter ice age, the rain washes nutrients in the form of rock dust, left behind by the retreating glaciers, down through the soil, until it is out of reach of the trees, and other plant life. This weakens the trees, and they become susceptible to disease, and forest fires. This weakness reduces their cooling effect, and the climate starts to warm up. The warming produces climactic extremes, and so hotter periods and heavier rain and snow falls. The extensive forest fires begin to reduce solar heat reaching the Earths surface, and the increased snow falls also reflect more sunlight. The oceans have a large amount of stored heat, so polar melting continues, in spite of parts of the atmosphere cooling. Eventually the oceans start to cool, and the Earth’s cooling accelerates and plunges into a full ice age. All these effects are present now, except for the oceans reaching their peak, and starting to cool once more.
            It wont be long.

            A quick comment on your complaint that your posts are being removed.
            I assure you that I am not a troll, of any description. My guess is that your posts may be removed because they are either irrelevant to the discussion, or repetitive.
            Meanwhile, I’ll give you a little information regarding me;
            I have what are referred to these days as, elements of the autism spectrum.
            The first one I discovered some 20 years ago, when I tested for MENSA, and found that my IQ score was significantly above average. The second, thanks to the internet, was that I have been dyslexic all my life, which explained a lot of the difficulties I’d had at school. Another is, obsessive-repetitive syndrome, which causes me to want things to be exact and in place. When I’m in supermarkets, and I find items replaced by customers incorrectly, I’m inclined to replace those items correctly. Another, is when people make statements like; ”I lost my father,” I have to bite my tongue not to say something like, ”That was careless, how did you manage that!”
            Therefore, when I see comments on discussion sites that are obviously wrong, I am compelled to correct them. [CO2 caused ‘global warming’ being an obvious example.]

            You speak of, what is now referred to as, ‘CO2 caused climate change,’ deniers, as if they are some sort of ‘blasphemers,’ as you would someone denying a religious statement, rather than intelligent people rejecting rubbish.
            Blasphemy laws were instigated by religions, not to protect ‘god’ because by definition, ‘god’ should need no protection, or he is not a god, but to protect the livelihoods of the myriad of priests, that rely on the religion for their free living lifestyle. The same applies to CO2 climate change, but its used to protect the billions in carbon tax that the scammers hope to reap.

            Another thought of mine, related to the depletion of ground nutrients. In most of the developed world, and elsewhere, crop rotation has been abandoned for the growing of the same crop year after year on the same ground, and only sustainable by vast chemical inputs. This will deplete the ground of the absorbed trace elements particular to those plants, so the food will be deficient in those trace elements. repeat this for nearly all crops grown in the USA.

            Peoples bodies trigger hunger pangs when the body is deficient in nutrients, but in the USA it matters not how much people eat, because all the food is deficient of those trace elements. So they satisfy their hunger pangs over and over to no avail. Hence the epidemic of morbid obesity throughout the USA, and anywhere else that relies on ‘factory farmed foods.’

            It has been found, that ‘rock dust’ made by grinding up a wide varieties of rocks, into a fine ‘talcum powder’ dust, is a far more effective fertiliser, than all the chemically produced products, because it mimics closely the real nutrients left by the retreating glaciers, at the end of the last Ice age. Those natural nutrients, are also why mountain valleys formed by glaciers are so popular settlement locations.

            Your obsessive harping on CO2, and its non-existent heating effect is rather sad, because
            it screws up all your thinking. You still persistently ignore 600 million years of climate history, in favour of the CO2 myth, as this is by necessity your occupation, and source of income it would seem.

            This is a pity, because IF you could dump it, we could probably have some much more interesting discussions.

            Oh, by the way, insults dont upset me. I served 9.5 years in the military, where insults are a way of life, and you greet your best friend with an insult. Insults in a discussion prove nothing, and are just boring. I can be far more insulting than the average person, if I’m pushed to it.

            From you;
            ”And sorry, despite what you say, there is abundant observational and empirical evidence that Co2 has been instrumental in rising average global temperatures, and mounting evidence that It is increasing our odds of experiencing larger and more frequent extreme weather events!”

            Is, once again, rubbish!
            The real reasons are, those I have mentioned earlier in this post, and have nothing to do with CO2.

            Regarding climate scientists, and others, most are government funded, so they tow the line, or else!

            The headline of this article, ”Contrarian Scientist Who Says Sun is Responsible for Global Warming is Accused of Taking Corporate Cash for Science.”
            SO WHAT?
            Most, if not all Universities take corporate cash, both to fund their existence, and to fund their research.
            Should all University research be ignored, or treated as suspect, because of THEIR funding?

            I dont think so!

            Thanks for the chats, and I hope your funding continues.
            regards
            Nik

          • Peter Johnson

            Finding a graph on a State History site is now-a-days no guarantee that it is accurate or not used by deniers. Actually you use your chart to establish as a fact that in times of high Co2, temperatures have been low, and then infer that if that geological fact is true than our current warming is not due to Co2. But Co2 is only one factor that can raise worldwide average temperature, and hundreds of millions of years ago, the Earth was completely different. The person who examined your chart and posted comments about it in the SKS discussion area, pointed out that it was the death of so many plants that began to produce an environment where Co2 could not be absorbed by them—thus altering the climate. He also points out that the graph has to do with the Antarctic landmass hundreds of millions of years ago when there were not really many other large landmasses.

            muoncounter said:

            1. Ordovician CO2 over 4000 ppm and glaciation proves CO2 doesn’t matter! Nope: Look at the distribution of continental landmasses of the Ordovician (~450 MY). Those “glaciers” were the south-polar ice cap. There wasn’t much in the way of land in the northern hemisphere. 2. Warming and cooling is purely cyclical! CO2 variation is natural! Sure, there are natural cycles. But something very important and very obvious changed over the geologic time scales involved that makes such simple comparison irrelevant: Plants. Lots of plants. Gymnosperms (conifers etc.) which originated in the late Devonian era.

            He also said he found the same chart as the one you posted, after “visiting deniers’ websites.

            How about the fact that you say a map which covers almost 600,000,000 years of geologic history was intended to use as a State chart describing the climate history of a state. Well actually, climate change is a worldwide problem so even if the chart describes one particular State’s climate (hundreds of millions of year ago)? It can hardly speak for the history of our entire planet!

            I appreciate your paragraph about all the other influences which causes periods of cold during periods of high Co2 concentrations. It’s the closest you’ve been yet to describing how Co2 levels and the effects they have on plants are affecting the climate. But please don’t tell me that raging forest fires didn’t release also Co2 into the atmosphere and affect the ancient climate—just like the growth of plants? Also, where did you dig up absurd statements like this:

            NASA’s numbers have been continually falsified, and can be seen as referring to earlier figures. Co2 has NOTHING to affect Earth’s climate in 600,000,000 years!

            So why do you use a chart spanning almost 600,000,000 years to prove that there were cooling period during periods when Co2 levels were very high? Do You think that means global warming does not exist? You seem deny facts when they don’t help you, and affirm them when they do? So please get it through your head that mainstream scientist never said, and never will say that such periods of high Co2 and cooler temperatures never existed simultaneously. What happened 4 or 5 hundred million years ago happened in a much different climate during times when many different factors influenced that climate, but were not the sole agents of change—like you seem to think Co2 is considered to be!

            I also recognize and respect you for the challenges your dyslexia possess, but you cannot use that fact to rationalize the dogmatic manner in which you have been responded to me. I also have a fairly rare condition, and believe it or not, when I took the MENSA test I also scored as having a high IQ. Unfortunately, even though a high IQ may enable a person to think for themselves, that does not mean that what they are thinking is right, or that they even know much about the topic they are discussing. When I tested for college I scored 97% with a hangover from the night before—but bragging will not affirm that I am some kind of know it all either. A friend of mine scored 99% while he was still drunk—those were the days my friend! And sometimes I’ m glad they ended!

            I have never referred to climate change deniers as “blasphemers,” but I am amazed at the extent of their denial. If one is merely a skeptic one is willing to believe that mainstream scientist might have global warming right. However, a denier refuses all other ideas and never admits that anything a professional climate scientist says is right. They seem worried that once a scientist gets his feet in their door, that they have to let him all of him in? It’s a good way to avoid all mental conflicts and stay in the dark forever.

            I completely agree with you on the way many religions and their believers attempt to exact conformity not for God’s sake, but to protect their own theologies and religious institutions, but I have no objections to anyone who views the natural world as being full spirituality—like many Native Americans do. However, faith is not really necessary to accept the tenants of science. But faith however valuable, is the antithesis of objective and logical reasoning. Actually most scientists do not regard the knowledge they amass as being primarily spiritual. Atheists and Agnostic are perfectly able to comprehend scientific knowledge, and even an unintelligent or immoral person needs only to be concerned with his own survival in order to appreciate the fact that continued global warming will not be a good thing!

            Likewise, I agree about our bad American eating habits. But do you realize that your concerns about nutrient depletion in a growing population, is one of the points brought up by scientists who have studied the effects of Co2 as only one factor that involves agricultural limitations—it’s in one of my posts, which was probably arbitrarily deleted, or not fully read by yourself!

            And although you reject the mountain of evidence which links ppm of Co2 with warming temperatures i.e. Co2 molecule vibrate and disperse heat trapping layers in the atmosphere when they come into contact with photons and specific kinds of infrared waves. We also know that without Co2 our world would be much colder, and that without any atmosphere at all, we would plunge into deathly cold conditions. It was long ago proven to have heat trapping effects; So I don’t know why you deny all that in order to accuse others of promoting a myth?

            Sensitivity to insults is a personality thing which is no doubt frowned on by the military (sometimes for good reasons), but if you clam that insults don’t bother you why then do you constantly point out each critical comment I make about you? You not only disagree or merely dislike those who promote climate science and the need for developing green energy sources, but you actually seem to hate them? Why else would you constantly issue putdowns concerning their characters?

            About the role of the government in who provides funds for research grants, supposedly to create a global warming myth—which government are you talking about—Carter’s, Reagan’s, Bush senior’s, Clinton’s, Bush Junior’s, Obama’s or now Trump’s? Are you saying that both Republicans and Democrats have been forcing scientists to toe the line and provide them with what they are told to? Why then do the vast majority of Republicans question or deny the very existence of AGW? Yet when they control our government, the vast majority of scientists continue to provide the same information affirming global warming? Why would they not throw off their chains and condemn their masters for the ways in which the government has been extorting them? With someone like Bush in office, who would really want to stop them from defecting?

            I’m not saying the government is faultless—it certainly isn’t—but each times I hear this ridiculous narrative used by denier I can’t help but be amazed by the brashness behind it.

            As for me, even though I am also notified of comments via my email, I expect a forum designed to encourage debate and post the comments of those who provide their opinions, to actually publish our remarks. So It does bother me when my comments are kept off of the actual forums where they are intended to be, for no apparent reason? I hope they eventually accept this long comment in response to yours but otherwise, perhaps we can read the others responses in our emails.

          • Peter Johnson

            The quotes in my comment below come from someone with the user name “mouncounter,” who commented in the forum area, at this link:

            https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

          • TheDudeofVoo

            So, not only are you swayed by the bilge upchucked on the blog known as Sks, but … now you are quoting some commenter?

          • Peter Johnson

            Why not, I provided his (or her) screen name, and the article that person commented on. Readers comments are there for a reason–to be read by those interested in the subject matter they comment about–welcome to the club Dude of voo.

            Are you now attacking the websites I read, without any regard for the expertise of Cook or the many links and citations he provides? But yes, citations are less than elsewhere because SKS is designed for most readers in order to explain scientific issues in simple and understandable terms for readers who want to learn about climate science.

            I could care less what you think about it. You’re not mine or anybody elses authority! This forum is not here in order for readers to offer critiques about what the best websites are—it’s here to discuss issues directly relating to AGW and then permit commenters to provide their opinions. The important thing is the information they convey. Everything else about them used to disprove AGW amounts to just one more straw man argument.

          • Peter Johnson

            I am posting this only once so the moderator will not need to be concerned about it. I truly hope it is allowed to be posted in reply to another commenter on Imageo.

            Yesterday I tried to post some comments in response to your latest post, but even though they were apparently accepted, today they are missing again. I’ll try to mention some of the few things I said, because trying to address everything in your comment would have taken too much time:

            First about this:

            A headline in the ”New York Times” TODAY;
            ”Scientists compiling a record of the atmosphere based on air trapped in Antarctic ice found that rising carbon dioxide has accelerated plant growth!”
            Well! Who’d have thought it?

            Are you really willing to accept the answer? —actually that fact is known probably known by every single climate scientist around the world!

            Whether you know it or not, climate scientists have been discussing the possible benefits of Co2 for several decades, and they have never shied away from the subject. They know that the effects of increased atmospheric Co2 could result in greater plant growth, and since grade school science classes I have known that plants take in Co2 and give off oxygen as part of their metabolic process, but the issue is really not as simple as you think. Here are some of the drawbacks mentioned at this website. Most of Which I have already mentioned:

            https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

            “What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?
            1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? In many places rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
            On the other hand, as predicted by climate research, we are experiencing more intense storms with increased rainfall rates throughout much of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls in short, intense bursts it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean, often carrying away large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
            2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.
            3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
            4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the “nitrogen plateau” soon truncate this benefit
            5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.”

            6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately, it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.
            In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

            Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.
            Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.”

            You fail to think of Co2 as a form of pollution because you are thinking of things like soot, smoke, and particulate matter, but any substance which unnaturally or negatively affects our atmosphere (in a broader sense) can also be rightly considered a form of pollution.

            Co2 and every other aspect of the atmosphere which existed in distant eons of our geologic past all had an effect on our pre-historic environment—including methane, water vapor, nitrogen, oxygen and dinosaur poo! They can’t help but have effects! And your constant reference to the fact that there have been times with much higher concentrations of Co2 that existed during cooler periods, is itself, an argument which depends on acknowledging widely differing concentrations of Co2 during various millenniums, which have at times been beneficial to plant life—but isn’t that one effect you believe Co2 has had on our environment? —the fact that it has sometimes spurred plant growth?

            Sorry for accusing you of insulting horses by refusing to drink from the same trough (which was the only insult made in that portion of my post,) so there’s nothing more about it that you can repeat, but you have to admit you have said some pretty nasty things about me as well–like;

            Continually calling me a troll, saying that I lack intelligence, that I am a “carbon tax collector” and even characterizing my attempts to affirm that scientist know Co2 is raising global average temperatures as being rubbish—while I have always tried to focused on providing rational criticisms of the things you believe.

            And about this statement:

            “Your next post, again not visible here,
            “Plants cannot live on CO2 alone……. etc.,. etc. etc………….!”
            Has to be one of THE most stupid comments ever!
            It’s like saying ‘Humans cannot live on Oxygen alone,’ but they won’t live very long without it, and the same applies to plants.”

            Right on! Absolutely! But who said anything about depriving humans of oxygen, or plants of Co2, and/or other nutrients? What I said was merely an attempt to make you aware that there are many more factors concerning the things plants need to be healthy, many of which human caused global warming will only frustrate or hinder.

            And sorry, despite what you say, there is abundant observational and empirical evidence that Co2 has been instrumental in rising average global temperatures, and mounting evidence that It is increasing our odds of experiencing larger and more frequent extreme weather events! The mere fact that you or anyone else may circulate faulty and erroneous opinions, or might repeat faulty claims from denial sites, or that you may adamantly deny all of the real facts, is what really means nothing!

          • Peter Johnson

            I’ve tried to respond to this post of yours twice with very appropriate and reasonable comments but they are still being removed, without letting me know why? If I am talking to a troll that’s one thing, but when a websites won’t even allow me to respond to that troll, that’s a tragedy and the beginning of an undue end of first amendment rights!

          • RealOldOne2

            “but when a websites[sic] won’t even allow me to respond to that troll, that’s a tragedy and the beginning of an undue end of the first amemdment rights!”
            Well I can’t even reply to the troll named Christopher Keating at the ‘Dialogue on Global Warming site, so according to you that means he supports an end to the first amendment.

            He blocked me for daring to post some historical facts that are embarrassing to your climate alarmist religion as well as quotes from 3 eminent scientists who acknowledge that your climate alarmism is a religion, a cult religion. Poor Mr. Keating used the fake-reason that my comment was “hate-speech” so he deleted the comment. Here was my comment in its entirety:

            Christopher Keating: “Wow! What vitriol.
            Since you are clearly smarter than anyone else, I’ll look forward to reading your papers on the subject.”

            RealOldOne2: “Wow! What vitriol”
            No vitriol on my part. Just reporting facts and history. But Ben Santer did demonstrate quite a lot of vitriol when he made his “I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley”, and when he made his “beat the crap out of” comment.

            And surely you can’t mean when I used exactly the same words that you used: “Santer, who, for whatever reasons, practices deceit so extensively I think he no longer knows the difference between real science and his lies, and is a paid shill”. The only difference is that my words were accurate and yours weren’t.

            So do you approve of Santer’s reversing the conclusions of the authors of Chap.8 of SAR, after the report had been approved by the whole IPCC?
            Santer deleted these statements from the expert-approved report:
            • “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
            • “While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
            • “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
            • “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
            • “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. “‘

            This is why eminent scientists recognize that your climate alarmism is no longer science. It has become a religion, a cult religion.

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

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

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

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

            I had previously given these two sources which document Santer’s corrupting Chap.8 of the IPCC report, and Santer’s shoddy cherry-picking science of his own paper that he used to justify reversing the already-approved by the IPCC authors: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm & http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

            He is just making stuff up to claim that is “hate-speech”.
            Poor Mr. Keating must think that any speech that is contrary to his cherished CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 religion is “hate-speech”. Actually, he’s a coward because he knows he can’t refute the empirical science that I presented which shows that his climate religion is wrong.

          • Peter Johnson

            “so according to you that means he supports an end to the first amendment.”

            No, that means that as the editor and owner of his own blog he has the absolute right to disagree and/or ignore anyone he chooses–especially those who use his thread for a sounding board to get out thier frustrations, and to insult others. And as far as I have seen he has given you many opportunities to answer his comments or those of others who post on his threads, I understand your frustrations, but as site owner he really has the legal right to act whenever he feels someone is engaging in antagonistic back and forths, or inappropriate behavior.

            I have no idea what you mean by claiming that by accepting the existence of AGW scientist have created a religion, or cult? And I also have no idea what you’re referring to with your many vitriolic comment made about Dr. Keatings and others who have challenged you on his blog, because most of the time I don’t I even read all of them!

            Mainstream scientists do not object to anyone expressing their own opinions or engaging in honest debate—they object when anyone deliberately lies about, and distorts reality for their own purposes! People like you have been having a community dialogue for several decades now, and unless you are called on your lies, and the pubic is given a chance to know you are lying, you will probably continue spreading “alternate facts” and continue making mountains out of molehills over any unsettled aspect of climate science for a few more decades at least!

            If a medical doctor someday finds a cure for cancer which has been proven to work, and which is accepted after rigorous peer reviews. And then a group of charlatans keeps making up lies and false statements about that cure, while claiming that Doctors are really lying about it just to keep themselves up to their necks in wealthy patients,and to assure that they will continue making big bucks, In my mind those who spread such lies are no longer asserting their first amendment by rights, they are really hiding behind the first amendment to protect their own greed and ambitions.

            Deliberately endangering the lives of real cancer patients who may die without a cure, and insisting that such a cure doesn’t exist, clearly risks human lives for the sole purpose of making money, is as morally odious as it gets! And, any person who can save lives by discovering medical miracle. Should not have to suffer the indignity of having their discoveries continually place in doubt in the name of someone elses first amendment rights! People like them do not believe in the blessing of liberty–they believe in using the Constitution to help them commit fraud!

            There are a lot of legal loopholes for people to jump through in regards to this issue and a lot of small nuances that may stand in the way of prosecutions, so it may never become legal to stop such people from endangering the lives of individuals or groups of people who they place in dire peril, But if not, that doesn’t mean protecting those who practice such serious fraud by hiding behind the Constitution, are not truly apply their first amendment rights as they were meant to be applied.

            As for the tirade in your recent post—there is hardly a single sentence in it that doesn’t reek of hatred and resentment. And while I can understand why my own comments might be deleted if they were truly denigrating, obscene or inappropriate in some way, comments of mine that are either pulled or delayed, all too often have none of those qualities.Therefore, the moderator on this thread is abusing his or her authority by deleting comments of mine that are really perfectly appropriate. There’s nothing I can do about it, but I still can’t help but feel offended by how unfairly some websites have treated me—for no real reasons at all

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            Just out of curiosity, did you notice how you demonstrated the fallacy of your argument all by yourself? You stated “CO2 has not caused any detectable effect on climate in 600 million years,” but then go on to repeat the NYT statement that “rising carbon dioxide has accelerated plant growth!” Wow! Either you don’t bother reading your own statements or you are ignorant of the fact that plants are major contributor to the climate. You can’t have it both ways. Either the CO2 is causing a change, or it isn’t. Which one do you want to go with?

          • nik

            Just out of curiosity, did you notice how you demonstrated the fallacy of your argument all by yourself? Try getting your other brain cell functioning.
            CO2 is plant food, and has no direct effect on the climate, it certainly doesn’t cause warming, and plant growth causes cooling, not warming..Lack of plants can cause warming, Deforestation causes deserts, both hot and cold.

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            Do you really think plants don’t have a role in the climate? Do you really think CO2 does not absorb IR radiation? Do you really think there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect?

            Just wandering.

          • nik

            You’re definitely ”wandering.”
            That is all irrelevant to CO2 and its non effect on climate.

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            Wow!

          • Peter Johnson

            After watching the DudeOfVoo, voodude, or RealOldone2, scramble to rescue his non-existent “objective” reputation,” I am reminded of watching a spider scrambling across its own web and disappearing from view to avoid a being revealed for the bloodthirsty hunter he is. Now It seems he’s blocked me and I couldn’t be any happier!

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝Actually EXCESS AMOUNTS OF CO2 CAN HELP CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING. And yes its simple!❞

            If it is simple, lay down the proof that additional amounts of CO2 will cause warming, here on Earf.
            (crickets)
            There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s further emissions of CO2 will cause any warming at all … in fact, there exists no observational evidence that Mannkind’s emissions of CO2 ever caused any warming.
            The only thing that ‘science’ can produce as ‘evidence’ that CO2 causes warming, is from computer models. Bear in mind, correlation does not show causation, and evidence of warming, however ample, does not show any evidence of the cause of the warming.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            ❝If you continue ot deny the facts … ❞

            There are no ‘facts’ to deny. Sure, the Earf is a little warmer than it was, say, in the middle of the Little Ice Age. As to the (supposed) cause of the warming … There are no ‘facts’ to deny. The alarmists don’t even have a viable hypothesis to form into a theory. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s CO2 is, or ever has been, a cause of warming.

          • Peter Johnson

            absolutely not!!

          • RealOldOne2

            “absolutely not!!”
            Wow, with all that evidence you presented, how could anyone disagree! ROTFLOL.

          • audi s7

            I agree with you!

          • Peter Johnson

            It’s nice to hear an encouraging response.

          • Peter Johnson

            Wonderful, a fountain of wisdom from someone who claims there are no Facts!

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Not that there are “no facts” but that the AGW alarmists’ arguments has no facts to deny, as there is absolutely no observational evidence that AGW is happening. AGW is supported, only, by computer models. No evidence, no facts.
            “Warming” (without the anthropogenic prefix) has a factual basis. Mannkind’s contribution, via CO2 emissions, is conjectured, but absolutely no facts.

          • Peter Johnson

            Many of the citations you often include contain data that comes from using various climate models whose users must often include the admission that their evidence is weak and uncertain–just like those you call “alarmists” do. So get off your high horse and start listening to the comments of them and others. The truth is that, so far, there are no facts you have accepted, but that doesn’t mean there are no facts to be accepted.

          • RealOldOne2

            You replied to me on the website of the alleged “professor” who banned me with his fake excuse of “hate-speech”, so I am unable to reply to you there.

            On that site, my original comment merely pointed out that the alleged “professor” provided no evidence to support his attack piece against Tom Harris. Then when he replied to me, I just exposed the a professor’s errors in a point by point basis, such as his ridiculous claim that this graph that I posted, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/offset:0.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/offset:-0.1 , began in 1998, an El Nino year, when it is clear to everyone (except the alleged “professor”) that my graph began in 2001 at the beginning of the 21st century.

            He did not refute any of the science or historical facts that I presented. He just made snide comments such as that when I submitted a peer reviewed paper, I wouldn’t be able to cherry pick data. The thing that incensed him was when I responded that cherry picked data papers do indeed make it through peer review, such as Ben Santer’s paper that cherry picked the radiosonde record ( http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm ) which he used to reverse the expert-approved authors’ conclusions that no human influence on the climate had been found. When I posted the exact statments which Santer single-handedly removed and replaced them with the fake-conclusion which was based on Santer’s cherry picked data paper (documented here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm ) that the alleged “professor” deleted that innocuous comment that was in no way “hate-speech”.

            So the reality is that the alleged “professor” is the intellectual coward, for using his fake-excuse to not allow me to comment at his echo-chamber, misnamed “Dialogues on Global Warming”.
            I’m sure that he saw that he couldn’t refute the science I was presenting, and didn’t want to be further embarrassed so he fabricated his fake-excuse of “hate-speech” to ban me.

            I posted no “hate-speech”. But I guess the alleged “professor” considers any facts, data and history that is contrary to his chosen climate alarmist religion as “hate-speech”. Sad.

          • Peter Johnson

            And then counundin provided some critical information that you deliberately committed.

            All I can say is that, even though your sharp and resentful attitude is not as bad as some, it still speaks volumes about your efforts t denigrate the characters of those who oppose you. And of course, its completely up to Dr. Keatings to decide who to block or not. I have no opinion on that.

          • RealOldOne2

            “And then counundin provided some critical information that you deliberately commited.”
            Why are you introducing a red herring argument in which you are just making stuff up?

            “and resentful attitude”
            You are making more stuff up. Sad. No resentfulness here. You probably think so just because I posted the sordid history of your climate cult religion.

            “your efforts t[sic] denigrate the characters of those who oppose you.”
            There you go just making more stuff up again. I just post there own words back to them. They have denigrated themselves, just as you have just done.

            And I would note that your comment on Keating’s ‘Dialogues on Climate Change’ , coward ,shows that you are the one who denigrates people who oppose you, so you were projecting when you accused me of doing that. You made that comment yesterday, Apr.18, in which you accused me of being an “intellectual coward”, and asked me a question that needed a reply. Yet you knew that I couldn’t reply, because I told you in a comment on this blog 6 days ago on Apr.13 that I was blocked and couldn’t reply to you.

            So again, you were projecting, when you called me an “intellectual coward”, because you cowardly made your denigrating reply calling me an intellectual coward to me on a blog that you knew I could not make a reply.

            So there you have it. You denigrated and discredited yourself. All I do is post facts which exposes your own dishonest and disingenuous behaviors. You fanatical climate cult zealots are a pathetic lot.

            And you demonstrate even more cowardice as you won’t even be honest and agree that the alleged ‘professor’ Keating banned me for the fake-excuse of “hate-speech”.

            Of course you poor little snowflake probably consider this post of mine “hate-speech” because I dare to post historical facts that exposed your dishonesty, your projection, and your disingenuous behavior. So so sad.

          • Peter Johnson

            The fact that you purposely omitted part of the research you claimed proved that there was no increasing temps due to global warming is hardly a red herring, its fundamental in regards how any of those you respond to will be able to trust anything you say, and reveals that you really don’t care what the facts are. They are not necessary to deceive anyone so why not ignore them then huh?

            I really have no idea what “historical facts” you posted that exposed my supposed dishonesty? I only read a few of your exchanges with Christopher Keatings and gave cunundiun a complement for going through the trouble of exposing your deceptions. I doubt Dr. Keatings has time enough to run around cyberspace in order to disprove what he knows is false to begin with.

            As far as your latest resentful tirade—its just one more thing which reveals your true colors! I guess maybe we are all picking on your poor little thin skinned self image, but whatever the case we are not rationally and objectively discussing global warming when anyone tries to challenge you. So if you hate Christopher’s blog so much you are perfectly free to quit posting there!

            Because people like you claim you are being picked on and persecuted for using lies and misinformation, you truly are taking a cowards way out. In any claims of a conspiracy all one can do is engage in an infinite regression concerning this or that conspiracy being aggravated by this or that action, and then continue ad infinitum. No one can win such an argument so I’m not going to try.

          • RealOldOne2

            “The fact that you purposely omitted part of the research you claimed proved that there was no increasing temps due to global warming is hardly a red herring”
            There you go again telling another lie. You are making a baseless, dishonest, evidence-free accusation.

            “As far as your latest resentful tirade”

            There you go again, telling yet another lie. All I did was expose your projection, lies and hypocrisy. You are so pathetic.

            “Because people like you claim you are being picked on and persecuted for using lies and misinformation”
            There you go again, telling yet another lie. No one has ever shown that I have lied or presented misinfomation. You fanatical climate cult zealots are so serially dishonest as you defend your cherished climate cult religion with jihadist zeal (Dr. Richard Lindzen).

            Don’t you realize that you can never win by just telling lie after lie after lie? So so sad.

          • Peter Johnson

            The fact that you did omit part of the content in your recent post and that cunundiun documented your omission on the DOGW website, is a fact, and is clearly demonstrated by the portion you left out of your comment. The omitted portion lies right between parts that appeared before it, and then parts that came after it. All one need do is go to the DOGW websites to confirm that fact.

            Here’s where you can find cunudiuns and your responses to each other:

            http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-campaign-of-deceit-by-tom-harris.html

            I already explained that I must have conflated two of your comments with each other, but what I did was an unintentional error, not a deliberate lie.

            And as far as the resentments in your comments, here are some of the things you said:

            “All I did was expose your projection, lies and hypocrisy. You are so pathetic.”

            And:

            “You fanatical climate cult zealots are so serially dishonest as you defend your cherished climate cult religion with jihadist zeal (Dr. Richard Lindzen).”

            And:

            “You haven’t quoted me and shown that I have lied or misrepresented anything. All you are doing is making baseless, evidence-free allegations, which are LIES.”

            So in just a few paragraphs you have called me a pathetic liar, a hypocrite, a member of a fanatical climate cult religion? someone who makes baseless allegations, and someone who has a jihadist zeal?”

            These are just a few insults included in the hundreds of angry and resentful comments you have made all around the web. But there are many many more!

            I don’t mind if you say such nasty things, but you should at least admit to them, instead of trying to blame your own hostile attitude on people who are just telling the truth about their feelings and opinions”

            And if you look back on what Cunundiun posted, you’ll clearly see the omitted parts of your quotes written in bold print, or those portions placed between brackets in my comments. They represent provable facts about you and what you said. And, anyone who examines the unedited portions of anyone elses source can easily see that too!

            Yes I did go to your website to check out cunudiun’s comments and he is indeed, telling the truth!

            In fact here is what was said at those websites:

            “Here is from Jevrejeva(2014) which you quoted, with the part you omitted in bold.”

            We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyse the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2± 0.4 mm/yr) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1± 0.6 mm/yr from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993-2009). The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9± 0.3 mm/yr during the 20th century, with 1.8± 0.5 mm/yr since 1970.
            What other reason can there be for that omission other than pure dishonesty?”

            His bold type which indicates the parts you left out do not paste onto this comment but I recommend that anyone concerned should examine the many comments on the DOGW website for yourself

          • RealOldOne2

            “The fact that you purposely omitted part of the research you claimed proved that there was no increasing temps due global warming is hardly a red herring, its[sic] fundamental in regards how any of those you respond to will be able to trust anything you say, and reveals that you really don’t care what the facts are.”
            The fact is, you are just making stuff up, which makes it a lie. Here is cunudiun’s false allegation that you are speaking about:

            “cunudiun: Everyone can see the way you doctored that quote above about sea level risehttp://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/03/more-campaign-of-deceit-by-tom-harris.html#comment-3250893025

            So it had nothing to do with “increasing temps due to global warming. You were just making that up, which shows that you are the one who doesn’t care what the facts are, which shows that people can’t trust anything you say.

            And cunudiun was making a false accusation (a lie), because I didn’t “doctor” the quote from the paper at all. My quote was 100% accurate. Cunudiun’s claim was that I did not quote a part of the paper that he claimed showed that sea level had accelerated, based on a decade and a half period. But his claim is specious, because trends that short are not meaningful in determining rates or acceleration of sea level rise because of high variability in short term records. When I pointed this out to cunudiun, he did not respond, but TreeParty picked up on this and accused me of making stuff up and challenged me to support my claim, which I did by posting information from a book on sea level rise:

            “Tracking the changing volume of waters of the ocean, as distinguished from measuring local sea level, is not a simple task. Many traps lie in wait for the unwary … First at least a 50-year record is required, because there are year-to-year changes (some of which we understand, but a number of which we do not) which are likely bias records that are much shorter. … The seventh chapter is concerned with explaining the prominent seasonal to inter-decadal variations in sea level. These large fluctuations are highly variable regionally and are large enough to obscure an underlying trend of sea level for at least 50 years or more. … Figure 3.11 also shows clearly that estimates of sea level trends made from records as short as 10 to 20 years (eg. Nakiboglu and Lambeck, 1991; Barnett, 1984; Emery and Aubrey, 1991) can be badly biased by the interannual-to-decadal variability water level.” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9b3c06e6f8dbd4a6a7d55a261f871330671b860aacebe171d55259b7aac59b76.png – ‘Sea Level Rise – History and Consequences’, Douglas etal, (2001)

            “Fig. 3.16 further underscores previous comments about the impact of interannual and longer variations in sea level, and the absolute necessity of using long records.” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d97ac3620bb83b1d05a0a7f5a6160524d611a030cc031dbe192c6f888356cef8.png – ‘Sea Level Rise – History and Consequences, Douglas, etal, (2001)

            The full comment rebutting TreeParty is here: http://williamsondailynews.com/opinion/columns/10336/americans-should-welcome-the-end-of-the-clean-power-plan#comment-3261886844

            So everyone can see that I CAN back up my claims. You and your fellow climate alarmists can’t back up your false allegations.

          • Peter Johnson

            I apparently conflated this list of Natural Warmings and the lengths of time in which they took place, with the actual post in question. However, what I meant to do was include the portions from the website you quoted, which were left out, and which Cunudiun exposed of as being deliberately omitted. Thanks for letting me know of my mistake. Here’s what I (thought) you were referring to:

            “That is just false Mr. Keating. I gave you evidence from the Vostok ice core that showed numerous previous warmings with greater rates and magnitudes than the recent warmings:
            – 2585 BP 84yr natural warming of 2.0C/century
            – 2760 BP 90yr natural warming of 2.2C/century
            – 2980 BP 133yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 3511 BP 89yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 4880 BP 94yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 6385 BP 98yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 8226 BP 91yr natural warming of 3.2C/century
            – 10.3K BP 97yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 74.7K BP 167yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 78.4K BP 160yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 80.2K BP 153yr natural warming of 1.8C/century
            – 82.4K BP 139yr natural warming of 1.7C/century
            – 90.1K BP 155yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 102K BP 65yr natural warming of 1.4C/century
            – 127K BP 102yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 129K BP 162yr natural warming was 1.9C/century”

            Here is the comment I (should have referred to), in which Cunudiun revealed your lie of omission:

            “Here is from Jevrejeva (2014) which you quoted, with the part you omitted.

            “We use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyses the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration. In particular, we use new data from the polar regions and remote islands to improve data coverage and extend the reconstruction to 2009. The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9± 0.3 mm/yr during the 20th century, with 1.8± 0.5 mm/yr since 1970. [”There is a good agreement between the rate of sea level rise (3.2± 0.4 mm/yr) calculated from satellite altimetry and the rate of 3.1± 0.6 mm/yr from tide gauge based reconstruction for the overlapping time period (1993-2009).]

            The text in brackets is what you omitted.

            And cunudiun added:

            “What other reason can there be for that omission other than pure dishonesty?”

            In another portion of the actual post which you referenced, you said this:

            “we use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration … The new reconstruction suggests a linear trend of 1.9 mm-yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm-yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevrejeva (2014’,

            You completely left out the portion about the “good agreement” between satellite data and the tide gauge data—why?

            Yes, I made a mistake which you rightly pointed out, but as I said, I don’t usually read every comment on most threads. So I must have skimmed through your remarks and (in my memory) confused the first list of natural warming with your quoted list of tidal gauge data.

            Again, the portion above a few paragraphs back, in brackets, is what you omitted. So you did deliberately omit parts of the data which you did not want to include. And to most of us a deliberate omission of text is another example of deceptive “doctoring” being used to edit a source which is then not completely represented.

            Also here’s Cunudiun’s quote from a website below, from which information about the serious threat posed by AGW was misrepresented:

            “Your glacier graph is taken from United Nations Environment Program’s Global Glacier Changes: facts and figures, which has the following introduction:”

            “There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges “

            And another observation included from the same website by Cunudiun is this:

            “There is mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers world-wide which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of people. Data gaps exist in some vulnerable parts of the globe undermining the ability to provide precise early warning for countries and populations at risk. If the trend continues and governments fail to agree on deep and decisive emission reductions at the crucial UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, it is possible that glaciers may completely disappear from many mountain ranges in the 21st century.”

            So yes I was at fault, But it seems that you were too—for using selective quotes to falsely represent the real threats posed by AGW. And yes I did visit the website below from which parts of your claims were attributed:

            http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fadsabs.harvard.edu%2Fabs%2F2014EGUGA..16.7647J%3Ad-XbQgRZK-u7U1duQImWe_HiYNk&cuid=3086212

          • Peter Johnson

            As you can see I’ve already responded to this comment below,

          • RealOldOne2

            “As you can see I’ve already responded to this comment below,”
            You did, but since your response just continued your denial of the substantive evidence in the rebuttal that I had posted, and continued your false accusations against me, your comment was deleted. And no, I didn’t flag it. I would have rather it remained so people can see the level of denial of reality that you showed.

          • Peter Johnson

            Several of my recent comments have been held up as spam but are visible on my discuss page.

            I see nothing dishonest of wrong in any of them. So they may appear yet, and in the meantime you can read them on my discuss page if you want to (or perhaps as you may have already done).

          • RealOldOne2

            No need to discuss anything further. I’ve already shown that you have failed to show any misrepresenatation, cherry picking, or errors in the science that I have posted. All you did was make false claims.

          • Peter Johnson

            On the DOGW website you admit to using only the portions of research papers that you agree with–i.e cherry picking. Here is what you said on the DOGW website:

            “I quote the portions that support my position.You are capable of reading the entire paper. I provide sufficient citations and references, and the occasional URL.
            Since when, in a court case, does the prosecution cite evidence, or testimony, that is counter to the prosecution’s goal? That is for the defense attorney … i.e., that’s your job, not mine.”

            So you try to rationalize your cherry picking with an analogy to a court of law? But research papers are not designed to represent only one side of any issue. In Court rooms attorneys try to persuade a jury that only one result reflects the truth. However, research papers are not intended to provide or promote only one sided evidence. Additionally no researchers will be convicted if they are wrong, and their research is based on analyzing the full range of evidence at their disposal. And, because of that, researchers need to discuss all of the evidence before reaching their conclusions. Lawyers may choose to cross examine in order to prove the flaws in their opponents evidence, but climate scientists are not divided into providing evidence for or against any one point of view. If they were the results of their research would always, and necessarily, be in doubt!

            What you don’t get, or refuse to acknowledge is that often the conclusions scientists reach are based on a lack of sufficient data which ultimately cannot be used to completely confirm a given body of research without any reservations. Other scientists who read their research might be said to represent a jury, but no one research paper can possibly be done without considering all of the evidence at hand–not just the parts that any individual may like, or dislike! And a group of qualified experts are given the task of accepting or refusing the author’s premises based on peer reviewed information.

            One similarity though, is that a court case cannot be determined based on the opinions of one juror but rather on the conclusions of all. likewise many different scientists are assigned the task of examining research and then either accepting or rejecting it–in part or in whole.

            And, In a court of law, the jury is not composed of a select group of experts but rather a group of ordinary citizens that are considered ones peers. So there is a great difference between them and those who provide the peer reviews which affirm other scientist’s work.

          • Peter Johnson

            look for it on my discuss page.

          • RealOldOne2

            Peter, please go troll someone else.

            You have totally discredited yourself over and over again. Your latest comment to me was full of lies, attributing quotes to me which where made by someone else, and then you went on a long rant that had nothing whatsoever to do with me.

            As I have said numerous times, you have discredited yourself as a dishonest fanatical climate cult zealot over an over again by lying and just making stuff up.

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            So says the RealOldCoot whose only argument is to attack with vitriolic statements that are so bad he’s been banned even on denier websites. You have yet, in all of the posts I’ve seen of yours, been able to produce even one shred of valid science to support your claims. And, you have been shown, repeatedly and with documented evidence, to be a serial liar. That is not a personal attack, that is a statement on your credibility. And, just for the record, please state what your claims are on manmade climate change, and try to do it without using personal attacks.

            And, by the way, I’m still waiting for you to produce references to the scientific papers you claim to have written and information about which university at which you claim to have taught climate science. After many reasonable requests, you continue to refuse to provide any information to support your claims.

          • RealOldOne2

            “So says the RealOldCoot whose only argument is to attack with vitriolic statements so bad he’s been banned even on denier websites”
            I see from your childish name calling attack on me that you are still angry that I exposed the corrupt history of your climate alarmist religion, where it used shoddy cherry picking science to make the false, empirical-evidence-free claim of human influence on the climate.

            Telling lies like you are doing only discredits yourself Keating. I have only been banned on a few echo chamber sites that promote your climate alarmist religion, and censor any comments which include historical facts and scientific evidence that your climate alarmist views are not supported by real world empirical data. Like your echo chamber misnamed ‘Dialogues On Global Warming’ site, where you banned me for the fake-excuse of “hate-speech” when I posted no “vitriol”, but historical facts of Ben Santer’s violating the IPCC’s own rules and his shoddy science where he used cherry picked radiosonde data to make to opposite conclusion that you get if you use all the data, and then he used his own shoddy science to reverse the conclusions of the expert-author approved who had written that no human influence on the climate had been found. Your banning me is the cowardly behavior of someone who refuses to have an honest dialogue if someone disagrees with you. Sad, but common when the real world science doesn’t support your belief system.

            “You have yet, in all the posts I’ve seen of yours, been able to produce even one shred of valid science to support your claims.”
            That is another of your blatantly false statements. I provided much in my comments on your own blog before you banned me for the fake-reason of “hate-speech”. You have made quite a few hateful false attacks on me in just this one comment of yours. Sad.

            “And you have been shown repeatedly, with documented evidence, to be a serial liar.”
            That’s another one of your hateful dishonest allegations against me. You are projecting again Keating.

            “That is not a personal attack”
            LOL! You are demonstrating your total detachment from reality Keating.

            “And by the way, I’m still waiting for you to produce references to the scientific papers you claim to have written and information about which university at which you claim to have taught climate science.”
            Keating, I already told you that I am maintaining my anonymity. I must do that for the safety of myself and my family, because I don’t want gunshots to be fired into my home or office like happened to John Christy & Roy Spencer this past weekend after the “March for Science” went right past their building: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/shots-fired-into-the-christyspencer-building-at-uah/
            The fact that the real world empirical data continues to mount showing that CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming, you climate alarmists ever more desperate. And when coupled with dishonest, misrepresentation and lies like you have said about me here and on your blog, can stir up the radical, extreme thugs-for-hire who are part of your climate alarmist movement to hurt people.

            I’m surprised that your comment wasn’t deleted like several of Peter Johnson’s comments were, since your comment is just another of your baseless, evidence-free personal attacks on me, and included no science.

            “And, just for the record, please state what your claims are on manmade climate change, and try to do it without using personal attacks.”
            I’ll be glad to do that on your blog, when I can defend myself from false allegations made against me. I am not interested in making a statement here, where you can take it back to your blog and misrepresent it where I can’t respond. That’s dishonest. Let me know when you un-block me for your fake-excuse of “hate-speech”. If you refuse to unblock me, it will just be more evidence that you aren’t interested in having an honest discussion, you are only interested in having an echo chamber where you and your fellow climate alarmists can cowardly attack people with false accusations where people can’t reply to expose the false accusations.

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            Hiding for personal safety! Bwa-ha-ha!

          • RealOldOne2

            So you don’t want to have an open discussion on your own blog where all your followers can see it. Pretty cowardly on your part. And it just shows that you can’t defend your climate alarmism religion with empirical science, and you would be further embarrassed that you couldn’t refute the empirical science that I present.

            Thanks for confirming it.

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            Oh, please. You were banned for the same kind of hate speech you have repeatedly demonstrated here. And, all without producing even any science at all.

            I’ll tell you what, use the email address, DOGW.email@gmail.com, to submit a guest post. If it contains anything worthwhile, and avoids the hate speech, I’ll post it as a guest post. There is one requirement, you must provide me with proof of your claimed credentials. If you are so worried about your ‘personal safety’ I’ll keep it private. But, I will not post anything from you until you provide some evidence to you claims.

            And, I’m sure you will fail to do so because you have no science, you have no stand on the issues beyond hate, and you have no credentials. Thanks for confirming it.

          • RealOldOne2

            “hate-speech”</i.
            LOL. Sticking to your FAKE-excuse huh Keating. Sad. Thanks for confirming your cowardice.

            “And, all without producing even any science at all”
            Still telling that lie huh Keating. Sad. You know that I presented science to support my statements. You are using your fake excuse of “hate-speech” and your ‘no science’ claims because I totally embarrassed you in front of your followers.

            Here is science that I presented on your own site so you surely did see it. Everyone can see that you are just making stuff up.

            Again, Dr. Keating provides no evidence for his claim.
            He certainly can’t be talking about global warming, because the warming of ~0.8C over the past century is certainly not “more dramatically than anytime in the last 800,000 years”, as there have been many previous natural climate warming with higher rates of warming and higher magnitudes of warming. They are documented in this
            report
            .

            Dr. Keating says “The properties of CO2 as a greenhouse gas are well documented”, but in the real world that we live in, humans have added 500 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere during the 21st century, which is ~1/3 of all the human CO2 ever produced, yet it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Only the natural 2015-2016 El Nino has caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Prior to that natural warming, the atmosphere hadn’t warmed at all during the 21st century: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/offset:0.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/offset:-0.1

            When you can add ~1/3 of all the human CO2 ever produced on the planet to the atmosphere in less than 2 decades and it doesn’t cause the temperature of the atmosphere to increase, that is clear empirical evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is an insignificant factor in causing climate warming.

            Keating:”Yes, the climate is changing at a rate faster than anything witnessed in the record of the last 800,000 years. In fact it is changing at a rate roughly 10 times faster than the rate of ice-age warming”

            That is just false Mr. Keating. I gave you evidence from the Vostok ice core that showed numerous previous warmings with greater rates and magnitudes than the recent warmings:
            – 2585 BP 84yr natural warming of 2.0C/century
            – 2760 BP 90yr natural warming of 2.2C/century
            – 2980 BP 133yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 3511 BP 89yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 4880 BP 94yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 6385 BP 98yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 8226 BP 91yr natural warming of 3.2C/century
            – 10.3K BP 97yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 74.7K BP 167yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 78.4K BP 160yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 80.2K BP 153yr natural warming of 1.8C/century
            – 82.4K BP 139yr natural warming of 1.7C/century
            – 90.1K BP 155yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 102K BP 65yr natural warming of 1.4C/century
            – 127K BP 102yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 129K BP 162yr natural warming was 1.9C/century

            Keating:”This is both cherry picking (looking at a data set small enough to give the results you want) and incorrect.”

            You are wrong again Mr. Keating. That is the proper data set to evaluate if there was any warming of the atmosphere during the 21st century prior to the 2015-2016 El Nino, which was natural warming.

            And it is correct that the the atmosphere hadn’t warmed in those ~15 years. That’s a fact. You can claim that ~15 year is too long to be significant, but that is just an excuse for you to not accept what the data says.
            ~15 years is not too short of time to use because peer reviewed paper have used time periods of as short as 5 years. Lean(2009) passed peer review and it made predictions about a period of only 5 years duration.

            “From 2009 to 2014, projected rises in anthropogenic influences and solar irradiance will increase global surface temperature by 0.15 +/- 0.03C, at a rate 50% higher than IPCC projections.” – Lean(2009)

            And I would point out that not only was Lean etal’s prediction wrong, the temperature acutally decreased by almost that much: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2014/plot/rss/from:2009/to:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2009/to:2014/offset:0.1/plot/uah6/from:2009/to:2014/trend/offset:0.1

            Keating:”You call El Nino a warming event.”
            That is not true Mr. Keating. I never used the word event. My exact words were: “Only the natural 2015-2016 El Nino has caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase.” You said the same thing: “It warms the atmosphere by moving heat stored in the oceans to the atmosphere, so the atmosphere is heated by El Nino”. I agree with your statement, and my statement says the same thing. You fabricated a strawman argument to weave in an insult and false claim that I hate and reject science. That is not fitting of someone who claims to be a scientist.

            You say “The heat must be stored in the ocean before an El Nino can move it to the air.”
            That is correct. But I would also point out that the physical mechanism that transfers heat to the ocean is solar radiation penetrating up to 200m deep. CO2 from the cold atmosphere transfers no heat into the ocean, because the ocean surface is warmer than the cold atmosphere.

            You say “Warming the ocean is 93% of the global warming you wish to deny exists”
            You are fabricating a straw man argument again Mr. Keating. I have never said that global warming doesn’t exist. You once again misrepresent me. Again, not fitting of a scientist. Your admission that 93% of the warming is in the oceans is an admission that 93% of climate warming is natural, because solar radiation is the cause of heat transferred into the oceans.

            You say “but then you want to also use that same global warming to deny global warming exists.”
            Your premise was flawed so you are hopelessly twisted in your logic as you fail to tar me as a ‘dener’.

            You say: “Sounds like an existential crisis to me”
            Sounds like an armchair psychoanalyst to me. Perhaps even some projection there.

            You say: “because they[sic] only way you you can come anywhere close to the claim that there was no warming in the 21st century is by starting with the 1998 data – an El Nino.”
            Big logic and factual fail there Mr. Keating. I in no way started with 1998 data. Where in the world did you get the idea that I started with 1998 data? The graph that I linked to, http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/plot/uah6/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2001/offset:-375/scale:0.04/to:2015.3/mean:12/offset:0.3/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2015.3/trend/offset:-0.1 , clearly shows that I used only data from the 21st century, beginning with the 2001 data, and the x-axis doesn’t even go below 2000! And 2001 was not an El Nino year. It actually began as a small La Nina year, http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm .

            You say: “So, you reject the El Nino at one end and use it at the other.”
            I don’t know what you are smoking, but it must be some really hallucinogenic stuff, because what you are claiming has no basis in reality. I did not start with an El Nino. Since I was discussing CO2-induced warming, it properly did not include the 2015-2016 data which as you admit was the release of stored solar heat from the ocean to the atmosphere.

            So bottom line. You refuted nothing that I had posted. You just denied it and fabricted strawmen, and pretended to have the God-attribute of omniscience, claiming to know that I hated and rejected science. Sorry, but I’m not the ‘denier’ here.

            The only quotes you gave of Harris was:
            1) “…there is no convincing evidence that human activity is causing climate problems.” That is not a denial of AGW. It is just a statement that AGW is not causing any climate “problems”. And that is a true statement. Nothing happening climate wise is outside the bounds of previously naturally occurring climate change, and there is no empirical evidence showing human causation of any of the things that you mentioned.

            and 2) “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
            Those statements are true:

            As my graphs showed no CO2-induced global warming in the 21st century.
            Sea level rise is not accelerating.
            – “The rate of sea level rise was found to be larger during the early part of the century (2.03 +/- 0.35 mm/yr 1904-1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 +/- 0.34 mm/yr, 1954-2003).” – Holgate(2007), ‘On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century’
            – “we use 1277 tide gauge records since 1807 to provide an improved global sea level reconstruction and analyze the evolution of sea level trend and acceleration … The new reconstruction suggest a linear trend of 1.9 mm-yr^-1 during the 20th century, with 1.8 mm-yr^-1 since 1970.” – Jevrejeva(2014), ‘Trends and acceleration in global and regional sea levels since 1807’

            Sea ice is just varying naturally like it has throughout the history of the planet: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

            Most of the glacial retreat happened prior to when even the IPCC claimed that humans began to have a significant effect on global climate: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
            & http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/img/5-1.jpg

            Ocean pH levels are just varying naturally, and were lower a century ago than they are today: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/mwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg

            There is no empirical evidence conclusively showing that more extreme weather is getting more extreme or is caused by CO2 or humans: http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ChristyJR_130530_McKinley-PDF-of-PPT.pdf

            And the U.S. is currently experiencing the longest period without a major landfalling hurricane in the history of record keeping, 4,185 days , eclipsing the previous record of 3315 days that happened in the 1860s.

            So Fulks and Harris were correct in their statements about those things, which by the way were not a denial of natural climate change.

            So Mr. Keatig, you once again come up wanting, and fail to provide evidence that Harris denies manmade and natural climate change.

            Keating:”In short, you are a climate change denier to the extreme degree”
            Another one of your baseless, evidence-free allegations. I have not denied climate change. I have just presented empirical data. Perhaps your God-attribute of omniscience is whispering fantasies into head? You can no more provide evidence that I am a climate change denier than you can provide evidence that Tom Harris is a climate change denier. It appears that you just label everyone who doesn’t hold your same climate alarmist understanding as a climate denier. That’s not the behavior of a scientist. More the

            Actually, your reply to Harris gives evidence that you are exactly who Dr. Richard Lindzen was speaking of when he said:

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

            And there were these embarrassing science questions that I asked, and that neither you nor any of your followers have been able to answer:

            1) Why hasn’t 1.5 trillion tons of human CO2 added since 1913 (95% of all the human CO2 ever produced on the planet) caused a higher temperature than the highest temperature ever recorded on the surface of the Earth in 1913?
            2) Why hasn’t 500 billion tons of human CO2 added to the atmosphere during the 21st century caused any increase in the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere?
            3) Why has DWIR decreased even though 500 billion tons of human CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in the 21st century?
            4) Why has there been no CO2-induced warming of the atmosphere during ~1/6th of the entire 21st century when climate models say there should have been ~0.5C of warming?
            5) Why do you believe that the late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 rather than natural climate forcing, when the increase in CO2 forcing was only ~0.5W/m² and the increase in natural forcing (more solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface) was 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m²?
            6) Why do you believe that human CO2 was the primary cause of climate warming when the latest peer reviewed science, Harde(2017) explicitly states: “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time is 4 years.” – Harde(2017) ‘Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere’, sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787 ?
            7) Why do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of climate change when there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause of climate warming?

            Yes Keating, everyone can see that I did present science, and the I was not engaging in “hate-speech”.

            You have once again been discredited as being totally dishonest and disingenuous. And I’m maintaining my anonymity and not giving you any personal information about myself. If you are unwilling to let me comment on your blog like everyone else, it just proves that you are a coward, and you know that I would further embarrass you in front of your followers.

            Thanks for showing everyone your true colors.

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            Given a reasonable offer to present your arguments in a logical, scientific manner, you chose to engage in hate speech instead. You had an opportunity to prove your credentials in a private venue, and you chose to engage in hate speech instead. All of your claims have been shown to consist of cherry-picked or falsified data, quotes taken out of context and false logic. In other words, you have never presented any valid science, i.e., something that can pass the scientific method. You prefer to engage in hate speech instead. And, you know what? I’m not one bit surprised. That’s why you got banned and that’s why I ignore you. If you ever wish to raise to the challenge, you know what to do. Until then, I’ll go back to ignoring you.

          • RealOldOne2

            Given the reasonable offer to let me interact like everyone else on your blog, you chose the cowardly way out because you knew that you I would continue to expose your ignorance of climate science and you couldn’t refute the empirical science that I presented. Quite pathetic, but expected, because or your history of childish name calling and refusal to seriously engage in any science discussion.

            “All of your claims have been shown to cherry picked or falsified data data, quoted taken out of context and false logic.”
            Wow, you’re outdoing yourself piling lie upon lie Keating. But it’s what we’ve come to expect from ignorant dupes in your climate cult religion. Not a single one of your false allegations is true. No one has ever shown that I have cherry picked anything, nor falsified any data, or taken anything out of context or used false logic. Sadly, you lie like a rug, proven by the fact that you ignored all that science that I just posted, which proved that you lied when you said I hadn’t presented any science. Liar to the core you are Keating. Pathetic.

            “You prefer to engage in hate speech instead.”
            There you go telling that lie again. I never engaged in any hate speech, as people can see from my above comment which included my comments on your blog. Just because I’ve exposed you as being scientifically incompetent and a dishonest liar, that does not mean I hate you. I feel sorry for poor dupes like you who aren’t intelligent enough to recognize that you have swallowed the scam/hoax/fraud/lie of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion, especially when I’ve shown you that the whole ‘discernible human influence’ meme was based on fraudulent, cherry picked shoddy science. That got you in such a tizzy that you called it hate speech and banned me. So sad that you are so detached from reality and such a denier of irrefutable historical facts.

            There isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of climate warming in the late 20th century. Not one. But there are several that empirically show that there was an increase of 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² in natural climate forcing during the late 20th warming, while the increase in CO2 forcing during that time frame was only ~0.5W/m².

            The null climate hypothesis of natural climate variability being the primary cause of climate change still rules, because it has never been empirically falsified. And your new alternative climate hypothesis that CO2 is now the primary cause of climate change has never been empirically validated.

            So you can continue to be gullible and believe in the lie/fraud/hoax/scam of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 if you choose. In this great country you have the freedom to be an idiot or a moron if you choose, and no one is going to put you behind bars. They will likely laugh at you when your climate cult religion is tossed on the rubbish heap of history along with other lies/scams/hoaxes/frauds like Eugenics, Lysenkoism, phlogiston, Piltdown Mann, bleeding to cure diseases, etc. It’s like Prof. Lindzen said:

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

            You will leave a sad legacy to your progeny as they think back and say, How could Gramps have been so stupid.

            Well, I’ve fully exposed you as a coward, a liar and incompetent in climate science as you were totally unable to refute any of the empirical science that I presented, and you were totally unable to present any empirical data to show that your CAGW-by-CO2 climate beliefs were scientifically valid. Bye. I really hope you come to your senses. And no, there was no hate speech in this comment. Just facts.

          • Peter Johnson

            Yup, no matter what caustic responses he makes they speaks volumes about his intentions when he won’t accept a clear and generous offer to have a guest post of his own published on DOGW, (even with your promise not to release his personal information). if he reveals his credentials to you. Even though he has your offer recorded as a comment on this website, and has nothing to lose, he freaks out about having any personal mistakes revealed in another format. If he does have sufficient credential why does he prefer to quote long responses on this forum, but refuses to provide a simple guest post on DOGW? Do those who have the education and experience to discuss AGW, typically want to hide proof of their qualifications?

            Because he will decline your offer, his reluctance reveals that he doesn’t care about much else than being a internet troll. Yet he is fond of calling other people cowards? One has to wonder why someone like him is so utterly dedicated to trying to refute science with his own words but will not do so when given the chance to reveal his knowledge on your blog?

            Obviously when his back is to the wall, he begins to panic and relies on plan A which is to lash out at others and thus reveal his own defects, He’s got your words in print on this thread, and really has nothing to lose, but refuses anyway?

          • RealOldOne2

            You are so good at projection Peter. You are the one making caustic comments about me, on Keating’s blog, where you know that I can’t reply and correct your lies.

            Keating is the coward for refusing to allow me to interact on his blog like he does everyone else who maintains their anonymity. I’d be a fool to submit a guest blog article to someone who has demonstrated that they are as serially dishonest as Keating has demonstrated that he is. He’d likely edit my submittal to reverse what I said, or the totally subvert what I submitted. Then he’d tear down the strawman he created, and wouldn’t allow me to respond in comments because I’m banned for the FAKE-reason of “hate-speech” which I did not do.

            Keating and you fanatical cult zealots think that anyone who dares to disagree with you is speaking “hate-speech”, which is why some members of your climate cult call for jailing of climate skeptics. You are fascists.

            That is the demonstrated behavior of you corrupt promoters of climate alarmism, as shown in the climategate emails and behaviors of the likes of Peter Gleick who fraudulently posed as a Heartland board member, and then when he got private documents and couldn’t find anything wrong, he fabricated a fake document as passed to to his fellow climate bloggers and represented it as a genuine Heartland document. This shows that you are a believer in a scam/hoax/fraud/lie, not science.

            You are just as cowardly as Keating, posting lies about me where you know I can’t reply to expose your lies. You are a pathetic lot. That’s the reality, no matter how much you deny it.

            Now go ahead and do your thing of ranting and raving and spewing more lies. So so sad.

          • Peter Johnson

            He doesn’t even realize that when he makes a guest post on DOGW, that post is not only criticized by Keatings, it’s also there to be discussed and debated by all the people who make comments on his thread. These people are free to agree or disagree with you and can back you up if they feel it’s necessary. That’s basically the same kind of chance you get on this site or any of the thousands of others that you are free to comment on.

            The truth is that you’d have very little to be concerned about except that others may disagree with you in a convincing and objective way. So you are truly scared of providing your credentials anonymously or even of leaving a post on his website because other commenters may catch you being dishonest or making illogical arguments. You are extremely incensed by almost all of what climate scientists currently believe, yet you won’t even take a fair opportunity to share your knowledge elsewhere? I think you’re just scared about being exposed as a fraud!

          • RealOldOne2

            “So you are truly scared of providing your credentials anonymously…”
            LOL! It’s not anonymous once you post your credentials which identify you! Once again, you expose that you are not the sharpest knife in the kitchen.

            “I think you’re just scared about being exposed as a fraud.”
            Another totally illogical comment. I’m willing to comment there as RealOldOne2, and let anyone refute the science that I post. Poor coward Keating is the one who proves that he is afraid to let me post because he knows that he can’t refute the emprical science that I posted which shows that he is wrong. His cowardly behavior is typical of left wing incompetent academic elites hiding behind their tenure, censoring any comments that they can’t refute. Quite pathetic. If he was so sure that he could refute me, he would allow me to post, so he could tear my comments to shreds. But he knows he can’t, so he makes up a FAKE excuse of “hate-speech” to ban me. He waved the white flag of surrender.

          • Peter Johnson

            He promised not to divulge your private credentials. If he breaks his word his own credibility will be at stake! Not yours!

          • RealOldOne2

            “He promised not to divulge your private credentials. If he breaks his word his own credibility will be at stake.”
            LOL. Keating has already proved himself to be dishonest in his own comments, so he has demonstrated that can’t be trusted. He already has demonstrated he has no credibility for fabricating and using the fake-excuse of “hate-speech” to ban me, when I never engaged in “hate-speech”.

            So Keating has already trashed his own credibility and shown that he is no more than a flimflam snake oil peddler for his false climate change religion. He deleted my comment that only posted historical facts that showed Ben Santer reversed the conclusions of chap.8 of the IPCC’s SAR WG1 report, AFTER the expert-authors had approved it.

            When someone is that dishonest, you can’t trust them to do what they say. This dishonesty is rife in your climate cult religion, as Peter Gleick admitted to stealing private Heartland documents by impersonating a board member. Then when he didn’t find anything he could use to slander Heartland, a new fabricated FAKE document was added to the Heartland documents and he passed it on to the smear propagandists of his cult. Shameful and dishonest.

            So no, I wouldn’t trust him at all. He is a coward for not allowing me to post anonymously on his blog just like everyone else.

            Here’s what I posted that Keating deleted because it was embarrassing to his climate cult religion:

            “So do you approve of Santer’s reversing the conclusions of the authors of Chap.8 of SAR, after the report had been approved by the whole IPCC?

            Santer deleted these statements from the expert-approved report:
            • “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
            • “While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
            • “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
            • “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
            • “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know.’ “

            This is documented here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm

            Ben Santer replaced those statements which said that no human influence on climate with these statements which were based on his shoddy science cherry picked paper:

            • “There is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcing by greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols … from the geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change. … These results point toward a human influence on global climate. [ch.8 p.412]”
            • “The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate. [ch.8 p.439]”

            Here is the documentation of Santer’s cherry picking: http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm

          • Peter Johnson

            So what your saying is that you are perfectly willing to post comments on some other thread written by someone else, or to comments made there by someone else, but not to comment on a thread about a guest post of your own? Dr. Keatings has already promised to keep your personal credentials private and to listen if you say anything that he finds to be part of a rational discussion, and not only can yoiu invite other’s who feel as you do to support you on his thread, but you also have my word that I will cause a ruckus if Christopher chooses to not keep up his part of the bargain. It would be pretty hard for him to keep claiming he was being fair after doing something like that.

            Personally I see a lot of anger and even hate in some of your recent comments, more so than most other commenters leave, however, you do have a definite handle on some intriguing counter arguments and I would think you would jump at the chance to fully explain them.

            Whether Christopher agrees with yoiu or not, rejection is nothing new to any of us,and you are not in any danger of losing your privacy after he made a promise not to include your personal credentials.

            Why you want ot protect them is anyone’s guess but sometimes a commenter does have a good reason for not wanting to reveal certain private info about themselves or their lives, I’d go for it it I were you!

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL. Arguing with yourself is a sure sign of your mental illness. Probably rubbed off from Keating because of too much time spent on his echo chamber blog where he censors people who expose his ignorance of climate science..

          • Peter Johnson

            Unfortunately I post back to back since I have been blocked by another commenter. Once again, if you make a guest post on DOGW, it will be read and discussed by others who examine your post. And then they may comment either in favor or not, of your contentions–just as they and you would do on any other post! Basically all that’s required of you is to drop the belligerence and hatred long enough to explain yourself.

            If you comment on a post by Mr. Keatings, a guest post of mine, or a guest post of any other comenter’s, you have nothing to lose. Others will leave their comments which you will be free to defend or to point out errors in their critiques–no different than any other thread or any other discussion on any other thread. The truth is you’re afraid!

          • RealOldOne2

            “if you make a guest post on DOGW, it will be read and discussed by others who examine your post. And then they may comment either in favor or not, of your contentions–just as they and you would do on any other post!”
            Wow, you really are gullible and you don’t get it. Keating would likely have edited my comment to make it say something that I did not write. Keating wouldn’t allow me to reply to those comments about my article. Keating would allow all sorts of lies and misrepresentations to be posted about the article that had been doctored by Keating. Nope, not playing a rigged game like that.

            “Basically all that’s required of you is to drop the belligerence and hatred long enough to explain yourself. “
            LOL. You’re as delusional and dishonest as Keating. Perhaps you are Keating, posting under a sockpuppet account.
            No belligerence on my part. Only asking to be treated like every other commenter on his blog.
            No hatred on my part. Only posting facts, history and science; facts, history and science that is embarrassing to Keating’s climate religion, so he dishonestly calls it “hate-speech”. You guys are the haters; haters of facts, data, history and science that shows your climate cult religion is wrong.

            “The truth is you’re afraid!”
            That is a ludicrous and delusional claim. The proof that I’m not afraid, is that I am willing to post on his blog site just like every other commenter can post.

            I’m not afraid that he would doctor my article. I’m certain that he would.

            I’m not afraid that he would not allow me to defend my article, I’m certain that he wouldn’t allow me to comment and expose the lies and misrepresentations that his fellow cultists would make it about.

            I’m not afraid that Keating is dishonest, he has demonstrated that he is dishonest.

            The truth is that you have been duped into believing the pseudoscience of your climate cult religion that is not based on real world empirical data, but is based on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, which can’t project future global temperature at even the 2% confidence level: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.”- vonStorch(2013).

          • Peter Johnson

            I expected that kind of response–but you forget that each post is recorded on your disqus page, and that you can make copies of your post right after posting them there. You can also make those pages private.

            What ever the case, you give too much power to Keatings for being so treacherous. He’s answered many of your posts and the posts of others who agree with you, and I’ve never heard anyone claim their posts were altered, I’ve also never noticed altered content after reading a recently posted comment and then re reading it the next day. You’re also forgetting that even if you just commented like you always have, he could still alter your posts anyway. You are just making excuses to hide your fears!

          • Robert

            Isn’t there some guy living ‘hidden’ on some island off Victoria B.C. for the same reason?

          • http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com Christopher Keating

            These guys all have immense egos of they really think anyone wants to come after them. Of course they already claim to be smarter than all of the world’s climate scientists combined, so I guess they really do have immense egos.

          • Peter Johnson

            Right, since I am unlikely to have a rational discussion with any of these commenters, I’ll leave them to their own devices so they can continue to pat each other on the back for spreading their own BS and for being so incredibly dogmatic.

          • Peter Johnson

            The grandiosity in his recent remarks, has to do with the idea that you would go through such trouble just to unjustly accuse him or alter his comments. Its really enough to just explain why he is wrong in the same kind of rebuttal you might give anyone who submits a deniers views on your website which you have then good reason to not to believe according to established science. And his talk of others who disagree being members of some religious cult is truly bizarre. Anything I guess to avoid actually discussing the issues involved in his contrary beliefs about the causes of AGW. For anyone to make a long rant like that, laced with one insult after another and then claim that is was not a hate speech but a listing of facts, is incredibly bizarre.

          • Peter Johnson

            Especially ironic are his fears that if he were to submit a guest post on DOGW that you would use it for all sorts of nefarious purposes. As well as his claims that he has no idea to do that? Here is what he said a few posts back:

            “So you don’t want to have an open discussion on your own blog where all your followers can see it. Pretty cowardly on your part. And it alarmism religion with empirical science, and you would be further embarrassed that you couldn’t refute the empirical science that I present.

            Thanks for confirming it.”

            excuse me if I’m wrong but wouldn’t the act of making a guest post on your blog be a form of having an open discussion that all, “your followers” could see? Go figure!

          • Robert

            “I think this is more than coincidence..” plus the ‘I can’t use a gun that good, so it must have been targeted …”

            Great logic. Almost as good as the altfact denialist positions

          • ROO2

            I have only been banned on a few echo chamber sites that promote your climate alarmist religion

            Let’s not forget the Telegraph, former publisher of newspaper and blog articles by science deniers Delingpole and Booker.

            “And you have been shown repeatedly, with documented evidence, to be a serial liar.”
            That’s another one of your hateful dishonest allegations against me. You are projecting again Keating.

            Evidently not.

            Poor RealOldOne2, the internet pseudophile.

            Sad, but common when the real world science doesn’t support your belief system.

            Good grief. This from the clown that claims photons cannot travel in opposing directions. The Circus is permanently in town with the pseudophile around.

          • RealOldOne2

            Aww, it’s ROO2, aka Dan, aka Real0ld0ne2, aka RealOldOne2 (yes, my exact same Disqus username except with only a few comments), who was blocked on the Telegraph for serially impersonating me, still stalking me.

            ROO2: “RealOldOne2, the internet pseudophile, strikes again.”
            Awww, Dan ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/secnavy_rolling_back_social_change_will_weaken_military_the_daily_caller_17/#comment-3096758143 ), my serial impersonator (documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524 and here: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fokulaer.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2Fthe-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt%2F%23comment-867%3A5J1vtR1BiResJEY2esCMp-04hMY&cuid=932754 ), you are still so angry at my exposing your ignorance of science that you now make the slanderous false accusation that I am a sexual predator. Your slanderous and false comment is flagged.

            That’s almost as bad as your death threats you made against me and my loved ones: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1f9abdf37cfe1288ea3b07cab4567b7acea7bf5e9f8fc872e38af368de6a87ac.png

            Yes, you are one sick individual, and getting ever more unhinged as your chrerished climate cult religion crashes and burns as Mother Nature debunks it because of the lack of any CO2-induced warming. Sad.

          • ROO2

            you now make the slanderous false accusation that I am a sexual predator

            Your comprehension of language is as poor as your comprehension of science.

            Pseudo – Something that is fake, a sham.
            phile – a lover of something.

            Pseudophile = RealOldOne2.

            You are certainly not a sexual predator, you cannot get anything to “stand up” to even the slightest scrutiny.

            That’s almost as bad as your death threats you made against me and my loved ones

            RIP RealOldOne2, is certainly not a death threat to you and has no relevance to anyone else.

            It’s merely an observation of your on-line locked down Disqus persona where you repeatedly run from your own position on science that photons cannot travel in opposing directions.

            Your position on science is that nobody can see their reflection in a mirror.

            Have you wondered why nobody upvotes your comments? 😉

            Yes, you are one sick individual, and getting ever more unhinged as your chrerished[sic] climate cult religion crashes and burns as Mother Nature debunks it because of the lack of any CO2-induced warming.

            There is currently an energy imbalance and the planet is accumulating large amounts of energy.

            Your pseudophile derp and false claims your are in some way are being attacked is all you have left. You are spent. Sadder. 😉

          • evenminded

            I have only been banned on a few echo chamber sites

            LOL, you mean like the Telegraph? Yes, good times.

            Have you come to terms with the fact that the scientifically competent world knows that two objects in thermal equilibrium each radiate to and absorb from one another identical amounts of radiant energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

          • ROO2

            Unfortunately, RealOldOne2 will be unable to read your post until his computer monitor has warmed to a temperature greater than body temperature to allow the one directional flow of photons to occur in the necessary direction to allow him to see your response.

            It’s a strange world that RealOldOne2 inhabits, where he is only able to observe objects that are warmer than 37 degrees Celsius.

          • jmac

            LOL

          • RealOldOne2

            Still denying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and still ignorant of the fact that radiation by itself does not mean a transfer of thermal energy. Pathetic.

            One reply to you. Here’s the science that proves you wrong. You have never refuted any of it. You lose, AGAIN, just like you have lost every time you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws.

            All these references show that your ridiculous claim that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy (333W/m²) to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does(168W/m²) does is wrong. Peer reviewed science which was written explicitly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and climate, Ozawa(2003)’The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, shows the real Earth energy balance: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg It shows NO thermal energy flux/flow/transfer from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth, because that would violate the 2nd Law.

            Your mental model doesn’t change the real world fact that thermal energy/heat is only transferred from hotter objects to colder objects. That pesky 2nd Law, that you deny still rules in the real world that we live in. No temperature difference, NO energy transfer!

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            I’ll show you just some of the dozens of science references again that prove you wrong again. Study harder. I’m not playing your trolling game. I’ve already proven you wrong, the dozens of science references have already proven you wrong, and the real world has proven you wrong. You lose.

            Study this article which you have never refuted, https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/ , especially the first graphic that shows that the energy transfer between two objects radiating at teach other is defined by the resultant blue combined EM wave. No temperature difference, no energy transfer because the resultant blue wave is a standing wave which neither travels nor carries any energy in either direction.

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            Your silly claim of continuous, 100% efficient, lossless transfer of energy back and forth as if the other object was at absolute zero (but it’s not, it’s at the same temperature so there is NO energy flow) violates the universal entropy principle which has never been shown to be violated. This reference explains it:

            Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

            The only way to prove your claim correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much thermal energy/heat as a solar collector and collects just as much thermal energy/heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime. Got it working? No, you haven’t, so the real world proves you wrong:

            “Compare it with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is, if it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG! That’s all there is to it.” – Physicist Richard Feynman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b240PGCMwV0

            This simple heat transfer example proves your claim that colder objects transfer thermal energy to hotter objects is wrong because your wrong understanding ends up violating the 1st Law conservation of energy, as well as violating the 2nd Law because it has the increase in temperature of the object resulting from the transfer of heat from the colder radiation shield to the warmer object: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/httpdailycallercom20170328exxon_urges_trump_to_stay_in_paris_climate_agreement/#comment-3244026340 You have never refuted this example that proves you wrong.

            Then study these 3 dozen science references which prove you wrong again. You have never refuted a single one of them:
            • “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but not in the opposite direction. A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will not flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155

            • “Transfer of Energy from the Ocean to the Atmosphere. – Heat moves in predictable ways, flowing from warmer objects to cooler ones, until both reach the same temperature.” – http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/oceans_weather_climate/energy_oceans_atmosphere.html

            • “Heat energy is transferred as a result of a temperature difference. Energy as heat passes FROM a warm body with higher temperature TO a cold body with lower temperature. The transfer of energy as a result of temperature difference alone is referred to as HEAT FLOW.” – http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/heat-work-energy-d_292.html

            • “Heat does not flow from a cooler to warmer body.” – Clark2010 ‘A Null Hypothesis for CO2’ , peer reviewed science

            • “if the temperature of one object is higher than that of the other object, there will be a transfer of energy from the hotter to the colder object until both objects reach the same temperature.” – http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html , NASA & California Institute of Technology

            • “When you put a hot object in contact with a cold one, heat will flow FROM the warmer TO the cooler. As a result, the warmer one will usually cool down and the cooler one will usually warm up. Eventually they will reach the same temperature and heat flow will stop.” – http://hop.concord.org/h1/phys/h1pf.html , Hands on Physics – Heat and Temperature

            • “Heat flows from hot to cold – The first statement of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics – heat flows spontaneously FROM a hot TO a cold body” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html , Univ of Winnipeg, Canada

            • “Whenever there is a temperature difference between two objects in contact, heat energy will flow FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object until they reach the same temperature.” – http://faculty.wwu.edu/vawter/PhysicsNet/Topics/Thermal/HeatFlow.html , Western Washington Univ , Heat Flow

            • “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            • “In the process of reaching thermodynamic equilibrium, heat is transferred FROM the warmer object TO the cooler object. At thermodynamic equilibrium heat transfer is ZERO.” – http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/Images/heat.gif , NASA – Heat Transfer

            • “the laws of thermodynamics lay the framework for the science of heat transfer. … The second law requires that heat be transferred in the DIRECTION OF DECREASING TEMPERATURE. It is analogous to the electric current flowing in the direction of decreasing voltage or the fluid flowing in the direction of decreasing pressure.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150610140851/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.2.html , India Institute of Technology (the MIT/Stanford of India)

            • “Heat transfer is energy in transit due to temperature difference. Whenever there exists a temperature difference in a medium or between media, heat transfer must occur. The basic requirement for heat transfer is the presence of temperature difference. There can be NO net heat transfer between two mediums that are at the same temperature. The temperature is the driving force for heat transfer, just as the voltage difference is the driving force for electric current flow and pressure difference is the driving force for fluid flow. The rate of heat transfer in a certain direction depends on the magnitude of the temperature gradient (the temperature difference per unit length or the rate of change of temperature) in that direction. The larger the temperature gradient, the higher the rate of heat transfer.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150528053416/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.3.1.html , India Institute of Technology

            • Lecture on 2nd Law & Perpetual Motion Machines of the 2nd Kind – http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu

            • “When you bring two objects of different temperature together, energy will ALWAYS be transferred FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. The objects will exchange thermal energy until thermal equilibrium is reached, ie., until their temperatures are equal. We say heat flows FROM the hotter object TO the cooler object. Heat is energy on the move. … Without an external agent doing work, heat will ALWAYS flow from a hotter to a cooler object.” – http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/101/CH7/Heat%20Flow.htm , Univ of Tenn Physics

            • “heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object. … Just as in the case of the cooling coffee mug, energy is being transferred from the higher temperature objects to the lower temperature object. Once more, this is known as heat – the transfer of energy from the higher temperature object to a lower temperature object.” – http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/thermalP/Lesson-1/What-is-Heat , Physics Classroom

            • “If there is a temperature difference in a system, heat will naturally move from high to low temperatures. The place you find the higher temperature is the heat source. The area where the temperature is lower is the heat sink.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_transfer.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “We’re going to talk about the 2nd law of thermodynamics here. … Heat flows from hot areas to cold, NOT the other way.” , http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_law2.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “Heat moves from one system because of differences of temperature in the systems. If you have two identical systems with equal temperatures, there will be NO flow of energy. When you have two systems with different temperatures, the energy will start to flow. … Areas of high temperature give off energy TO areas of lower temperature.” – http://www.physics4kids.com/files/thermo_intro.html , Physics 4 Kids

            • “When two things are in thermal contact but NO thermal energy is exchanged between them, they’re in thermal equilibrium. If two things are in thermal equilibrium, they have the SAME temperature.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            • “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html


            “Stefan-Boltzmann for Two Blackbodies consider a blackbody B1 of temperature T1 in radiative contact with another blackbody B2 of temperature T2 with T2 > T1 … Q₁₂ = σ(T₂⁴ – T₁⁴) with T₂>T₁. which expresses Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law for the radiative heat transfer from one body in radiative contact with a body of lower temperature. … Notice the requirement in (14.3) that T₂>T₁. In the literature one finds the law without this requirement in the form Q₁₂ = σT₂⁴ – σT₁⁴ , Q₂₁ = σT₁⁴ – σT₂^⁴ = -Q₁₂ (14.5) where Q₂₁ is the heat transfer from B₁ to B₂ as the negative of Q₂₁ .

            This form has led to the misinterpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law as expressing heat transfer from B2 to B1 of size σT₂^⁴ balanced by a transfer of -σT₁⁴ from B₁ to B₂, as if two opposing transfers of heat energy is taking place between the two bodies with their difference determining the net flow. Such a misinterpretation was anticipated an countered in Stefan’s original article [42][Ueber die Beziehung zwischen der Warmestrahlung und der Temperatur (Concerning the relationship between the Thermal radiation and the Temperature)] from 1879:

            ” • The absolute value the heat energy emission from a radiating body cannot be determined by experiment. An experiment can only determine the surplus of emission over absorption, with the absorption determined by the emission from the environment of the body.

            • However, if one has a formula for the emission as a function of temperature (like Stefan-Boltzmann Law), then the absolute value of the emission can be determined, but such a formula has only a hypothetical meaning.”

            Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law (14.3) thus requires T₂>T₁ and does not contain two-way opposing heat transfer, only one-way heat transfer from warm to cold. Unfortunately the misinterpretation has led to a fictitious non-physical “backradiation” underlying CO2 global warming alarmism.” – Johnson2012

            • Promoters of CAGW-by-CO2’s misunderstanding of S-B is also explained here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/okulaer-on-why-atmospheric-radiative.html

            • Further explanation of the errors of CAGW-by-CO2 alarmists’ understanding of thermodynamics: http://climateofsophistry.com/2015/01/21/atmosphere-not-insulation/

            Then study this:
            Any object above zero has a radiation force/power field, and has the potential to transfer heat energy, but can only do so if the other object is at a lower energy state, ie., a lower temperature, than the first object.

            This shows that a surface has an “emissive power” that has an “upper limit”. That upper limit is only reached if the 2nd object is at absolute zero, as the equation shows. If the other object is at the same temperature, the emissive powers cancel and there is NO heat transfer, as my multiple sources state. – http://web.archive.org/web/20150510195517/http://www.cdeep.iitb.ac.in/nptel/Mechanical/Heat%20and%20Mass%20Transfer/Conduction/Module%201/main/1.4.3.html

            WolframResearch says: “Radiation pressure is defined as the force per unit area exerted by electromagnetic radiation” – http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html

            Heat energy spontaneously flows only in one direction, from higher energy states to lower energy states. To do otherwise would violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            “this would involve the spontaneous transfer of heat from a cool object to a hot one, in violation of the 2nd Law” – http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node79.html

            The fact that emissive powers of two objects which are at exactly the same temperature cancel is evident because heat flow goes to ZERO. That means the emissive power transfers NO heat energy from either object to the other object when the temperature of the two objects is exactly the same. That is effectively cancelling the emissive power of one surface by an equal but opposite emissive power of the other surface.

            “With radiation, electromagnetic waves carry the energy.” – http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/transferring-heat-through-radiation.html

            Waves can cancel or reflect back. “the superposition of a wave that has an electric field in one direction (positive) in space and time with a wave of the same frequency having an electric field in the opposite direction (negative) in space and time leads to cancellation and no resultant wave at all (zero intensity). … out-of-phase superposition yielding zero intensity, is destructive interference.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20150621090852/http://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetic-radiation/Superposition-and-interference

            Look at the electromagnetic wave vector slide, http://physics.info/em-waves/poynting.svg . You see the poynting vectors that AlecM describes. Two facing surfaces at equal temperatures have equal frequency and equal amplitude electric, magnetic, and poynting vectors, but in opposite directions. All the vectors cancel out, and there is no heat energy flow/transfer.

            The entire reference of that slide is here: http://physics.info/em-waves/ Go to the end where it talks about radiation pressure, similar to the WolframResource reference that I cited, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RadiationPressure.html . Equal but opposite radiation pressure results in no heat energy flow. Equal but opposite radiation force results in no heat energy flow.

            • “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            • “But the internal energy of a system is still proportional to its temperature. We can therefore monitor changes in the internal energy of a system by watching what happens to the temperature of the system. Whenever the temperature of the system increases we can conclude that the internal energy of the system has also increased.” – Purdue Univ., http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/topicreview/bp/ch21/chemical.php

            Some 2nd Law deniers admit that heat doesn’t flow from colder objects to warmer objects, but that energy does. This is nonsense, since heat is energy in transit:

            • “Heat may be defined as energy in transit from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess “heat”; the appropriate term for the microscopic energy in an object is internal energy. The internal energy may be increased by transferring energy to the object from a higher temperature (hotter) object – this is properly called heating.” – Georgia State Univ. Physics & Astronomy, http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/heat.html

            You lose, AGAIN!

          • evenminded

            Why would I ever deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

            Both Maxwell and I fully understand the the 2nd law does not preclude two objects from emitting and absorbing radiant energy to and from one another.

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Only a scientifically illiterate moron like you would think that this is not the case.

          • ROO2

            Ozawa(2003)’The Second Law of Thermodynamics and the Global Climate System’, shows the real Earth energy balance:

            So you are suggesting that the hot surface of the planet radiates only 40 Wm^-2, whereas the far colder upper atmosphere radiates 240 Wm^-2.

            That energy radiated from the surface being lost to space given the atmospheric window is around 40 Wm^-2.

            The pseudophile strikes again.

          • RealOldOne2

            Dan ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/secnavy_rolling_back_social_change_will_weaken_military_the_daily_caller_17/#comment-3096758143 ), you still don’t understand radiation and heat transfer.

            “So you are suggesting that the hot surface of the planet radiates only 40 Wm^-2, whereas the far colder upper atmosphere radiates 240 Wm^-2.”]
            No, I have never suggested or claimed that. Like Ozawa says, only ~40W/m² of thermal energy is transferred away from the surface via radiation. ~102W/m² is transferred away from the surface via convective latent and sensible heat. Those two heat transfers along with the 98W/m² of heat the atmosphere absorbs from the Sun, comprise the 240W/m of heat that is radiated and transferred to ~0K space.

            I’ve showed you this over and over again, and you have never been able to refute it, yet you stick to your 2nd Law denying pseudoscience of claiming that the cold atmosphere transfers more thermal energy to the Earth’s surface than the Sun does, which is ludicrous.

            In addition to the dozens of science references above which you have never been able to refute, two simple heat transfer examples show that your claim that colder objects transfer thermal energy to hotter objects violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

            The first example with a radiation shield with an emissivity=1 is found here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/williamsondailynews/americans_should_welcome_the_end_of_the_clean_power_plan/#comment-3260423722

            The second example with a radiation shield with an emissivity=0.1 is found here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/trump_will_definitely_pull_out_of_paris_climate_deal_ex_aide_says/#comment-3132393323

            You have never refuted ANY of this science that proves you wrong. You lose every time you deny the 2nd Law. The only way for you to prove your claim correct is to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector collects, and collects just as much heat at night as a solar collector collects during the daytime. You can’t, so the real world proves you wrong.

          • ROO2

            “So you are suggesting that the hot surface of the planet radiates only 40 Wm^-2, whereas the far colder upper atmosphere radiates 240 Wm^-2.”]
            No, I have never suggested or claimed that. Like Ozawa says, only ~40W/m² of thermal energy is transferred away from the surface via radiation.

            Atsumu Ohmura, co-author of the Ozawa paper, professor emeritus of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science at ETH Zurich, and the person who initiated the Baseline Surface Radiation Network clearly states:

            “The exchange of energy between the atmosphere and the surface in the longwave spectrum is based on the thermal emission of the earth’s surface (outgoing longwave radiation) and the atmospheric emission directed to the surface (incoming longwave radiation). These fluxes are the largest components of the surface energy balance…”

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281995%29008%3C1309%3AVOGCMR%3E2.0.CO%3B2

            The empirically observed mean energy from the atmosphere given in Table 3, for a site in Switzerland, is given as 278 Wm^-2.

            Your cited scientist concludes:

            “The surface incoming longwave radiation in the ECHAM3 models (330-335 Wm^-2) is underestimated by 10-20 Wm^-2, an amount similar to the shortwave overestimate. This was concluded from comparisons with the measurements available in GEBA.”

            Ozawa says, only ~40W/m² of thermal energy is transferred away from the surface via radiation

            Indeed, the thermal energy transfer being the net of the bidirectional energy fluxes as Ohmura shows.

            Ohmura also shows by empirical measurement that the atmosphere radiates more energy at the surface than the Sun does over a 24 hour period.

            A most entertaining demonstration of your pseudophilia. Thanks.

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor dishonest Dan aka ROO2 , the real pseudophile, you once again expose your 2nd Law denial and your ignorance of radiation and heat transfer. So sad.

            “the bidirectional energy fluxes”
            In a unified radiation field between two objects, there is no bidirectional thermal energy flow. The flow of energy is unidirectional, from the hotter object to the colder object, as those dozens of science references that you have never been able to refute show. It is unidirectional because the opposing EM waves interact to form a single resultant EM wave in the direction FROM the hotter object TO the colder object. The science of this is explained here: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/
            , another reference that you have not been able to refute the science presented.

            Sorry poor pseudophile serial impersonator Dan loses again. You lose EVERY time you deny the laws of thermodynamics.
            I tried, but I can’t fix your stupid.

            ps. Let me know when you get your backradiation collector working that collects twice as much heat as a solar collector and collects just as much heat at night as a solar collector does during the daytime! Haven’t collected any heat yet huh? That pesky 2nd Law again! You are such a JOKE! Hahahahaha

          • ROO2

            The flow of energy is unidirectional, from the hotter object to the colder object, as those dozens of science references that you have never been able to refute show.

            That would be the numerous weblinks and teaching texts of University Professors that clearly show you to be wrong, predominantly as a result of your inability to comprehend science and basic written English.

            It is unidirectional because the opposing EM waves

            The pseudophile strikes again!

            If you have opposing EM waves you have an opposing energy flux and therefore bidirectional energy flows.

            You are claiming that the opposing EM waves exist, therefore the body emitting such waves is losing energy by emission of EM radiation.

            You are stating that the cooler body is both emitting and receiving energy, that bidirectional energy transfer is occurring.

            the opposing EM waves interact to form a single resultant EM wave in the direction FROM the hotter object TO the colder object

            Second strike for the pseudophile!

            Here’s a really simple question for you to avoid answering, before you return back into your hole:

            Two objects in the vacuum of space both simultaneously emit a 15 micron wavelength photon towards each other. The energy of both photons is 1.32*10^-20 Joules. What happens to that 2.64*10^-20 Joules of energy when those two photons interact?

            You might like to have regard to the First Law of Thermodynamics before answering.

            The science of this is explained here

            Third strike for the pseudophile!

            Your “science” is an internet blog site written by a geologist you clearly has not published anything in the peer reviewed literature on the subject matter.

            I’m not sure if you are grooming him or he is grooming you?

          • Sam Gilman

            I have a question about your model.

            Let’s say we have object A and object B. Object A is hotter than object B, and in your model, this means that A radiates to B, but B doesn’t radiate to A.

            So A is radiating thermal energy.

            Then, object C is placed next to object A. Object C is hotter than object A. So in your model, object C is radiating thermal energy to object A, but object A isn’t radiating any thermal energy that would reach object C.

            So A has stopped radiating thermal energy.

            Here’s what I don’t get. How does object A know that object C is there?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Object A is hotter than object B, and in your model this means that A radiates to B, but B doesn’t radiate to A”
            No, my model doesn’t say that at all. Both objects radiate, but there is only one unidirectional transfer of energy, because the opposing EM waves of the two objects interact to form a single resultant EM wave which is the energy transfer.

            When two objects are at exactly the same temperature, they both radiate toward each other, but there is NO transfer of thermal energy from either object to the other object. That is because the exactly equal but opposite EM waves interact to form a standing wave which neither travels or carries energy.

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

          • RealOldOne2

            My reply got posted before it was finished. Refresh to see the entire comment.

          • ROO2

            The second example with a radiation shield with an emissivity=0.1 is found here:

            LOL.

            So now you are describing a perfect blackbody that does not radiate according to its temperature, a reflective surface that suddenly an inexplicably turns into a blackbody and absorbs all incident radiation, and you still cannot account for the energy reflected from the mirrored blanket.

            The internet pseudophile that is RealOldOne2 strikes again!

          • RealOldOne2

            “So now you are describing a perfect blackbody that does not radiate according to its temperature, a reflective surface that suddenly an inexplicably turns into a blackbody and absorbs all incident radiation, and you still account for the energy reflected from the mirrored blanket.”
            Poor child, throwing a name calling tantrum because I once AGAIN exposed your ignroance of radiation and heat transfer. And you once again demonstrate that you are projecting, because everyone can see that you are the pseudophile.

            Poor Dan aka ROO2, my 2nd Law denying serial impersonator (documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524 and here: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fokulaer.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2Fthe-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt%2F%23comment-867%3A5J1vtR1BiResJEY2esCMp-04hMY&cuid=932754 ) still exposing your ignorance of radiation and heat transfer.

            The perfect blackbody DOES radiate according to its temperature. You ignorantly dismiss the fact that there is a non-absolute-zero object now in its radiation field which has an opposing EM wave which means that thermal energy transferred away from the object is reduced. You FAIL.

            The reflective surface does NOT turn into a blackbody is only absorbs 10% of radiation that is incident upon it. You are the one who ignorantly believes that the reflective surface radiates like a blackbody. You FAIL.

            All the energy transferring through the system is accounted for by me. When the radiation shield is added, the energy transferred away from the blackbody is reduced an accumulates in the object until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. At the new thermal equilibrium only 240J/sec is being transferred away from the now hotter object, transferring away as much energy as is being produced internally(equilibrium) Your false at the new equilibrium view creates energy out of nothing, violating the 1st law, and it has the increase in temperature of the object coming from the transfer of thermal energy from a colder object (radiation shield) to a warmer object which is a clear violation of the 2nd Law. You FAIL.

            Yet another display of dishonest Dan’s denial of the 2nd Law and your misunderstanding of radiation because you deny that EM waves interact to produce a single resultant wave, and your misunderstanding of heat transfer because you deny the S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴).

            Sorry dishonest Dan, aka ROO2, but I cannot fix your stupid!

          • ROO2

            Poor child, throwing a name calling tantrum because I once AGAIN exposed your ignroance[sic] of radiation and heat transfer.

            That has to be the biggest dodge of the day for you. Given the question contained some actual science I can see why you were so adverse to provide any response and stick to your pseudophilia.

            At the new thermal equilibrium only 240J/sec is being transferred away from the now hotter object

            Of which the reflective blanket absorbs 24 J/s because 90% of the incident EM is reflected.

            Yet your reflective blanket is emitting 240 J/s to space from it’s opposing side.

            That’s a rather amazing bit of pseudophilia there RealOldOne2.

            You are conjuring up 216 Joules of energy for the blanket from what? Unicorn farts?

            you deny that EM waves interact to produce a single resultant wave

            Same example for you to provide an answer:

            Two objects in the vacuum of space both simultaneously emit a 15 micron wavelength photon towards each other. The energy of both photons is 1.32*10^-20 Joules. What happens to that 2.64*10^-20 Joules of energy when those two photons interact?

            Poor, poor pseudophile RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ poor Dan the pseudophile.
            Did you major in pseudophilia?
            You sure do like fake things, like:
            1) fake IR radiation which you claim is transferred to objects but doesn’t increase the objects temperature or internal energy like real IR radiation does.
            2) fake EM waves which do not interact with each the like real</b? EM waves do.
            Yes, you are quite the pseudophile! LOL

          • ROO2

            fake IR radiation which you claim is transferred to objects but doesn’t increase the objects temperature

            That depends wholly on the rate of emission of the object absorbing that energy. Clearly if the rate of emission of energy is greater than the rate of absorption, then the absorbed energy will not increase the objects temperature.

            That’s just elementary math that you are unable to comprehend.

            But given that energy flux from cold to hot does occur, then it is entirely feasible, and indeed predicted and then verified through empirical experiment that if you look on a small enough scale that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is violated. It is after all a statistical construct, something that is way beyond your comprehension.

            It’s rather like your claimed black body radiator that does not radiate according to its temperature, your shiny reflective radiation blanket that absorbs all incident radiation, and you woeful inability to account for energy from your pseudophilic claims of two photons interacting.

            Poor, poor, poor pseudophile RealOldOne2.

          • RealOldOne2
          • ROO2

            Your inability to refute my simple heat transfer examples.

            You are clearly deluded.

            It is you that is claiming that your black body no longer radiates according to its temperature.

            It is you that is claiming that your mirrored blanket absorbs all incident energy, and magically becomes a black body.

            It is you that is claiming that two photons of defined energy mutually annihilate, destroying that energy is defiance of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

            It is you that cannot account for energy reflected from a mirrored surface.

            Your pseudophilia is demonstrable nonsense. Many of your own links discredit your own position. The fact that you fail to realise this can only result from the obvious fact that you are really not very bright, hence you inability to understand the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            They are clearly beyond your comprehension ability.

          • RealOldOne2

            “You are clearly deluded.”
            Poor, poor Dan aka ROO2, my serial impersonator, there you go projecting your mental state onto me. Everyone can see that you are deluded because you continue to deny the reality of all the science that I have presented which proves your 2nd Law denying claim that cold objects transfer thermal energy/heat to warmer objects. And you continue to delusionally tell lies about what I have claimed as I will show by your current false claims.

            “It is you that is claiming that your blackbody no longer radiates according to its temperature.”
            I’m not nor ever have claimed that. In every example I’ve used every blackbody radiates according to its temperature, but when there is another non-absolute-zero object radiating back at it that blackbody does not transfer energy away from itself at the same rate as if that other object wasn’t there, because there is an opposing EM wave that interacts with the EM wave form a single resultant EM wave which determines how much and in which single direction the transfer of energy takes place. You are shown to be making a false claim (lie) about what I claim. You lose.

            “It is you that is claiming that your mirrored blanked absorbs all incidence energy, and magically becomes a black body.”
            I have never claimed that, and my heat transfer example does not do that. I’ve explained to you before that the radiation shield with ϵ=0.1 absorbs only 10% of the energy that is incident upon it, and only emits as an object with an ϵ=0.1. You misrepresent my heat transfer example because of your ignorance of radiation and heat transfer. Your false claim is shown to be false. You lose.

            “It is you that is claiming that two photons of defined energy mutually annihilate, destroying that energy is defiance of the 1st law of thermodynamics.”
            I’ve never claimed that. I just accept the scientific fact that two exactly equal but opposing EM waves (from equal temperature objects) interact and create single resultant EM standing wave that neither travels, nor carries energy as this science references states:

            “If you have a source emitting an EM wave through a certain space and another source emitting another EM wave through the same space at the same frequency, but in the opposite direction, you get a standing wave. A standing wave does not travel or carry energy, so its average Poynting vector is zero. You can think of it as the Poynting vector of the one wave canceling the other.” – PhysicsForums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/cancellation-of-poynting-vector-components.507450/

            T graphic showing this standing wave is shown in this reference: https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/02/19/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-4/ That reference also explains why your claimed bi-directional energy transfer in a unified radiation field does not and cannot exist in the real world. You’ve never refuted any of the science in that article.

            Your claim of mutual annihilation is based on your ignorance of radiation and denial of EM wave interaction. No energy is annihilated, it is just opposed by an equal radiation pressure/force. It’s like when you have two tanks with equal water levels connected with a pipe at the bottom, http://www.noshockzone.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Water-Tanks-No-Flow-300×247.jpg , there is pressure at the outlet of each tank, but there is no flow of water from either tank to the other because the two opposing pressures cancel. The pressures aren’t annihilated, they just oppose each other so there is no flow of water in either direction. You claim that there is continuous bi-directional flow from each tank to the other, as it the other tank’s pressure at the pipe opening was zero. Your wrong claim of bidirectional energy flow makes a similar false assumption that the other objects temperature is zero, when it is not. So likewise, when two equal but opposing radiation pressures oppose each other, the pressures cancel (standing EM wave)and there is no flow of energy in either direction, ie. energy transfer ceases, just like this reference states:

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            Your claim of continuous energy transfer back and forth between two equal temperature objects at the rate as if the other object was at absolute zero violates the universal Entropy principle. It would require a continuous, eternal, 100% efficient, lossless energy transfer, or a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd Kind, which can’t happen in the real world, as this thermodynamics lecture shows: http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu
            This science reference also states why that can not happen in the real world:

            “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

            “You cannot account for energy reflected from a mirrored surface.”
            False, I have accounted for all the energy reflecting from a mirrored surface, as it creates an opposing EM wave.

            “Your pseudophilia is demonstrable nonsense.”
            You are projecting again pseudophile Dan. You are the one who believes in fake, fantasy heat transfer from colder objects to warmer objects that can not be experimentally demonstrated, so your fake fantasy pseudoscience beliefs are demonstrable nonsense.

            “The fact that you fail to realize this can only result from the obvious fact that you are really not very bright, hence your inability to understand the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They are clearly beyond your comprehension ability.”
            Perfect projection there dishonest Dan, because all of those things are true of you, not me, proven by the following:

            • This diagram of heat flux components of the Earth’s energy balance from peer reviewed science, which was written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and global climate, proves you wrong because there is NO energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            • My seven quotes from Maxwell, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244763755 , prove that Maxwell agrees with my understanding, and he disagrees with yours. You have failed to rebut a single one of those 7 Maxwell quotes which prove you wrong. You lose.
            • My 30+ 2nd Law references, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244017231 , agree with me and prove you wrong. You have failed to refute a single one of those references. You lose.
            • My heat transfer example, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244026340 , proves that I am correct and that you are wrong. You have failed to refute anything in my heat transfer example which proves your wrong view violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You lose.
            • You have been unable to answer my questions which prove you wrong, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244657794 . You lose.
            • You are unable to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector which collects any thermal energy from the cold atmosphere proves that that there is no real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth as you claim. You have failed to answer the question of why you can’t collect any backradiation energy if it is a real thermal energy transfer. You lose.

            • So to sum up, you have failed to refute a single bit of the mountain of evidence that I have posted which proves you wrong, and you have failed to provide a bit of evidence that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects You lose AGAIN. You lose every time you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics.

            Yet again Dishonest Dan, I have totally exposed your scientific illiteracy. It get’s you so frothing mad that you tell lies about me, that you serially impersonate me, as documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524 and here: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fokulaer.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2Fthe-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt%2F%23comment-867%3A5J1vtR1BiResJEY2esCMp-04hMY&cuid=932754 .
            And you have exposed that your ROO2 account which you created after being blocked is just a sockpuppet account for your original Dan account. You proved that when you forgot to change to your sockpuppet account and replied to me as Dan, and you owned ROO2’s comments and quotes. You outed yourself, and it’s documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/secnavy_rolling_back_social_change_will_weaken_military_the_daily_caller_17/#comment-3096758143

            You are a totally discredited, climate cult troll who is scientifically illiterate and serially dishonest. You now wank on about emissivity of radiation shields, when you were totally ignorant of the fact that emissivity of a radiation shield was even relevant, as your exact words were:

            ROO2 aka Dan: “I’m sorry, how does emissivity have any bearing whatsoever.” Here is a screen capture of where you said it: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f84f3577be9338808dde1bc6413663ef46bea619b28b87f2ba8d3c291c5a479c.png

            I provide irrefutable evidence that what I say is true. You have provided no science evidence or experimental evidence for your 2nd law denying pseudosciene or your dishonest lies about me. They are all based on your ignorance and misunderstanding of fundamental, basic science.

            As always, it was fun exposing your ignorance of science and your serial dishonesty.
            Bye troll.

          • ROO2

            In every example I’ve used every blackbody radiates according to its temperature

            That’s demonstrable nonsense. You specially state in your previous comment, that at 255K your blackbody is radiating 240 Wm^-2, you introduce a radiation blanket and the blackbody raises in temperature to 540 K and it radiates the same amount of energy 240 Wm^-2.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/trump_will_definitely_pull_out_of_paris_climate_deal_ex_aide_says/#comment-3132393323

            The following link is above your level of comprehension of scientific matters, but stick with it:

            “The hotter an object is, the more infrared radiation it emits.”

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/heatingandcooling/heatingrev1.shtml

            But not in the bizarre world of RealOldOne2 pseudophilia, oh no. Two blackbodys at very different temperatures are claimed to emit the same energy – YOU ARE WRONG

            Even funnier is your comment “We now surround the object with a reflective blanket/radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system…As soon as the radiation blanket is added, the thermal energy transfer away from the object to the blanket drops to 24W/m².”

            *Guffaw*

            So now you have a blackbody with a temperature of 255K radiating to a heat sink at 0K but only emitting 24 Wm^-2.

            The fundamental science shows your pseudoscience for what it is. Your house of cards comes tumbling down with even the slightest scrutiny.

            So, from your above link it appears that you have no understanding of thermodynamics, wave theory, quantum mechanics, or the scientific content of published papers and the citations which they quote.

            Ohmura and Gilgen, from their Table 1:

            6 incoming longwave pyrradiometer or up facing radiation
            7 outgoing longwave pyrgeometer or down facing radiation
            8 longwave net radiation difference of 6 and 7

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080%3C0831%3ATGEBA%3E2.0.CO%3B2

            So the measure a downwelling energy flux and an upwelling flux, the different between the two being the net radiation flux, as detailed in the paper you cite.

            Bravo, King of Derp, ruler of the land of pseudophilia.

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTFLMAO @ your continued demonstration of your ignorance of radiation and heat transfer and your pseudophilia as you continue your handwaving clown dance of obfuscation. Hilarious stupidity. Bravo King of pseudophilia and serial impersonation!

            “the blackbody raises in temperature to 540 K and it radiates the same amount of energy 240 Wm^-2”
            You poor scientifically illiterate and serial impersonating fool, you still don’t understand the difference between radiating and transferring thermal energy/heat. Until you can do that, you will be mired in your stupidity and ignorance.

            The 540K object emits an EM wave of ~4800W/m² but there is an opposing EM wave of ~4560W/m², so the EM waves interact/superimpose to create the energy transfer from the object to the radiation shield of 240W/m².

            The rest of your comment just continues your ignorance of the fact that radiating and transferring thermal energy are not the same thing. Your doubling down on your stupid is a losing strategy. You are WRONG and you know it because all this science that I have presented proves that you are wrong:
            • This diagram of heat flux components of the Earth’s energy balance from peer reviewed science, which was written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and global climate, proves you wrong because there is NO energy flux from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            • My seven quotes from Maxwell, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244763755 , prove that Maxwell agrees with my understanding, and he disagrees with yours. You have failed to rebut a single one of those 7 Maxwell quotes which prove you wrong. You lose.
            • My 30+ 2nd Law references, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244017231 , agree with me and prove you wrong. You have failed to refute a single one of those references. You lose.
            • My heat transfer example, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244026340 , proves that I am correct and that you are wrong. You have failed to refute anything in my heat transfer example which proves your wrong view violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You lose.
            • You have been unable to answer my questions which prove you wrong, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244657794 . You lose.
            • You are unable to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector which collects any thermal energy from the cold atmosphere proves that that there is no real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth as you claim. You have failed to answer the question of why you can’t collect any backradiation energy if it is a real thermal energy transfer. You lose.

            • So to sum up, you have failed to refute a single bit of the mountain of evidence that I have posted which proves you wrong, and you have failed to provide a bit of evidence that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects You lose AGAIN. You lose every time you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics.

            Yet again Dishonest Dan, I have totally exposed your scientific illiteracy. It get’s you so frothing mad that you tell lies about me, that you serially impersonate me, as documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524 and here: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fokulaer.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2Fthe-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt%2F%23comment-867%3A5J1vtR1BiResJEY2esCMp-04hMY&cuid=932754 .
            And you have exposed that your ROO2 account which you created after being blocked is just a sockpuppet account for your original Dan account. You proved that when you forgot to change to your sockpuppet account and replied to me as Dan, and you owned ROO2’s comments and quotes. You outed yourself, and it’s documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/secnavy_rolling_back_social_change_will_weaken_military_the_daily_caller_17/#comment-3096758143

            You are a totally discredited, climate cult troll who is scientifically illiterate and serially dishonest. You now wank on about emissivity of radiation shields, when you were totally ignorant of the fact that emissivity of a radiation shield was even relevant, as your exact words were:

            ROO2 aka Dan: “I’m sorry, how does emissivity have any bearing whatsoever.” Here is a screen capture of where you said it: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f84f3577be9338808dde1bc6413663ef46bea619b28b87f2ba8d3c291c5a479c.png

            I provide irrefutable evidence that what I say is true. You have provided no science evidence or experimental evidence for your 2nd law denying pseudosciene or your dishonest lies about me. They are all based on your ignorance and misunderstanding of fundamental, basic science.

            As always, it was fun exposing your ignorance of science and your serial dishonesty.
            Bye troll.

          • ROO2

            you still don’t understand the difference between radiating and transferring thermal energy

            If an object is radiating it is transferring thermal energy. Are you now saying that photons are energyless? LOL.

          • RealOldOne2

            “If an object is radiating it is transferring thermal energy.”
            ROTFLMAO @ dishonest Dan aka ROO2, the King Of Pseudophilia doubling down on your ignorance of science. Hilarious level of STUPID doing that!

            “Consider two objects at different temperatures that are brought together. Energy is transferred from the hotter one to the cooler one, until both objects reach thermal equilibrium (ie., both become the same temperature). … The transfer of energy is caused by the temperature difference, and ceases once the temperatures are equal.” – https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/introduction-110/heat-as-energy-transfer-390-10942/ online Physics Textbook

            Your claim of continuous energy transfer back and forth between two equal temperature objects at the rate as if the other object was at absolute zero violates the universal Entropy principle. It would require a continuous, eternal, 100% efficient, lossless energy transfer, or a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd Kind, which can’t happen in the real world, as this thermodynamics lecture shows: http://www.myopencourses.com/video/l10-second-law-of-thermodynamics-heat-engines-refrigerators-and-heat-pumps-kelvin-planck-and-clausiu
            This science reference also states why that can not happen in the real world:

            “Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: … How the Universe Works … In trying to synthesize the ideas of Kelvin, Joule, and Carnot – that is, that energy is conserved in thermodynamic processes and that heat always “flows downhill” in temperature – Rudolf Clausius invented the idea of entropy in such a way that the change in entropy is the ratio of the heat exchanged in any process and the absolute temperature at which that heat is exchanged. That is, he defined the change in entropy DS of an object which either absorbs or gives off heat Q at some temperature T as simply the ratio Q/T. With this new concept, he was able to put the idea that heat will always flow from the higher to the lower temperature into a mathematical framework. If a quantity of heat Q flows naturally from a higher temperature object to a lower temperature object – something that we ALWAYS observe, the entropy gained by the cooler object during the transfer is greater than the entropy lost by the warmer one since Q/Tc.>|Q|/Th. So he could state that the principle that drives all natural thermodynamic processes is that the effect of any heat transfer is a net increase in the combined entropy of the two objects. And that new principle establishes THE direction that natural processes proceed. All natural processes occur in such a way that the total entropy of the universe increases. The only heat transfer that could occur and leave the entropy of the universe unchanged is one that occurs between two objects which are at the same temperature – but that is not possible, since no heat would transfer. So a reversible isothermal heat transfer that would leave the entropy of the universe constant is just an idealization – and hence could not occur. All other processes – meaning, all real processes – have the effect of increasing the entropy of the universe. That is the second law of thermodynamics.” – California Polytechnic State University, http://www.calpoly.edu/~rbrown/entropy.html

            “photons”
            LOL!

            “The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them, is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’. Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘specific emitters’ and ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose for bringing them in to begin with.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

            Poor King of Pseudophilia FAILS again! Hahahahahahahah You are such a freaking JOKE!

          • ROO2

            “If an object is radiating it is transferring thermal energy.”
            ROTFLMAO @ dishonest Dan aka ROO2, the King Of Pseudophilia doubling down on your ignorance of science. Hilarious level of STUPID doing that!

            The physical process of radiating is the emission of photon(s). Photons are a quanta of energy. If an object is radiating it is emitting photons which carry energy away from the body radiating, this is the transfer of thermal energy away for the radiating body.

            You are monumentally daft and hard of understanding.

            online Physics Textbook

            “Radiation is a natural process of heat transfer; everything is constantly radiating heat. When a system is at equilibrium, we do not notice this exchange of energy because every object absorbs and emits precisely the amount of energy it receives, but this equilibrium is dynamic–the exchange is always taking place.”

            https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/global-warming-114/greenhouse-gases-and-global-warming-401-5591/

            Thanks. So another source that agrees with Maxwell, me, all of the scientific community. That just leaves you and your blog writing geologist friend.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ the KING of Pseudophilia once again obfuscating by introducing photons to dodge the simple THERMODYNAMICS problem! Hahahahahahaha

            “The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them, is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’. Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘specific emitters’ and ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose for bringing them in to begin with.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

            Another nice display of your pseudophilia there Dan, aka ROO2, my dishonest serial impersonator.

          • ROO2

            once again obfuscating by introducing photons to dodge the simple THERMODYNAMICS problem

            You clearly do not understand physics, that is more than evident.

            Quantum theory was well established before you were even born.

            That tells everyone that you have had no scientific education to any level in your lifetime.

            It’s hardly unsurprising though. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            “Quantum theory…”
            LOL @ the KING of Pseudophilic FAKE-science obuscating once again!

            Way to go KING Psueudophile!

          • ROO2

            “”Radiation is a natural process of heat transfer; everything is constantly radiating heat. When a system is at equilibrium, we do not notice this exchange of energy because every object absorbs and emits precisely the amount of energy it receives, but this equilibrium is dynamic–the exchange is always taking place.””

            https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/heat-and-heat-transfer-13/global-warming-114/greenhouse-gases-and-global-warming-401-5591/

            Your own citation. Which part are you struggling to comprehend?

            It’s reasonably cheap for you to sign up. Your education needs to start somewhere, why not now?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ the KING of Pseudophilia FAKE-science, who believes in perpetual motion machine of the 2nd Kind! Sorry pseudophilc troll, but that can’t exist in the real world because it violates the Entropy principle.

            Poor dupe.

          • ROO2

            Ah so now quantum theory is “fake” science?

            Your education must never have touched on such subjects. It shows too.

            You’ve also run away from the reference that you cited too.

            You certainly do some running Forrest.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ King Pseudophile!
            This is a simple THERMODYNAMICS problem. You are doing a clown dance of obfuscation to avoid admitting that:

            “The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them, is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’. Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘specific emitters’ and ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose for bringing them in to begin with.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

            Another nice display of your pseudophilia, love of fake things, there Dan, aka ROO2, my dishonest serial impersonator.

          • ROO2

            So you are suggesting that the concept of blackbody radiation can be rejected from the branch of physics called thermodynamics.

            Well, you have a tall order ahead of you.

            First you have to convince every single physics society and institute in the world, and you and your geology blog site friend have made zero progress to date, for obvious reasons.

            When you two clowns decides to leave the circus do remember to let everyone know. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ the King of Pseudophiles, still fabricating your logical fallacy arguments because you can’t experimentally demonstrate your absurdly stupid claim that the cold atmosphere is the primary source of thermal energy that is transferred to the Earth’s surface.

            You lose again, just like you lose every time you deny the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!

          • ROO2

            So you are suggesting that the concept of blackbody radiation can be rejected from the branch of physics called thermodynamics.

            Well, you have a tall order ahead of you.

            First you have to convince every single physics society and institute in the world, and you and your geology blog site friend have made zero progress to date, for obvious reasons.

            When you two clowns decides to leave the circus do remember to let everyone know. 😉

            Still waiting.

          • ROO2

            And trying to take part of my comment out of context really does show the desperation of your current denial.

            The context of that comment is that you claim a mirrored radiation blanket reflects no energy.

            You cannot get more stupid than that.

            Bye troll.

            Keep on running pseudophile, no doubt off to another thread to try and groom some gullible people.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ dishonest Dan aka ROO2, the King of Pseudophilia and the King of serial impersonation!

            “And trying to take part of my connent out of context..”

            Poor, poor Dan, aka ROO2, you are lying once again. I didn’t take your comment out of context.

            Babbling your ignorance as usual. Hilarious!

          • ROO2

            you are lying once again. I didn’t take your comment out of context.

            Then you can post a link to the full conversation as evidence for your claims of lying.

            Unless of course, you are serially dishonest.

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor dishonest Dan, the KING of Pseudophilic FAKE-science dodging!
            My comment above, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/02/21/willie-soon-takes-corporate-cash-for-science/#comment-3280468237 , explicitly states that there is “~4,320W/m² reflected from the ϵ=0.1 blanket”

            So you WERE lying when you said: “you claim that a mirrored radiation blanket reflects no energy”.

            Hilarious level of dishonesty there Dan!

          • ROO2

            The 540K object emits an EM wave of ~4800W/m² but there is an opposing EM wave of ~4560W/m², so the EM waves interact/superimpose to create the energy transfer from the object to the radiation shield of 240W/m².

            So, the 540K object is radiating 4800 Joules of energy every second, but is only being supplied with 240 Joules of energy per second from the heat source.

            Yet you claim that it is in equilibrium.

            Where is the 4650 Joules per second of energy coming from to maintain equilibrium?

            Bye troll.

            Keep running Forrest.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ the King of Pseudophilia and the King of serial impersonation! Hilarious that you continue to revel in exposing your ignorance of science and stupidity.

            Silly scientifically illiterate troll, you are still exposing your ignorance that radiating is not necessarily a transfer of thermal energy. Wow, that stupid must really hurt! Hahahahahaha

            240W/m² of energy is being received from its internal energy source and 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away from it’s surface, so it is in thermal equilibrium. That is the ONLY energy being transferred between the object and the radiation shield in our system. So sad that you aren’t intelligent enough to realize that.

            “So where is the 4650 Joules per second of energy coming from to maintain equilibrium?”
            As I’ve told you many times, but you aren’t intelligent enough to understand it, the only energy transfer from the object is 240W/m² , which is the single resultant EM wave resulting from the ~4800W/m² intensity EM wave of the object and the 4560W/m² (~4320W/m² reflected from the ϵ=0.1 blanket + 240W/m² emitted from the ~454K ϵ=0.1 blanket) EM wave toward the object.

            Keep denying the 2nd Law, oh King of Pseudophilia. It exposes you as a scientifically illiterate fool.

          • ROO2

            the only energy transfer from the object is 240W/m² , which is the single resultant EM wave resulting from the ~4800W/m² intensity EM wave of the object and the 4560W/m² (~4320W/m² reflected from the ϵ=0.1 blanket

            So the blanket does reflect EM energy.

            And now you have your bidirectional energy transfer, which you claimed could not exist, add in the EM energy that the blanket thermally radiates too.

            I’m glad also that you admit the blackbody is losing 4800 Joules per second too from the process of emission of photons.

            Can you be more explicit on what happens to the (4560W/m² (~4320W/m² reflected from the ϵ=0.1 blanket))?

            This is energy that you state has been emitted by the black body and reflected by the mirrored blanket.

            What happens to this energy after reflection?

          • RealOldOne2

            “And now you have your bidirectional energy transfer”
            ROTFLMAO @ your continued display of scientific illiteracy, denying the fact that EM waves interact/superimpose to create a single resultant EM wave which travels in ONE direction, FROM the higher energy/temperature object TO the lower energy object.

            Yet another fine display of pseudophilia, oh believer in FAKE-science!

          • ROO2

            denying the fact that EM waves interact/superimpose to create a single resultant EM wave which travels in ONE direction, FROM the higher energy/temperature object TO the lower energy object.

            So now you have invented a “standing” wave that “travels”.

            Is there no end to you pseudophilia?

            FROM the higher energy/temperature object TO the lower energy object

            Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms for the difference between the interaction of two identical photons from both same temperature and different temperature emitters?

            Perhaps you could explain how a photon from a star which has since extinguished decides to interact with other photons in your sentient photon interacting pseudoscience world?

            Alternatively, you could adopt your standard response of dodging and running away.

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahahahahaha.
            Nope, that doesn’t refute this mountain of science which proves you wrong, you poor KING Pseudophile dupe:
            • This diagram of heat flux components of the Earth’s energy balance from peer reviewed science, which was written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and global climate, proves you wrong because there is NO energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            • My seven quotes from Maxwell, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244763755 , prove that Maxwell agrees with my understanding, and he disagrees with yours. You have failed to rebut a single one of those 7 Maxwell quotes which prove you wrong. You lose.
            • My 30+ 2nd Law references, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244017231 , agree with me and prove you wrong. You have failed to refute a single one of those references. You lose.
            • My heat transfer examples, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244026340 & https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/trump_will_definitely_pull_out_of_paris_climate_deal_ex_aide_says/#comment-3132393323 , proves that I am correct and that you are wrong. You have failed to refute anything in my 2 heat transfers example which proves your wrong view violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You lose.
            • You have been unable to answer my questions which prove you wrong, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244657794 . You lose.
            • You are unable to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector which collects any thermal energy from the cold atmosphere proves that that there is no real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth as you claim. You have failed to answer the question of why you can’t collect any backradiation energy if it is a real thermal energy transfer. You lose.

            • So to sum up, you have failed to refute a single bit of the mountain of science evidence that I have posted which proves you wrong, and you have failed to provide a bit of science evidence that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects You lose AGAIN. You lose every time you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics.

          • ROO2

            Nice dodge because of your pseudoscience being highlighted.

            denying the fact that EM waves interact/superimpose to create a single resultant EM wave

            So now you are saying that the colour of the light of the Sun varies from the opposing IR emission from the planet.

            The amount of reflected sunlight from the planet needs to be taken into account when trying to measure the Doppler effect of distant stars.

            This is all ground breaking work. I cannot believe the worlds scientific community have missed what you and your geologist fossil fuel funded denialist friend have discovered.

            You still dodged completely he question. Here it is again for you to run away from for the second time:

            Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms for the difference between the interaction of two identical photons from both same temperature and different temperature emitters?

            Perhaps you could explain how a photon from a star which has since extinguished decides to interact with other photons in your sentient photon interacting pseudoscience world?

            Alternatively, you could adopt your standard response of dodging and running away.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ the latest clown dance from the King of Pseudophiles!

            Nope, that doesn’t refute that mountain of science evidence that proves your ridiculous claim that the cold atmosphere is the primary heat source that warms the Earth.

          • ROO2

            It’s the Sun’s energy dimwit.

            http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/BAMSmarTrenberth.pdf

            I see the American Meteorological Society have still not accepted your and your fossil fuel geologist friends rebuttal paper yet.

            That’s now eight years ago, and you are still yet to get published.

            Eight years and you pseudophiles still have no scientific rebuttal. Hence your continued dodge of real science.

            Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms for the difference between the interaction of two identical photons from both same temperature and different temperature emitters?

            Perhaps you could explain how a photon from a star which has since extinguished decides to interact with other photons in your sentient photon interacting pseudoscience world?

            Alternatively, you could adopt your standard response of dodging and running away.

          • RealOldOne2

            “It’s the Sun’s energy dimwit.”
            LOL. No, King Pseudophile, the energy is from the cold atmosphere, which is longwavelength. The Sun’s energy is shortwave, dimwit!

            Poor Dan, aka ROO2, aka King Pseudophile FAILS yet again!

          • ROO2

            the energy is from the cold atmosphere, which is longwavelength. The Sun’s energy is shortwave, dimwit!

            WTF?

            Are you really this unbelievably stupid? I’m getting the sense that you really are and that people like maltow (:s) are intellectual heavyweights compared to you.

            Almost all of the longwave energy radiated originates from the Sun. A tiny amount originates from geothermal and a tiny amount from the Universe. In simple terms all of that radiated in longwave can be accounted for from the Suns energy.

            The Arctic receives more longwave radiation from the atmosphere than it emits.

            Where is you rebuttal paper?

            You have from before your were born to start writing one, and this science was established long, long before that.

            RealOldOne2 is the Emperor Pseudophile.

            Completely lost his virility, but still trying to groom the unsuspecting on the internet with his pseudoscience that he has never been able to rebut.

            We await another flaccid response.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Are you really this unbelievably stupid?”
            LOL @ poor King Pseudophile! No, YOU are as you just demonstrated!

            Poor, poor dishonest Dan ( https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thedailycaller/secnavy_rolling_back_social_change_will_weaken_military_the_daily_caller_17/#comment-3096758143 ), who got so freaking angry at the hundreds of times I’ve exposed your scientific illiteracy that it drove you to serially impersonate me, as documented here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/dear_president_elect_trump_climate_change_is_not_a_hoax_please_consider_this_it8217s_raining_near_th/#comment-3011348524 and here: https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fokulaer.wordpress.com%2F2015%2F03%2F05%2Fthe-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-that-wasnt%2F%23comment-867%3A5J1vtR1BiResJEY2esCMp-04hMY&cuid=932754 .

            You have no credibility. You are a total JOKE!

          • ROO2

            Another science free post from RealOldOne2.

            Maintaining his 100% record.

          • ROO2

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6LVI1gDswg

            Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms for the difference between the interaction of two identical photons from both same temperature and different temperature emitters?

            Perhaps you could explain how a photon from a star which has since extinguished decides to interact with other photons in your sentient photon interacting pseudoscience world?

            Alternatively, you could adopt your standard response of dodging and running away.

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor dishonest Dan, dodging the simple thermodynamics problem with obfuscation about photons AGAIN! Hahahahahahaha

            “The first thing that needs to be recognised by all is that the one field of study that specifically addresses and handles everything concerning energy transfers between different regions or systems and the temperature changes (if any) that result from them, is … that branch of physics called ‘Thermodynamics’. Any argument trying to introduce for instance quantum theory concepts like ‘photons’ into the mix, or laws and relationships pertaining to ‘specific emitters’ and ‘blackbody radiation’, can safely be dismissed as irrelevant to the issue at hand. It only confuses the matter. Which would be the purpose for bringing them in to begin with.” – https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/to-heat-a-planetary-surface-for-dummies-part-1/

          • ROO2

            You cutting and pasting the same crap from some geologists blog that clearly does not understand physics only serves to highlight your inability to answer the question posed and your complete lack of ability to think for yourself or provide any response.

            I thank you for your honest admission of your scientific illiteracy. 😉

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTFLMAO @ the continued clown dance of King Pseudophile!

            Your inability to refute any of this mountain of science that proves you wrong, is your admission of defeat. Thanks for playing you poor duped fool.

            • This diagram of heat flux components of the Earth’s energy balance from peer reviewed science, which was written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and global climate, proves you wrong because there is NO energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            • My seven quotes from Maxwell, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244763755 , prove that Maxwell agrees with my understanding, and he disagrees with yours. You have failed to rebut a single one of those 7 Maxwell quotes which prove you wrong. You lose.
            • My 30+ 2nd Law references, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244017231 , agree with me and prove you wrong. You have failed to refute a single one of those references. You lose.
            • My heat transfer examples, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244026340 & https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/trump_will_definitely_pull_out_of_paris_climate_deal_ex_aide_says/#comment-3132393323 , proves that I am correct and that you are wrong. You have failed to refute anything in my 2 heat transfers example which proves your wrong view violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You lose.
            • You have been unable to answer my questions which prove you wrong, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244657794 . You lose.
            • You are unable to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector which collects any thermal energy from the cold atmosphere proves that that there is no real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth as you claim. You have failed to answer the question of why you can’t collect any backradiation energy if it is a real thermal energy transfer. You lose.

            • So to sum up, you have failed to refute a single bit of the mountain of science evidence that I have posted which proves you wrong, and you have failed to provide a bit of science evidence that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects You lose AGAIN. You lose every time you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics.

          • evenminded

            Why are you quoting some moron that apparently does not understand that quantum theory is arguably the most successful theory of the 20th century?

            Oh that’s right, you’re the scientifically incompetent moron that disagrees with Feynman and Maxwell, and instead agrees with some know-nothing nobody named okulaer.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Why are you quoting some moron that apparently doesn’t understand that quantum theory is arguably the most successful theory of the 20th century.”
            LOL @ your logical non sequitur!

            Okulaer correctly points out that your claim that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

            My simple heat transfer example of adding a radiation shield to an object which has an internal energy source proves you wrong too, because your claim that cold objects transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects has the increase in temperature of the object coming from a transfer of heat from the colder radiation shield to the hotter object. There is NO way around the fact that that is a blatant violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Here is that example that proves you are a 2nd Law denier:

            Givens:
            – We have an object with a surface area of 1m².
            – The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
            – the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
            – The S-B constant, σ=5.67x10⁻⁸.
            – Temps rounded to whole numbers.
            – The shield is very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are equal, 1m².
            – The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m² within the object.
            – The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
            – The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.

            So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m². The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.

            So the ONLY energy source that exists in our system is 240W/m², PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred in our system is 240Joules/sec.

            At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.

            We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system.

            The shield now receives the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is radiating away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.

            The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).

            At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.

            The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
            Th⁴=(240/5.67x10⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K

            That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
            1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.

            2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).

            3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy/heat flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:

            “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction .
            A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

            4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.

            Now your wrong understanding is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m² (Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder 255K shield to the warmer 303K object. So your wrong understanding now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).
            You have created 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.

            Your wrong view has 480W/m² (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the ONLY energy/heat source of our system.

            You have once again created 240W/m² out of thin air.
            Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because you have created energy where there was none before, so conservation of energy has been violated.

            And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law as you have the cause of the increase in object temperature being the transfer of heat from a colder object (shield) to a warmer object.

            QED, My understanding is correct and your understanding is wrong.

          • evenminded

            Yet another dodge.

            Okulaer correctly points out that your claim that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.

            Then okulaer is as scientifically incompetent as you are and also thinks that both Feynman and Maxwell are wrong.

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            You will once again dodge answering these questions and slink back into your hole. Only a scientifically incompetent moron of your magnitude would ever claim that okulaer is right and Maxwell and Feynman are wrong.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Yet another dodge.”
            No dodge at all poor tiltminded troll. It is PROOF that your claim that cold objects transfer heat to warmer objects violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, because there is no getting around the FACT that your wrong understanding has the increase in temperature of the always hotter object coming from a transfer of HEAT from the always colder radiation shield. THAT is an undeniable and blatant violation of the 2nd Law. You lose.

          • evenminded

            Nice dodge.

            Like I said, only a scientifically incompetent moron of your magnitude would ever claim that okulaer is right and Maxwell and Feynman are wrong.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Nice dodge.”
            LOL @ your denial of reality!

            As I showed, it is no dodge whatsoever. It is PROOF that your claim that cold objects transfer heat to warmer objects violates the 2nd Law of thermodynamics, because there is no getting around the FACT that your wrong understanding has the increase in temperature of the always hotter object coming from a transfer of HEAT from the always colder radiation shield. THAT is an undeniable and blatant violation of the 2nd Law. You lose.

          • evenminded

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            Dodge away.

          • RealOldOne2

            ROTFLMAO @ your DODGE.

            Sorry tiltminded, that does not refute my simple heat transfer example the PROVES that you are a 2nd Law denier, because your wrong claim that colder objects transfer thermal energy to hotter object has the increase in temperature of the always hotter object coming from a transfer of HEAT from the always colder radiation shield. THAT is an undeniable and blatant violation of the 2nd Law. You lose.

            Poor scientifically illiterate tiltminded troll can’t face reality, so he denies, dodges and refuses to accept the FACT that my simple heat transfer example proves you wrong.

          • evenminded

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            Why do you keep dodging such simple and fundamental questions?

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahahahahaha. I’ve got poor tiltminded on FULL TILT already, as you are mindlessly repeating your irrelevant DODGES! Hahahahahahaha

            Here is the PROOF that your wrong understanding denies the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:

            My simple heat transfer example of adding a radiation shield to an object which has an internal energy source proves you wrong too, because your claim that cold objects transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects has the increase in temperature of the object coming from a transfer of heat from the colder radiation shield to the hotter object. There is NO way around the fact that that is a blatant violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Here is that example that proves you are a 2nd Law denier:

            Givens:
            – We have an object with a surface area of 1m².
            – The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
            – the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
            – The S-B constant, σ=5.67x10⁻⁸.
            – Temps rounded to whole numbers.
            – The shield is very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are equal, 1m².
            – The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m² within the object.
            – The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
            – The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.

            So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m². The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.

            So the ONLY energy source that exists in our system is 240W/m², PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred in our system is 240Joules/sec.

            At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.

            We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system.

            The shield now receives the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is radiating away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.

            The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).

            At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.

            The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
            Th⁴=(240/5.67x10⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K

            That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
            1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.

            2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).

            3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy/heat flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:

            “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction .
            A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

            4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.

            Now your wrong understanding is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m² (Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder 255K shield to the warmer 303K object. So your wrong understanding now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).
            You have created 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.

            Your wrong view has 480W/m² (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the ONLY energy/heat source of our system.

            You have once again created 240W/m² out of thin air.
            Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because you have created energy where there was none before, so conservation of energy has been violated.

            And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law as you have the cause of the increase in object temperature being the transfer of heat from a colder object (shield) to a warmer object.

            QED, My understanding is correct and your understanding is wrong.

          • evenminded

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            Only a moron of your magnitude would think that your heat transfer problem proves Feynman and Maxwell wrong.

            Dodge away moron.

          • RealOldOne2

            Hahahahaha. FULL TILT ALERT! Poor tiltminded is on FULL TILT, mindlessly DODGING the irrefutable PROOF that your claim that colder objects transfer heat to warmer objects is wrong!

            Your quotes from Feynman and irrelevant because they do NOT change the fact that your wrong understanding has the temperature increase of the always hotter object coming from the always colder radiation shield. You lose!

            Why do you refuse to address the example that proves you wrong?
            Answer: because you can’t show that it is incorrect, and it proves you wrong, so you ignore it and DODGE with irrelevant logical fallacies!

            You’re such a f-ing JOKE, and well on your way to once again make a total jack@$$ out of yourself! Hahahahahaha

          • evenminded

            Why do you refuse to address the example that proves you wrong?

            I have addressed your problem, gave a full time dependent solution, and proved that it satisfies both the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics. You are too stupid to understand it. You probably need to learn some calculus first.

            Keep dodging moron. Both Feynman and Maxwell state that there is bidirectional energy flux. Do you agree or not?

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            Dodge away.

          • RealOldOne2

            “I have addressed your problem, gave a full time dependent solution…”
            That’s a LIE. You did no such thing.
            You made up some bull$hit nonsense about arctanh(T/Tf) which you could not cite ANY source to support your nonsense. Plus time dependency proves NOTHING, because it is an equilibrium problem. And at equilibrium your wrong understanding has the increase in temperature of the always hotter object coming from a transfer of HEAT from the always colder radiation shield. THAT is an undeniable and blatant violation of the 2nd Law. You lose, no matter how much you babble on with your irrelevant gibberish!

          • evenminded

            That’s a LIE. You did no such thing.

            Yes, I did, and in great detail. As I said, you are too stupid to understand it. You continue to claim that my solution is false, when it is a mathematical certainty that it is true. You’re an idiot.

            Keep dodging moron. Both Feynman and Maxwell state that there is bidirectional energy flux. Do you agree or not?

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            Dodge away.

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL @ tiltminded troll on FULL TILT!
            Nope, that is NOT a refutation of my simple heat transfer example that PROVES you are a 2nd Law denier, because your wrong understanding has the increase in temperature of the always hotter object coming from a transfer of HEAT from the always colder radiation shield. THAT is an undeniable and blatant violation of the 2nd Law.

            And it was IMPOSSIBLE for you to have shown a time dependent solution, because the problem was indeterminant in the transient because there was not enough information given.

            You LOSE. Well, I’ve got you on FULL TILT.
            I’ve got you to make a total jack@$$ out of yourself AGAIN, so I’m done.

            Anything else you post is irrelevant unless it refutes this simple heat transfer example that proves your wrong understanding violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics:

            My simple heat transfer example of adding a radiation shield to an object which has an internal energy source proves you wrong too, because your claim that cold objects transfer thermal energy/heat to hotter objects has the increase in temperature of the object coming from a transfer of heat from the colder radiation shield to the hotter object. There is NO way around the fact that that is a blatant violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Here is that example that proves you are a 2nd Law denier:

            Givens:
            – We have an object with a surface area of 1m².
            – The object is in a vacuum with the surroundings being space with a temperature of 0K.
            – the object and the radiation shield are blackbodies so ϵ=1.
            – The S-B constant, σ=5.67x10⁻⁸.
            – Temps rounded to whole numbers.
            – The shield is very close to but not touching the object so the surface areas are equal, 1m².
            – The only Energy-in to our system is an internal heat/energy source of 240W/m² within the object.
            – The object is initially radiating to 0K outer space.
            – The only heat transfer mechanism is radiative heat transfer, so there is no conductive, convective or latent heat of vaporization.

            So with those givens, at initial thermal equilibrium the Energy-out must equal the Energy-in = 240W/m². The S-B equation, q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) , thus tells us that the initial temperature of the object is 255K(-18C). There is no external Energy-in to the object because the temperature of space surrounding it is absolute zero.

            So the ONLY energy source that exists in our system is 240W/m², PERIOD. Since one watt is defined as 1 Joule/sec, that means that the only energy source and the only energy being transferred in our system is 240Joules/sec.

            At initial thermal equilibrium the 240Joules/sec of energy which is internally generated is transferred away from the surface of the object to the 0K surroundings.

            We now surround the object with a radiation shield which has an initial temperature of 0K, so no new energy is added to our system.

            The shield now receives the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of energy/heat which is radiating away from the object so the internal energy of the shield begins to increase which causes the temperature of the shield to increase. As the shield temperature increases, the heat transfer from the object is reduced, since the cold temperature (Tc) in the S-B equation is no longer zero. The reduction of heat transferred away from the object means that less than 240W/m² of energy is being transferred away which causes an accumulation of internal energy within the object. This accumulation of internal energy causes an increase in temperature of the object.

            The shield temperature and object temperature continue to increase until a new thermal equilibrium is reached. The temperature of the shield will then be 255K(-18C).

            At the new thermal equilibrium, the Energy-out from the object to the shield must equal the Energy-out from the shield to space which must equal the 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) of internally generated energy/heat.

            The new equilibrium temperature of the object as calculated by the S-B equation is 303K(30C).
            q=ϵσ(Th⁴-Tc⁴) => 240=(1)(5.67x10⁻⁸)(Th⁴-255⁴) ==>
            Th⁴=(240/5.67x10⁻⁸)+255⁴ ==> Th=303K

            That is my correct description of what happens from the thermodynamic/heat transfer perspective. In my correct understanding:
            1) The increase in temperature from 255K to 303K is solely due to the accumulation of internal energy from the internal heat source of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec), which is the only energy source existing in our system.

            2) The internal heat source remains Energy-in of 240W/m²(240 Joules/sec) , the heat/energy transferred away from the surface (to the shield) remains 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) and the heat/energy transferred away from the shield to space is 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).

            3) Before, during and after the process of adding the shield and reaching the new equilibrium temperature, energy/heat flow is always and only UNI-directional flowing away from the higher temperature/energy object(s) to the lower temperature/energy surroundings/shield and never flowing from the the colder surroundings/shield to the warmer objects. This satisfies the 2nd Law, just as the Thermodynamics textbook says:

            “the second law involves the fact that processes proceed in a certain direction but NOT in the opposite direction .
            A hot cup of coffee cools by virtue of heat transfer to the surroundings, but heat will NOT flow from the cooler surroundings to the hotter cup of coffee.” – Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics, VanWylen and Sonntag, Chap.6 ‘The Second Law of Thermodynamics’, p.155.

            4) Before, during and after the process of adding the blanket, energy is neither created nor destroyed. It is conserved, satisfying the 1st Law.

            Now your wrong understanding is that at the new thermal equilibrium, the temperature increase of the object is solely due to a new energy/heat flow of 240W/m² (Joules/sec) being transferred from the colder 255K shield to the warmer 303K object. So your wrong understanding now has two Energy-ins to the object, the original 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) from the internal heat source PLUS a new Energy-in of 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec).
            You have created 240W/m² (240 Joules/sec) of energy out of thin air.

            Your wrong view has 480W/m² (480 Joules/sec) of energy transferring away from the 303K which is twice as much energy/heat as existed in our system, and twice as much energy/heat as is coming from the ONLY energy/heat source of our system.

            You have once again created 240W/m² out of thin air.
            Thus your wrong understanding violates the 1st Law, because you have created energy where there was none before, so conservation of energy has been violated.

            And your wrong understanding violates the 2nd Law as you have the cause of the increase in object temperature being the transfer of heat from a colder object (shield) to a warmer object.

            QED, My understanding is correct and your understanding is wrong.

          • evenminded

            You were refuted when you claimed that the 303K object emits 480 W/m^2.

            Now, continue with your dodge.

            Feynman: ”To compute the flow of thermal energy we can ask about the energy carried downward across an element of area by the downward-moving molecules, and about the energy carried upward across the surface by the upward-moving molecules. The difference will give us the net downward flow of energy.”

            Is Feynman right or wrong that there is a bidirectional flow of energy?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Is Maxwell right or wrong that two objects in thermal equilibrium exchange radiant energy?

            Dodge away.

          • Kem Patrick

            Real Old One… You are saying our current global warming is not due to atmospheric CO2, but it is due to sunbeams… Right?

            Sunbeams are the energy that heats the surface of the planet… That heat rises from the surface of the planet and goes right out into outer space and that is why like the mon, the night side of the planet very quickly becomes extremely cold at night, too cold for human life to live in any decent manner.

            Wait,, WAIT!… Something traps some of the heat which rises every day and keeps the planet from becoming a very cold planet… Yeah; something in the Earth’s atmosphere traps some of the rising heat… Know what it is Old One? __ Greenhouse gases.

            Yep Greenhouse gases Old One, water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O and some others trap heat which rises from the surface of the planet, like a “blanket” like a blanket which covers us on a bed at night..

            When some of those greenhouse gases are too many, or too high, then the “blanket” will be too thick for comfort and the planet will warm to much and that causes many bad things to happen.

            It is not the sun which causes global warming Old One, it is too much CO2, CH4 and N2O in the greenhouse gases mixture, like what has happened since our CO2 level rose above the 310ppm level and continued to rise to the 410ppm level.

            It’s not gonna stop warming Old One until we have another mass extinction of life on Earth; then no oe will know what happens next.

            Now some people who don’t know better and incorrectly say, ” It’s the sun”. That is wrong Old One… The sun was putting out almost exactly the same energy to the planet since humans began to write human history on Earth, about 6,500 years ago…. At least that long.

            Global warming was not happening on Earth anywhere like it is now, until humans began to burn sequestered carbon, in the form of coal primarily and then petroleum products, oil and natural gas. That is when global warming took off like a homesick angel.

            Because of that burning fossil fuels, primarily coal, humans and all other life on Earth are now is serious trouble with a case of severe global warming and it will become far more serious and severe as time goes on.

            We must fix it Old One and you are one of many who deny why it happening and are a major cause of why nothing of substance has been done to correct the issue…. What on Earth is wrong with you? That is not sane behavior.

            The sun? __ Yeah, the sun is shining just as it was since at least 6,500 years ago when global warming if any was not a problem… It is now Old One.

            And BTW; the first and second laws of thermodynamics has nothing at all to do with greenhouse gases trapping heat which rises from the surface of the planet.

            So this very well educated (evenminded) fella you are arguing with,,, is correct,,, and you aren’t… So stop waving that false laws of thermodynamics banner…. It’s too much CO2.

            Check it out Old One, study a good college science text book that has a chapter about the Earth’s atmosphere and how it functions. You may find one in a library or buy a used one… You can order one on the internet.

            I am sure you want to alleviate your ignorance so you won’t be making a fool of yourself and be an annoyance on internet blogs anymore… Right?

          • RealOldOne2

            LOL! You ought to go on Comedy Central with a laugher like that! Hahahahahahaha

          • evenminded

            The only one here denying the laws of thermodynamics is you.

            Have you come to terms with the fact that you disagree with Maxwell?

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            Proceed with your dodge, and then slink back into your hole.

          • RealOldOne2

            “The only one here denying the laws of thermodynamics is you.”
            There you go denying reality, telling your baseless, evidence-free lies again.

            “Have you come to terms with the fact that you disagree with Maxwell”
            Why do you continue to tell that lie? I’ve posted the multiple quotes from Maxwell below again which shows that you are the one who disagrees with Maxwell. The mental models you present does not invalidate the simple thermodynamics which proves you wrong.

            “Proceed with your dodge”
            Poor child, you are the one who continually dodges all the science that I will once again summarize below for you. So sad that you can’t refute any of that science that proves you wrong

            “and then slink back into your hole.”

            Poor tyke. I know it makes you madder than a wet hornet when I continually expose your denial of the 2nd Law and other ignorance of science, but your resorting to your childish taunts merely exposes your immaturity. But you aren’t alone. Most fanatical members of doomsday cults who have been duped are quite immature, which is why they aren’t intelligent enough to even recognize that they have been duped. Sad.

            Here you go again, the science that proves your silly claim that colder objects transfer heat/thermal energy to warmer objects is wrong:

            • This diagram of heat flux components of the Earth’s energy balance from peer reviewed science, which was written expressly from the perspective of the 2nd Law and global climate, proves you wrong because there is NO energy flux component from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg
            • My seven quotes from Maxwell, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244763755 , prove that Maxwell agrees with my understanding, and he disagrees with yours. You have failed to rebut a single one of those 7 Maxwell quotes which prove you wrong. You lose.
            • My 30+ 2nd Law references, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244017231 , agree with me and prove you wrong. You have failed to refute a single one of those references. You lose.
            • My heat transfer examples, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244026340 & https://disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/trump_will_definitely_pull_out_of_paris_climate_deal_ex_aide_says/#comment-3132393323 , proves that I am correct and that you are wrong. You have failed to refute anything in my 2 heat transfers example which proves your wrong view violates both the 1st & 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. You lose.
            • You have been unable to answer my questions which prove you wrong, http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/28/exxon-urges-trump-to-stay-in-paris-climate-agreement/#comment-3244657794 . You lose.
            • You are unable to experimentally demonstrate a working backradiation collector which collects any thermal energy from the cold atmosphere proves that that there is no real transfer of thermal energy from the cold atmosphere to the warmer surface of the Earth as you claim. You have failed to answer the question of why you can’t collect any backradiation energy if it is a real thermal energy transfer. You lose.

            • So to sum up, you have failed to refute a single bit of the mountain of science evidence that I have posted which proves you wrong, and you have failed to provide a bit of science evidence that thermal energy is transferred from colder objects to hotter objects You lose AGAIN. You lose every time you deny the 1st & 2nd Laws of thermodynamics.

            Bye troll.

          • evenminded

            “Have you come to terms with the fact that you disagree with Maxwell”

            Why do you continue to tell that lie?

            What lie? You claim that the exchange of all energy stops at thermal equilibrium. Maxwell and I state otherwise.

            Maxwell: “it follows that if two bodies have the same temperature the radiation emitted by the first and absorbed by the second is equal in amount to the radiation emitted by the second and absorbed by the first during the same time”

            This is the essence of our disagreement. The rest of your quotes, when taken in the appropriate context, are points that we have already agreed on.

            Only a moron like you thinks that objects stop emitting energy, and by emitting, that means that they are transferring energy out of their boundaries, at thermal equilibrium.

            Post another dodge of the fundamental issue and then crawl back to your hole yet again.

          • RealOldOne2

            Poor Peter, you pathetic coward. The moderators here delete your slanderous lies about me here, so you post your slanderous lies on the ‘Dialogue On Global Warming’ website, where you know that I can’t reply to you because the dishonest moderator banned me for the FAKE-excuse that I posted “hate-speech”, which is did not do.

            You are a totally discredited dishonest fanatical climate cult zealot. You tell lie after lie about me, that I show is false with irrefutable evidence.

            Your latest lies about me are exposed when you attribute comments to me which I did not make. I exposed your lies here: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/02/21/willie-soon-takes-corporate-cash-for-science/#comment-3268427292

            On the ‘Dialogues On Global Warming’ site, even one of your own fellow cult zealots, cunudiun, calls you out for falsely accusing me of making comments that I didn’t make. You are one pathetic serially dishonest person. So sad.

          • Peter Johnson

            Anyone who wants to see the absurd falsehoods behind that statement need only click on my screen name and examine my discus records. I’m not sure why my comments are often held up unless the moderator is a conservative who denies climate science.

            With you It’s always turn the tables and blame the other guy for your own transgressions. But the evidence clearly reveals the great extent to which all your nasty smears discredit you. Just look up the word hypocrite in the dictionary— maybe it will be defined as, “what RealOldOne truly is?

          • RealOldOne2

            Wow, you continue to tell lies about me, as this comment will conclusively prove. You are pathetic.

            Peter Johnson: “Anyone who wants to see the absurd falsehoods behind that statement need only click on my screen name and examine my discus records.”
            Everything in my comments have been true. You are falsely accusing me because I have exposed your serial dishonesty.

            “With you It’s always turn the tables and blame the other guy for your own transgressions. But the evidence clearly reveals the great extent to which all your nasty smears discredit you.”
            There you go again, telling yet more lies! You are the one who has totally discredited yourself.

            Your latest comment which the moderators deleted shows that you are accusing me of exactly what you are doing:

            Peter Johnson: “On the DOGW website you admit to using only the portions of research papers that you agree with. Here is what you said on the DOGW website:
            “I quote the portions that support my position. You are capable of reading the entire paper. I provide sufficient sufficient citations and references, and the occasional URL. Since when, in a court case, does the prosecution cite evidence, or testimony, that is counter to the prosecution’s goal? That is for the defense attorney… i.e., that’s your job, not mine.” “

            Those were blatant lies, because I never admitted to what you accuse me of and I never said what you accuse me of saying. You were just making that up about me. Here is a screen capture giving irrefutable evidence that someone else made the statement that you FALSELY attribute to me: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e053014458c5dcf879c3999d85bb975d7b96ea71a43f06995f4bf2c3d9594632.png

            And here is the irrefutable evidence that you did FALSELY accuse me of making that quote: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e63eb495e85d15a291332b54c9a7bbddf826cc61d437c286f9646e8690a66542.png

            This irrefutable evidence shows that you are the hypocrite and liar, falsely accusing me of exactly what you do. You are sp pathetic.

            And what is sad, is that you are so delusional and so serially dishonest, you will likely deny this irrefutable proof and lie about me some more.

          • TheDudeofVoo

            Here are a few facts: The Earf has warmed up a bit, since the end of the Little Ice Age. The Earf is presently in an interglacial period (the Holocene) in the midst of the Ceneozoic Ice Age (1). Note the word, “interglacial'” … That is when glaciers melt.

            The alarmists refer to the recent past as “pre-industrial”, but that belies its real name, The Little Ice Age (2). Throughout the Holocene (the last 10,000 years), The Little Ice Age was the period of the most, and the strongest, glacial advance. So, it would seem, looking back across the last 10,000 years, the Earf is returning to it’s typical temperature, having been depressed by The Little Ice Age.

            #1: (John 1979, ”The Winters of the World” book, J Wiley and Sons, NY)

            “The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870…” Environmental History Resources http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_lia.html

            Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing. The rate of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere does not match the rate at which Mannkind burns fossil fuel. At around 2002, Mannkind started to burn fuel about three times more per year, than the 1980-2000 rate. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 didn’t budge.

            CO2 warms the Earf, on a logarithmically diminishing returns from additional CO2, past about 300 ppm. The Earf’s “climate sensitivity” to additional CO2, steadily decreases, but, is always a positive value for increasing CO2 … the magnitude of the increase, now that we have several hundred ppmv in the atmosphere, is tiny. The same is true for water … water vapour has the logarithmically decreasing “greenhouse effect” as CO2, but the numbers are different.

            Sea levels, on a large, overall average, are rising … but, they have been rising for quite some time (i.e., before Mannkind’s influence) and show no acceleration to that large, overall average rate of rise. The predicted, consistently positive imbalance of the Earf’s total heat budget is supposed to cause an accelerated sea-level rise, but it has not.

            So, it is warmer. Sea levels are rising. Ice is melting. Mannkind is burning even more fossil fuels. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are rising.

          • Peter Johnson

            I could say mentioning plants and Co2 is one of those conman tricks also. And that mainstream science is by definition, not pseudo-science. That’s created by deniers who want to hid the real scinece in order to benefit the fortunes of large polluters!

            Have a good day!

          • Peter Johnson

            You just delivered a rude insult to horses everywhere!

          • nik

            Earlier in this discussion, I said that I considered you either a fool or a Carbon Tax troll.
            As your comments were at least literate, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and decided that you were a C/T troll.

            However, the email of your last post, not visible here, has so many misinterpretations, deliberate or accidental, so many ‘red herrings’ of the types I have mentioned previously, and so many misstatements of everything, that my final conclusion is either you are a fool, [and a troll,] or you think everyone else is a fool.

            Either way, any further discussion with you is a total waste of time.

          • Peter Johnson

            The points I made and responded with, were real and accurate. You just seem too angry and subjective to realize it. I’m not a troll but I feel it’s for the best if I don’t even try and respond to all your vitriolic tirades. Obviously you are not here to have your mind changed, and no amount of reason will change your mind.

          • nik

            Your comments were mostly irrelevant, regardless of their reality, or accuracy, and had no connection with the discussion subject, which is probably why the moderators blocked them.
            My comments are hardly extensive enough to be a ‘tirade.’
            If you are not a C/T troll, then, unfortunately, that only leaves the other option.
            My mind would be changed, but only IF there was reason to do so, and you have produced no reason, just loads of irrelevant disconnected ramblings.
            Have a good day.
            nik

          • Peter Johnson

            Collusion implies a secret agreement that allows two or more parties to benefit.

            So far Scientists have not reported the government’s gifts of research money or any gifts of money for the purpose of denying man’s role in climate change period. But it they did want to disobey the government, all they would have to do is let the cat out of the bag and publicly tell the us all about the governments intentions. Guess what? Mainstream scientist have never said anything of the kind! I have tried several times to post the following which provides another view of who is paying the piper and why:

            https://green.uw.edu/ess/ess/blog/2016-09/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase-fossil-fuel-companies-make-larger-profits

            From the above link:

            “And it’s become a lot easier for companies to profit and keep generating at a faster rate the energy we’re accustomed to using today. Annually, the U.S. government gives out $20.5 billion to support the production of oil, coal and gas. Fossil fuel companies receive a huge percentage of government subsidies in the form of tax breaks.
            For example, oil companies claim costs associated with cleaning up an oil spill as standard business expenses. Take for instance the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. The U.S. attorney general fined BP with a $20.8-billion-dollar settlement in October 2015 for its role in the disaster. But since BP can legally claim a large portion of that settlement as a tax-deductible business expense, it only has to pay $5.5 billion of the fine.”

            (My words) And that’s only a drop in the bucket since companies like BP make many billions in profits each year.

            Also from the above link:

            “Coal subsidies also help incentivise the production of fossil fuels. However, through financial and legal loopholes, coal companies distort numbers on the market value of their product and exploit other deductions allowed by government subsidies, keeping them from having to pay full royalty rates. This form of tax evasion saves coal companies the equivalent of at least $1 billion annually, STRAIGHT OUT OF THE POCKETS OF TAXPAYERS!
            In a nutshell, the lack of initiating a carbon tax is what lets big businesses enjoy the benefits of fossil fuel production while putting our planet at the risk of continued global warming.”

            Large fossil fuel companies would not go broke due to Carbon taxes, they would only profit less. How about getting government out of their business as well?

            And:

            “Ronald Reagan had just been elected president, and his administration moved to gut subsidies for alternative energy sources, claiming that they were not economically competitive. Heede tested that assertion, analyzing the federal budget to find the hidden subsidies to the coal and oil industries, even including the cost of treating workers who developed black lung disease from coal mining.
            Contrary to Reagan administration claims, Heede showed that the vast bulk of federal energy subsidies went to conventional energy sources.”

            Imagine how the green energy technology might advance with similar government help?

          • Peter Johnson

            Here are some interesting graphs and charts for you–they may include some of your own:

            http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/fake-images?searchterm=fake+

            Goodnight!

          • nik

            I cant make up my mind if you deliberately misinterpret information that I post, or your religious zeal for the CO2 scam makes you blind to the reality.

            Answers to some of yours, some of which may not be visible.
            ”How about the fact that you say a map which covers almost 600,000,000 years of geologic history was intended to use as a State chart describing the climate history of a state. Well actually, climate change is a worldwide problem so even if the chart describes one particular State’s climate (hundreds of millions of year ago)? It can hardly speak for the history of our entire planet!”

            The graph is of WORLD climate history, and the commentary is how that relates to that states climate history.
            The title clearly states;
            ”GLOBAL Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time.”
            For you to interpret this as being for the state only, is either perverse, or just plain ignorance of the visible facts.

            Following that, ” Do You think that means global warming does not exist?”
            YES, its a myth and a scam, as I have reiterated many many times.

            ”although you reject the mountain of evidence which links ppm of Co2 with warming temperatures,”

            There is no mountain of evidence, and CO2 has had no warming effect, EVER, in the last 600 million years Earths climate history.

            In the time of England’s King Henry 8, there was an Archbishop of Canterbury called Thomas Moore, who refused to sign a statement that he acknowledged Henry as head of England Church and Religion. He was thrown into The Tower and accused of treason.
            His defence was that if he said nothing he could not be found guilty.
            However his prosecutor said that,”His silence shouted his treason around the country, so loudly, like no normal announcement could have done.
            He was found guilty and beheaded!
            Your silences on the subject of CO2 troll, also shouts loudly, as you have never denied it.
            From you,
            ”You not only disagree or merely dislike those who promote climate science and the need for developing green energy sources, but you actually seem to hate them? Why else would you constantly issue putdowns concerning their characters?

            ”CO2 global warming” is not climate science, its a scam, and I detest thieves, frauds and scammers, because they do not promote science, they do the opposite. They certainly have nothing to do with promoting ”green energy sources.” All they have to do with it lining their pockets at the expense of the rest of humanity.
            Again from you,
            ”Why would they [scientists] not throw off their chains and condemn their masters for the ways in which the government has been extorting them?”
            Simple answer, if they did they would have no job, and no future of any job, as their livelihood would be destroyed. [Thats a really stupid question.]
            Another from you;
            ”I have never referred to climate change deniers as “blasphemers,” but I am amazed at the extent of their denial.” ”never admits that anything a professional climate scientist says is right.”
            Using the term denier, is, effectively, the same as blasphemer, and ”being amazed at the extent of their denial” is in exactly the same vein. Its a religious term.
            Very few announcements, if any are by professional climate scientists, they are by politicians, and paid scammers.
            More from you;
            ”even an unintelligent or immoral person needs only to be concerned with his own survival in order to appreciate the fact that continued global warming will not be a good thing!”
            There is no ‘global warming’ so there is no need for concern.
            and more;
            ”which government are you talking about—Carter’s, Reagan’s, Bush senior’s, Clinton’s, Bush Junior’s, Obama’s or now Trump’s? Are you saying that both Republicans and Democrats have been forcing scientists to toe the line and provide them with what they are told to?”
            It doesn’t matter, Dem of Rep, virtually ALL of US governments have been bought, by ‘Corporate America’ eg. When a man is paid over $1,5 BILLION, in ‘campaign funds,’ that man can be considered 100% bought and paid for. [Yes/No?]
            In general, you dialogue is that used by politicians, and conmen, not someone who is involved in a sensible discussion. It is normally referred to as ‘coloured’ dialogue, like this phrase from you;
            ”but each times I hear this ridiculous narrative used by denier I can’t help but be amazed by the brashness behind it.”
            Several coloured words there!
            I think, no, I am sure, that we have gone as far as possible in this discussion, and there is no point in continuing it further. To do so would be pointless in the extreme, and I have more productive things to do with my time.
            Bye!
            Nik

          • Peter Johnson

            Nik,
            I have no objections if you want to cease this dialogue but first I will respond to your most recent post. I’ll try and be as brief as I can.

            In your prior post this is what you said about the State map:

            “I originally found it on a USA site DESCRIBING THE CLIMATE HISTORY OF THAT STATE.” So why do you think I am wrong to take your word that it depicted the geologic history of one State—even if you are the one who described it as being about the climate history of a single state? And no, even hundreds of millions of years ago, climate conditions in any given place cannot be used to describe the entire climate of the planet? There are undoubtedly similarities and general climate conditions that different areas have in common, but even 400 to 600 million years ago, the climate was not the same worldwide, just as our present climate is not the same in America and Brazil, In Russia or the Congo, in china or Australia, etc. etc. etc. yet basically, what you just did was to blame me for believing what you said about that chart? I know what you said in your comment because I printed a copy of it in order to answer the many claims, you made.

            About many of the things I ask you—your only apparent rebuttal Is to state your own opinions? There is nothing wrong with opinions but they do not often resemble objective or empirical facts i.e. when I ask you if you think that varying Co2 concentrations that existed in either warm or colder periods of Earth’s history, means that you believe global warming does not exist, your only answer is to express your opinion that it doesn’t? You provide no quotes, no links, and no facts to support you—they might be valid—but you don’t even mention them because you are subjectively sure that global warming does not exist—especially if Co2 was high during both cool and warm periods of geological history? Well, your opinions do not equal objective truth just like mine don’t. That’s why I try to support the things I say by quoting various sources and citing real scientists who can explain an apparent anomaly by using objective facts!

            My silence on the subject of being a Co2 troll implies some sort of guilt? For what, why should I affirm something or disavow something that is irrelevant? How does being a troll or not have to do with using reason and facts to prove or disprove global warming? I have never told you that I’m not a woman, that I am not a member of Al Qaeda, that I am not a Republican, that I am not a Muslim, that I am not black, or that I am not a vegetarian—so what? Saying nothing about any of that does not prove anything? Are we discussing global warming or my supposed character flaws? To you It just doesn’t matter!

            OK you detest thieves, frauds and scammers, again because you decide to, and because you believe your many assumptions about certain people must be right? All I said was that I don’t understand why you feel that way. Is it somehow a crime to express one’s own puzzlement or hold different opinion than you do?

            If scientist threw away their chains and revealed the way various politicians have exploited them by demanding research that fits their own beliefs, they would never have job again? GW Bush refused to sign the Kyoto accords, did not believe AGW was a danger (even if it really exists) and Trump believes it’s a plot by the Chinese to destroy our economy? Do you think either of them would fire a scientist who revealed the fact that Clinton and Obama threatened to fire them if they did not affirm AGW? More likely they’d admire such a person or perhaps give them a job in their own administrations. If one’s oppressor is no longer keeping one prisoner or puling all of his or her strings, there is really no reason to continue being afraid? Maybe if the next President is a Democrat you say? —What do you think voters would say if a new president tried to punish whistle-blower for telling the truth? It certainly would not win that President any earned admiration which might induce the other side to willingly compromise and work across the aisles, or even assure their next election—unless nobody really cared about corruption anyway?

            Yes, both Democrats and Republicans are capable of being bought by lobbyists and of being manipulated by their own parties, but presently Republicans are trying to eliminate any regulations that do not agree with their own agenda, one of which is the issue of climate change. And many more of them are willing to look the other way when the SCOTUS condones a corrupt law like Citizens United. However, Republicans are way less likely reject it?

            In time the shoes may be on the other feet, but no politician wants to risk such a scandal. And the public certainly would disprove. But again, if there is no longer someone with power forcing scientists to lie, why should they be afraid to finally be able to tell the truth? The rest is just personal speculation used to avoid accepting that fact that scientist would be much happier to be free of such control—who wouldn’t? Again only your biased opinions say otherwise!

            In my Dictionary Denial is not synonymous with “blasphemer,” what about yours? So there you go again, trying to condemn my character with yet another straw man argument?

            And you keep calling me religious or of conceiving of climate science as a religion? —yet another straw man argument! So If you really are a Christian should I assume that your faith always makes you wrong about global warming?

            So yes, lets end this conversation—it was never really taking place anyway!

          • Peter Johnson

            “Your arguments tend to follow the pattern used by confidence tricksters, or conmen which is as follows.

            ‘I have said ‘A’ which was correct,’
            ‘I have said ‘B’ which was correct.’
            ‘I have said ‘C’ which was correct.’
            Therefore if I say ‘D” to ‘Z’ they must also be correct, which is obviously absurd, but when camouflaged by loads of statistics and other irrelevancies, may fool the gullible.
            I’m not one of them.”

            I’m not aware of using any such process. My rebuttals have been direct and about the fact that many of your specific points just aren’t true, and also that some of them logically imply the truth or falsehood of other related points which you brought up. That’s all. There is no “spy vs. spy” drama in my remarks, only direct criticisms.

          • Peter Johnson

            Perhaps the first comment to yours above that was held up yesterday will be posted now?

            I’m hoping that after a long erroneous comment like yours (believe it or not) that Imageo will allow me to post this original comment I tried to post three times recently:

            Climate scientists agree that the climate has been very different in the past including millions of years ago, but that doesn’t include Co2 levels alone. Here is a link which explains how many things were very different in the environment of millions of years ago, which caused periods of cooling even at times when Co2 in the atmosphere was very, very high. However, scientists have known about these periods for a long time and it’s not a revelation to point out that the climate is always changing—that’s true—it’s also changing this second as you read my comment. The problem has never been that it is changing, but how it’s changing, and at what rate:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

            Rather than “scammers” who you claim are somehow lining their vaults with billions in climate taxes, here is a website that explains one of the best carbon reduction methods which ultimately take no money at all from taxpayers.

            http://unfccc.int/secretariat/momentum_for_change/items/9931.php

            And here is another website which explains the benefits of such a tax:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy

            And a chart that is on the website above:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/12/1402532896966/e13c3972-8988-4edf-98a3-a7b6adc47559-620×315.png?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1d849c5c34cd0ef1a43b6d575c240e77

            And of course climate scientists base much of their knowledge on what happened during the last fifty years. Its during that time that we have experienced the largest and (most sudden rise) in atmospheric Co2 for hundreds of thousands or even, even millions of years. Your complaint is similar to someone watching the evening news in April of 2017 and whining about how the news never mentions the crusades anymore, the rise of Greek and Roman civilization or what happened in Lincoln’s administration. All those things are interesting, but the nightly news is based on the nightly news, not what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Except for knowing how the motions and tilt of the Earth during its travels around the sun, and how cataclysmic events happening in the distant past brought us to where we are now, we are concerned primarily on what is happening to the Earth and sun now! What happened millions of years ago does have an effect on how the Earth is today, but climate science is primarily concerned with the state of the climate today, and man’s effects on it.

            What I have heard said by deniers is not hearsay, its recorded and archived in every American newspaper and their opinion pages, just as it has been written about in clear print on the pages of denier’s websites. You need to look up the definition of “hearsay” if you think a United States Senator who tosses a snowball across the floor of Congress to dispute AGW is merely an example of hearsay evidence? And why do you call me a troll or a climate scammer. I’m no millionaire and am not paid by scientists just as you no doubt would be quick to say about yourself—however, neither of us can absolutely verify the words of the other.

            About sunspots and the 11-year solar cycle—again no revelation—nothing ignored by scientists, but also something long ago proven NOT to be driving our present warming. We are in a period when the sun’s radiant energy is declining and has less effect on the Earth, so if anything we should be cooling now, yet the sun is warming the planet. And, scientists have long ago studied all the natural planetary cycles of the Earth such as its tilt angle and nearness to the sun—none of which can account for the rapid warming we are experiencing now. And could you please provide more details to your claim that “What carbon tax scammers did was take one of the temperature rises and extrapolated that onto the stratosphere?” Does it matter any that the stratosphere is one of the upper bands of the Earth’s atmosphere and the climate change that concerns us is happening right here on Earth, in the troposphere?

            In the last twenty years or so, worldwide temperature averages have been steadily increasing except for a brief “slow down,” not a stop. Part of the reason for that is that the oceans are absorbing more of the heat.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            “The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

            Beware though, these facts from NASA’s are broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit, and the NOAA. Which According to you are the same con men that brought us men on the moon and knowledge about the nuclear energy. Care to specifically tell me what website which I hold so dear, provided the graph you posted in your recent comment?

            In one fairly brief post you have implicated that I support “global warming scammers,” and that I am a Troll. If so, I am a troll that refers to real facts form respected websites which are dedicated to advancing our knowledge of the climate, yet you have portrayed these learned scientists as being crooked dispensers of falsehoods? How so? No doubt the temperature record and the respected diligence of NASA and the NOAA are not good enough for you, or the fact that hundreds of scientific bodies around the world admit the fact that human caused global warming exists and needs to be dealt with, including our entire military and tens of thousands climate scientists all around the world. So apparently you would rather distrust and neglect the kinds of scientific research which have brought us amazing technologies and the miracles of medical science, and you’d would rather believe a relatively few people who feel the need to protect and deny the motivations of companies like those which brought us the Deep Horizon oil spill?

          • Peter Johnson

            https://green.uw.edu/ess/ess/blog/2016-09/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase-fossil-fuel-companies-make-larger-profits

            From the above link:

            “And it’s become a lot easier for companies to profit and keep generating at a faster rate the energy we’re accustomed to using today. Annually, the U.S. government gives out $20.5 billion to support the production of oil, coal and gas. Fossil fuel companies receive a huge percentage of government subsidies in the form of tax breaks.”

            “For example, oil companies claim costs associated with cleaning up an oil spill as standard business expenses. Take for instance the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster. The U.S. attorney general fined BP with a $20.8 billion dollar settlement in October 2015 for its role in the disaster. But since BP can legally claim a large portion of that settlement as a tax-deductible business expense, it only has to pay $5.5 billion of the fine.”

            “Coal subsidies also help incentive the production of fossil fuels. However, through financial and legal loopholes, coal companies distort numbers on the market value of their product and exploit other deductions allowed by government subsidies, keeping them from having to pay full royalty rates. This form of tax evasion saves coal companies the equivalent of at least $1 billion annually, straight out of the pockets of taxpayers.
            In a nutshell, the lack of initiating a carbon tax is what lets big businesses enjoy the benefits of fossil fuel production while putting our planet at the risk of continued global warming.”

            Large fossil fuel companies would not go broke due to Carbon taxes, they would only profit a bit less. How about getting government out of their business promotion as well?

            And:

            “Ronald Reagan had just been elected president, and his administration moved to gut subsidies for alternative energy sources, claiming that they were not economically competitive. Heede tested that assertion, analyzing the federal budget to find the hidden subsidies to the coal and oil industries, even including the cost of treating workers who developed black lung disease from coal mining.”

            “Contrary to Reagan administration claims, Heede showed that the vast bulk of federal energy subsidies went to conventional energy sources.”

            Imagine how the green energy technology might advance with similar government help?

            Unfortunately I can take both a horse and you to water but I can’t make you drink!

          • nik

            Your last reply seems to have vanished.

          • Peter Johnson

            Here again is that post, minus a few paragraphs in case the moderator thought it was too long:

            Climate scientists agree that the climate has been very different in the past including millions of years ago, but that doesn’t include Co2 levels alone. Here is a link which explains how many things were very different in the environment of millions of years ago, which caused periods of cooling even at times when Co2 in the atmosphere was very, very high. However, scientists have known about these periods for a long time and it’s not a revelation to point out that the climate is always changing—that’s true—it’s also changing this second as you read my comment. The problem has never been that it is changing, but how it’s changing, and at what rate:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

            Here is a website that explains one of the best carbon reduction methods which ultimately take no money at all from taxpayers.

            http://unfccc.int/secretariat/momentum_for_change/items/9931.php

            And here is another website which explains the benefits of such a tax:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy

            And a chart that is on the website above:

            https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/6/12/1402532896966/e13c3972-8988-4edf-98a3-a7b6adc47559-620×315.png?w=620&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=1d849c5c34cd0ef1a43b6d575c240e77

            Od course climate scientists base much of their knowledge on what happened during the last fifty years. Its during that time that we have experienced the largest and (most sudden rise) in atmospheric Co2 for hundreds of thousands, or even, even millions of years. Your complaint is similar to someone watching the evening news in April of 2017 and whining about how the news never mentions the crusades anymore, the rise of Greek and Roman civilization or what happened in Lincoln’s administration. All those things are interesting, but the nightly news is based on the nightly news, not what happened hundreds of thousands of years ago. Except for knowing how the motions and tilt of the Earth during its travels around the sun, and how cataclysmic events happening in the distant past have brought us to where we are now, we are concerned primarily about what is happening to the Earth and sun now—What happened millions of years ago does have an effect on how the Earth is today, but climate science is primarily concerned with the present climate today, and man’s effects on it.

            What I have heard said by deniers is not hearsay, its recorded and archived in every American newspaper and their opinion pages, just as it has been written about in clear print on the pages of denier’s websites. You need to look up the definition of hearsay if you think that’s the problem. And why do you call me a troll or a climate scammer. I’m no millionaire and am not paid by scientists just as you no doubt would be quick to say about yourself—ultimately though neither of us can absolutely verify the words of the other.

            About sunspots and the 11-year solar cycle—again no revelation and nothing dismissed by clilmate scientists, but something long ago proven NOT to be driving our present warming. We are in a period when the sun’s radiant energy is declining and has less effect on the Earth, so if anything, we should be cooling now, yet the sun is warming the planet. And, scientists have long ago studied all the natural planetary cycles of the Earth such as its tilt, angle, and nearness to the sun—none of which can account for the rapid warming we are experiencing now! And could you please provide more details about your claim that “What carbon tax scammers did was take one of the temperature rises and extrapolated that onto the stratosphere?” Does it matter any that the stratosphere is one of the upper bands of the Earth’s atmosphere and the climate change that concerns us is happening right here on Earth, in the troposphere?

            In the last twenty years or so, worldwide temperature averages have been steadily increasing except of a brief “slow down,” not a stop. Part of the reason for that is that the oceans are absorbing more of the heat.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

            “The 10 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2016 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

            I guess we have to watch out though, these facts from NASA’s are broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit, and the NOAA. Which According to you are the same con men that brought us men on the moon and knowledge about the entire climate of the world,(sarcasm). Care to specifically tell us what website “which I hold so dear,” provided the graph you posted in your recent comment?

            In one fairly brief post you have implicated that I support “global warming scammers,” and that I am a Troll. But if I am a troll I’m one that refers to real facts from respected websites, which are dedicated to advancing our knowledge of the climate. Instead you have portrayed leaned scholars as being crooked dispensers of falsehoods. How so? No doubt the temperature record and the respected diligence of NASA and the NOAA are not good enough for you, nor is the fact that hundreds of scientific bodies around the world agree that human caused global warming exists and needs to be dealt with—including the entire military and tens of thousands climate scientists everywhere in the world! So apparently you would rather distrust and neglect the kinds of scientific research which has brought us amazing technologies and miracles of medical science, and would rather deny the possilble motivations of a relatively few powerful organizations like those which brought us the Deep Horizon oil spill?

          • Peter Johnson

            I’ve posted it three times but it was held up for Moderation (why I don’t know) But if they post it next week you’ll see my answer.

          • CB

            “NASA is funded by government”

            Yes.

            And?

            “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

          • nik

            Water vapour IS the main greenhouse gas on Earth. All others are trivial by comparison, especially CO2. There has been no noticeable cause/effect on the climate by CO2 in 600 million years.

        • 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

    • Climate Skeptic

      Who writes your dialogue? Tim Flannery? No-one can claim independent analysis of anything – EVERY SCIENTIST NEEDS TO EAT AND PAY THEIR BILLS. As soon as the left find you are producing evidence to support the other side, they pull funding and go after what they call “More reputable Climate Scientists” and the same goes the other way. I’m sure the ONLY reason there are more ‘scientists’ pushing the Global Warming Model’ is because that’s where the majority of the money is available! All I know is that the doomsday sayers have been around indefinitely – Just in my lifetime we were supposed to Freeze, Burn up, Freeze then burn up again. In the last ten years we have had Al Gore and Tim Flannery bang on about all the dams being empty in 5-10 years and sea levels rising 3-4 meters. That has to be labelled a great big crock! Because people are still alive and breathing the same air now as during the dark ages and industrial revolution, I consider the planet has been created with the right protection mechanisms to deal with the presence of people! I thing God’s bigger than that anyway!

  • 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.

    • RealOldOne2

      Sgtsnuffy, the Sun’s output is only part of the story. It’s true that the Sun’s output was at a Minima during the LIA and has increased by ~3W/m² since then, http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif , but the other important factor is how much of the Sun’s output/solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface.

      That is what changes during major volcanic eruptions where the aerosols are injected into the stratosphere, there is less solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface even if the Total Solar Irradiation (Sun’s output) is constant.

      That is also what happens when there is a change in the cloud amount (change in albedo). During the late 20th century warming, peer reviewed science, Hatzianastassiou(2005), Goode(2007), Pinker(2005), Herman(2013), McLean(2014) shows that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface (natural climate forcing) increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m². The increase in CO2 forcing during that time was only ~0.5W/m².

      The fact that the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface is an important factor in determining the temperature of the Earth has been known for decades:

      “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

      Cheers.

  • 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

        • Peter Johnson

          Yes, and what’s wrong with a scientific website trying to disseminate the truth in order to convince the public that they value truth and sincerity? Can you think of one case in which popular websites have NOT been interested in receiving favorable PR?–but that has nothing to do with them lying about climate science–why should it?

          • odin2

            That’s the point. RC is not a scientific website. It is a propaganda site to promote the man caused catastrophic global warming myth.

          • Peter Johnson

            Who says? those who seek to promote the idea that scientists are lying about reality for their own benefits?

          • odin2

            Provide links to scientific studies that show, by empirical evidence, that humans (mostly through CO2 emissions) have ever been the primary cause of global warming. If you can’t provide the studies, all you and RC have are an unproven hypothesis and propaganda.

          • Peter Johnson

            Empirical evidence of the role of Co2 in global warming;

            Here are just a few websites I clicked on to provide the answer;

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

            http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#bf-toc-1

            http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/climate-change-the-science.aspx

            https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM

            The above is an extremely good website, so let me post some portions of it;

            Suppression of the Evidence?
            “Many critics of global warming charge that evidence is being selectively interpreted, that contrary evidence is being suppressed, and that scientists who doubt global warming are being denied a chance to be heard or ostracized.”

            “In 2006, Nicola Scarfetta of Duke University and Bruce West of the U.S. Army Research Office published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters where they estimated that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the global warming observed between 1900 and 2000, and 25-30% of the warming observed between 1980 and 2000.”

            In the April, 2007 issue of Scientific American, Piers Forster, lead author of the report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that, compared to its long-term average, the sun contributes 0.12 watt of energy per square meter of the earth’s surface, compared to 1.6 watts for human-made sources.”

            “You really have to wonder how any mention of a solar contribution gets into major scientific journals at all if there’s so much suppression going on.”

            And:

            “Okay, which is it? Do we have warming or not? If there’s a natural warming trend in progress, then everyone who denies warming is a crank and needs to be written off. If there’s no warming, then the scientists who find warming, whether natural or artificial, are all wrong. But don’t point to natural causes one minute and in the next breath deny there’s any warming at all.”

            It doesn’t matter in the least whether criticism of global warming comes from people with corporate ties. Nor does it matter in the least whether environmentalism is a religion. The only thing of any consequence is whether the ideas are true or false. The motivations of the people advancing the ideas do not count at all – the only thing they count for is to show the logical illiteracy and intellectual dishonesty of the person who drags motivation into the debate. I doubt seriously that a lot of people who label global warming a “religion” would accept the argument that Christianity must be false because it’s a religion.

            https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

            And in case you want to be completely and intellectually obstructive about the claim that global warming even exists, here’s a quote from the Nasa link above:

            “The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.”

            “Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
            “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”

            “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
            Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.
            The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”

            “Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.3”

            “The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:”
            ________________________________________
            ________________________________________
            “Global temperature rise.”

            “All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. The year 2015 was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

            Finally: from this link:

            http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what-is-the-evidence-that-co2/

            “Just to pile on, here are some rather key specific observations beyond the rise in seasonally averaged global temperature that fit in well with an enhanced greenhouse effect (the relevant effect of increasing CO2 concentrations). These observations do not fit with other potential forcings.”

            “Temperatures have risen more at night than during the day. This really defeats the notion of a solar powered climate change on its face.”

            “The stratosphere is cooling. Models that predict the warming we are seeing also predict this particular feature of the current climate change.”

            “An increasingly enhanced greenhouse effect should cause an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation. This has been detected.
            So to summarize: we know anthropogenic climate change is real because there is no other likely candidate cause, the CO2 rise is unquestionably the result of our activities, the particulars of the warming signature are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect and the whole phenomenon is entirely consistent with very long standing theories and expectations.
            If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, why on earth would you think it is a galactic cosmic ray?

            All of this really leaves little doubt that the addition of man-made Co2 is causing temperatures to rise. But then, you probably don’t believe all of that anyway, because by your own definition its all just unproved an insignificant science—so what good will it do for me to continue commenting in response to any dubious argument you want to make?

            Finally, if you want some specific studies which have been influential in understanding global warming and documenting the role Co2 plays in warming our Earth, this link is for you:

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-most-influential-climate-change-papers-of-all-time

            And at this link you can find a list of papers that the IPCC considers among the most influential in regards to proving the existence of man-made global warming:

            https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1OHvLDNzNd09tx6tMt_ccbf05RPE55ODnS8jUwsjLV5Q/edit#gid=0

            You’d better take your time though, there are literally thousands of them!

          • Steveglen

            I think Peter and his crowd are in for some rough sailing, odin. It appears that Trump will be looking at cutting numerous subsidies to fund his tax reform, and if his roll-backs on EPA regulations are any indication whatever, he’ll be slashing those for green energy. I eagerly anticipate the effects on California, as I am largely moved out at this point. Payback.

          • odin2

            Pass the popcorn. :)

          • Peter Johnson

            And who gets to decide what is not a scientific website–mainstream scientists, or a minority of deniers most of whom have little background in climate science, and who condemn and dispute the use of science by those they don’t like and disagree with whenever it doesn’t agree with their opinions? I’ll place my bets on mainstream climate scientists!

  • 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