Global warming in December blows the previous record right out of the (exceedingly warm) water

By Tom Yulsman | January 16, 2016 1:49 pm

Result for 2015 overall likely to be the same

global warming

This graph from the Japan Meteorological Agency shows how the global average temperature during each December (dark circles) varied from the long-term average. As the graph shows, global average temperature in December 2015 was by far the warmest for the month in the record, which dates back to 1890. (Graph: JMA. Globe: earth.nullschool.net. Mashup: Tom Yulsman)

The first verdict on just how warm the globe was during December of 2015 is now in. And while it is not surprising, I still gasped when I saw it.

As the graph from the Japan Meteorological Agency above shows, global warming last month really did blow the previous record for December right out of the water — which was astonishingly warm itself (speaking of the oceans here), as the underlying image suggests.

The graph shows how the global average temperature in December, measured across land and sea surfaces, varied from the long-term average for the month. By the JMA’s calculation, it was 0.67°C above the 1981-2010 average, and 1.05°C above the 20th century average — the warmest by far since 1891.

Here’s how temperature anomalies varied in December across the globe:

global warming

There is no question that exceedingly warm waters along the equator in the Pacific Ocean contributed to December’s record warmth for the month. These are associated with the ongoing super El Niño.

SEE ALSO: Had enough meteorological mayhem? Sorry, thanks to El Niño, things are likely to get even worse

But the map also shows that other parts of the Pacific were exceedingly warm too, as was the entire Indian Ocean and parts of the Atlantic.

On land, the remarkable warmth experienced across the eastern half of the United States really stands out. And look at that swath of red from Europe all the way across Russia.

I think this graphically illustrates a sobering fact: El Niño’s impact is coming on top of significant global warming from human activities.

The Japan Meteorological Agency still has not yet calculated a final result for the entire year. And NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies should publish its own independent findings very soon, followed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. So check back here.

Meanwhile, El Niño is still going strong, and while it is now expected to weaken gradually in spring and summer, it’s impact on global temperature will very likely continue to be felt in 2016.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://otoomet.blogspot.com Ott Toomet

    Can you please be a bit more specific about the graph? Is it
    * December 2015 vs Decembers 1890-2014 where the blue moving average and the red trend line correspond to trends for December month?
    * December 2015 vs yearly averages 1890-2014 where the lines correspond to the yearly average trends?

    In the second case it is unclear what a single month high anomaly means.

    • ben welgoed

      O..t, It says (loud and clear) in the third paragraph: “The graph shows how the global average temperature in December, …, varied from the long-term average”.

      • http://otoomet.blogspot.com Ott Toomet

        It says “Global average temperature in December 2015 was…” The red text says “…from long-term average…” This does not tell much about the other years. Elsewhere we can read: “The thin black line indicates the surface temperature anomaly of each year.” I guess it means December each year, but I am not sure

        • Tom Yulsman

          My apologies if this was confusing. I thought it was obvious that this graph shows how the global average temperature each December going back to 1890 varied from the long-term mean. I will clarify it in the story.

          • http://otoomet.blogspot.com Ott Toomet

            Thanks. Now I see–you compare Dec to Dec. Makes sense.

        • OWilson

          This stuff is quite complicated and you should leave it to real scientists.

          All you need to know is that there is a scientific “consensus”.

          The “science is settled”. :)

          The use of energy from electricity, gasoline, diesel, natural gas, coal, oil, wood, and nuclear and dams is making our species extinct.

          It has already begun.

          We have already passed James Hansen’s “TIPPING POINT” and we are only 9 days away from Al Gore’s “TIPPING POINT”.

          This is “exceedingly” serious stuff!

          (Gasp!)

          • Mike Richardson

            Or you can just mock knowledge that conflicts with your worldview, and bury your head in the sand. Works for some folks, not so much for the rest of us who like to incorporate new information into our worldview, and accept that which is well supported by evidence.

          • CB

            Mr. Wilson is well-known for lying about climate science!

            …and a prime candidate for someone who has a mental disorder. You really shouldn’t need a consensus opinion to read a thermometer…

            “2015 Unambiguously the Hottest Year on Record… 2015 set the record with 99.996% confidence.”

            berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2015-Hottest-Year-BE-Press-Release-v1.0.pdf

          • OWilson

            I just post the left wing talking points, and you think it is lies.

            Delicious Irony!

          • CB

            “I just post the left wing talking points”

            Don’t do that, Mr. Wilson.

            Post what’s true.

            Are we warming the planet?

            “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

            climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

          • OWilson

            That old “97% consensus” is getting, well, old :)

            Aside from the Cook cite, which is utter unscientific nonsense, the references and especially the “peer reviewed” papers, that were the basis of the ‘consensus” were old indeed.

            Actually for a government Scientific Agency to list that Cook “study” at the very top of their cites, is on a par with the IRS, State Department, V.A. frying their emails, and putting out fraudulent Waiting LIsts. Nothing less than criminal.

            But, I digress, events move quickly in climatology, as they do in politics.

            From Global Cooling in the 70s, to Global Warming in the 90s, to Climate Change in the 00s and back to Global Cooling again.

            Time to get up to date with a new “CONSENSUS” :)

            I suspect you’ll have a little more work to do this time. Especially as PEW is reporting a real 97% consensus that this government cannot be trusted!

            Can’t wait!

          • CB

            “Global Cooling in the 70s…”

            No, Mr. Wilson.

            No, that is not a coherent response to my question.

            A coherent response to my question would have been “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t know”.

            Try again:

            Are we warming the planet?

            “There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.”

            journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

          • OWilson

            I agree, it was all hype, smoke and mirrors.

            And it will one day be denied that a 97% consensus for man made Global Warming ever existed.

            That Cook “study” is junk, and not even science :)

          • CB

            “I agree”

            Again, Mr. Wilson, “I agree” is an incoherent response to the question I posed you.

            Try one more time:

            Are we warming the planet?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • OWilson

            You ask a question and then you answer it yourself in the same post ?

            Looks like you and yourself have it all figured out :)

          • CB

            “You ask a question and then you answer it yourself in the same post ?”

            I already know the answer!

            I want to know if you do.

            Mr. Wilson, are we warming the planet?

            “2015 was the warmest year since modern record-keeping began in 1880, according to a new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”

            http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

          • OWilson

            You don’t know?

          • OWilson

            Sorry, I meant Heil

            Please don’t inform on me :)

          • OWilson

            Of course to believe this nonsense from Berkeley you have to deny the satellite record.

            Take your pick, Berkeley’s data from 1850, or the 40 year satellite record I posted above.

            It’s a free country!

          • Biologyteacher100

            Berkeley Earth was originally funded by the Koch Brothers to allow the skeptical physicist Professor Mueller to recalculate all of the temperature data going back to the 1880s. The Koch Brothers were sorely disappointed when the detailed work of Mueller and his team using the best mathematical techniques, came up with almost a perfect match of the NASA data. Mueller is not longer a climate skeptic.

          • CB

            “Berkeley Earth was originally funded by the Koch Brothers”

            Absolutely true!

            The findings are an example of declaration against interest, which is a sign of true scholarship.

            “Financial Support… Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation”

            berkeleyearth.org/funders

          • OWilson

            That stuff I just posted comes from YOUR side of the debate.

            Why does it upset you so?

          • Mike Richardson

            Your antics don’t really upset anyone, Wilson. I think quite a few people find them entertaining, like those videos of cats frightened by cucumbers. :)

  • john danger

    Yip, hottest recorded temperature 134 degrees Death Valley 1913. Hasn’t made 130 since then, hey just cherry picking data here from the national park service.

    • Icarus62

      A record high temperature for a particular location is necessarily a very rare event, so it’s not surprising that the Death Valley record has not yet been broken, after global warming of around 1C. However, hot records are being broken at much greater rates than cold records, as you would expect in a warming world:

      https://www.climatecommunication.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Fig4_s1.jpg

    • nosmokewithout

      Record temperature records taken from 89 cities around the world, 47% of them were set in this century.

      Your record was a one off and the thermometer, is there one in the same location now? I doubt it.

      You seem stuck in confirmation bias mode. Look at real data please!

  • HappyMan64

    Hey wait. You warmies have been screaming that it takes 30 years to qualify as climate, anything less is just weather. Have the rules changed? All I see here is a data point of one. Get back to me when you round up 359 more months.

    • Icarus62

      The 30-year trend is clear enough.

    • NiCuCo

      “All I see here is a data point of one.”

      I see about 125.

    • nosmokewithout

      Look at 30 years then! The trend is clear for those who care to look!

    • Science Boy

      “data point of one”??? Lordy.

      In any case, the comparison is for ALL decembers since 1890… so rather more than one data point.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Sorry, but you are wrong. What is clearly shown in the graph is a record of global average temperature in each and every December going all the way back to 1890. That would be 125 Decembers. How for goodness sakes is that “a data point of one”?

  • OWilson

    There is always a market for hype, and you can always find it, even if you have to go to Japan for it :)

    How did they get their data from 1890? Maybe from Japanes tourists with antique cameras :) Where and how did they measure their “hundreths of a degree back then?

    What’s wrong with our own satellite data from NOAA and NASA?

    A GODZILLA of an El NINO is responsible for the spike. The author has been telling us ad naseum in previous columns.

    And that graph, OMG!

    If I show you my bank account at the same verticle scale my extra few dollars a month would make me look like I was well on the way to becoming a billionaire. Actually there WAS a spike in December (there was an extra pay day in that month) but I didn’t “gasp when I saw it” :)

    The author is correct when he says it is confusing, but here is something consistent and at an appropriate scale.

    Global average temperature according to our own satellites.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1.png

    Now relax, y’all! :)
    .
    .

    • Science Boy

      Satellites have severe problems with things like cloud cover and orbital decay and therefore must undergo substantial transformations and adjustments before the data are interpretable. The UAH and RSS people have improved their methods for such adjustments, but they still fail to deal with clouds adequately, which is kind of a big problem. Some recent analyses have taken clouds into account and shown that the RSS and UAH feeds then line up beautifully with the surface record.

      As to your comments about 1890… um… well, there were very sophisticated temperature recording even back then. Did you think there wasn’t? Huh. In any case, the paleo record maps on beautifully with the instrument record for that period, which is one of many forms of validation of that record (ie entirely independent data sources).

      Denial of basic facts puts you on rather thin ice. So to speak.

      • OWilson

        1890 global temperature measurement was few and far between, and lack the scientific control and rigor required for the “hundreths of a degree” changes reported.

        Likewise ice cores and tree rings do not return the necessary precision of “hundreths of a degree”.

        But to believe in such contrived, and overly adjusted data, requires dismissing the 40 years of consistent satellite data available to all. But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself :)

        And that “thin ice”, they now tell us, is far thicker at both poles than was previously thought (so to speak) :)

        • Biologyteacher100

          The graph above, shows a strong warming trend in the satellite record from 1978 (the beginning) to present (see Tom’s post). These satellite data underwent at least four major corrections. One correction was due to orbital drift, another was due to aging sensors and two were due to programming errors in the complex modelling the calibrate microwave reflectivity with temperature. In general, when the satellite data diverged from the surface and balloon thermometer data, problems were found in the satellite data. In the past 10 years we have seen very rapid melting of polar ice and continued sea level rise. Sea level rise is a good thermometer for the earth, since most of it is due to thermal expansion of ocean water as it warms.

          • OWilson

            Who told you that polar ice was “rapidly melting” over the last 10 years, or did you make that up too? :)

          • Biologyteacher100

            I looked at the data. Search the internet under “arctic sea ice extent.” The top site is usually the National center for ice and snow. Scientists usually look at the graph for the minimum value in September. The record low was 2012, which was exceptionally low. Not surprisingly, 2013 and 2014 were higher than 2012 and the values started back down again in 2015. The decline in sea ice has been sharp and faster than the models of 2003 or so predicted. If the sea extent were the price of stock for a company, just about any investor would expect the company to go bankrupt.

          • OWilson

            Are you even aware we have two Poles :)

            You are an embarrassment to the term “teacher”.

            And I wouldn’t be giving stock market predictions if I were you :)

          • Biologyteacher100

            I am aware of the Antarctic seas and the south pole. I assume that you have never looked the data. I teach at a university and have worked as a scientist and teacher for nearly 30 years. Fortunately, my work is as a teacher is considered by my graduate and undergraduate students and my work as a researcher is based on how scientists in my field consider the contributions of my publications. What are your credentials and training?

          • OWilson

            Logic, reason and common sense?

            Now you’ve changed the subject again.

            Bye!

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s a really good question, and his answer is pretty funny, considering I’ve not seen a lot of it demonstrated around here. But at least he said he’s done, so I guess you win this round.

          • OWilson

            A teacher? OMG!

            Tom’s graph shows a data set from 1980 to 2015 (35 years)

            He puts a trend line on the first 17 years and projects the same trend line over the next 18 years, as the datapoints are falling.

            I work with this stuff, and we have a name for that. It is worse than “cherrypicking” :)

            And, that same name for low info folks like you who try to flog it to the likewise feeble minded :)

    • Tom Yulsman

      Mr. Wilson: Not that it will matter, because your mind is clearly snapped shut, but here is the RSS satellite record, with the trend indicated: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/rss_linear.jpeg

      • Tom Yulsman

        And yes, as I very clearly state in the story, El Niño clearly is causing warming — atop the background trend of warming that is clearly documented in the satellite record, the balloon record, the thermometer record at the Earth’s surface (where we live), and the signs and symptoms of warming, such as reductions in ice mass at the poles, shrinking glaciers, changes in seasonality, increases in water vapor content of the atmosphere, etc. All of the evidence together tells a remarkably consistent story. You can cherry pick this or that bit to cast doubt if you’d like, but that is reflection of ideological and cultural bias, not an honest, clear-eyed assessment.

        And now, I’d like to wish you an excellent Sunday. Go Broncos! 😉

        • OWilson

          That is some argument you have going there!

          But you forgot the kitchen sink :)

      • OWilson

        A strange comment, given that I posted the virtually the same, but more detailed data.

        Somebody has drawn an arbitrary flat line on it is all.

        Closed mind?

        • Mike Richardson

          “Place your fixed trend line over the last 18 years, and OMG, the trend is downward…”
          You’re reading the graph upside down, right?

          • OWilson

            No, wrong, as usual :)

          • Mike Richardson

            An upward trend is still an upward trend, which is what the graph shows to all of those who aren’t squinting and holding the computer screen a certain way to show what they want to see. 😉

          • OWilson

            What is the trend for the last 18 years?

            This is NOT a trick question :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Some lows, some highs, but still rising. The years prior to your cherry-picked 18 year figure stand out a little more, and this year doesn’t fit at all with the trend to see. Now, over the entire period of the satellite observation, has the temperature been rising? Over the past century? This, also, is not a trick question, my friend. :)

          • OWilson

            Everybody knows the temperature has been slightly 0.44 degrees over the 40 year satellite record), but not for the past 18 years or so.

            Notice the “Gore Effect” this weekend in DC.

            It’s the DAY OF AL GORE’s TIPPING POINT.

            Can your little heart stand it?

            (That is not a trick question :)

          • Mike Richardson

            OMG, you invoked Al Gore! The debate must be over! Lol… seriously, anything to divert away from the actual science. Must. Invoke. Politics.

          • OWilson

            How quickly the left throw away their icons :)

            Leftists like you made him rich!

            To throw him under the bus now, certainly means the hoax is over!

            Cheers!

          • Mike Richardson

            And folks like you have enriched Limbaugh and Beck, regardless of their questionable ethics and sanity. I’m sure they appreciate your using many of their favorite talking points, too. Cheerio. 😉

          • OWilson

            Wrong again! Do you enjoy being wrong?

            I hope you don’t have kids!

            Never listen, and saw Limbaugh on TV once, about 20 years ago.

            Didn’t like him then, and don’t like him now.

            I think from what I’ve seen of Beck, he is a little, well, weird.

            But, bottom line, Canada, where I live, does not broadcast them as far as I am aware.

            The only folks who can quote him word by word are his liberal critics. Go figure who’s in his audience, actually making him rich.

            A little science for you.

            Do a search for Limbaugh references across the comment boards, and see who refer to him most.

            Or just check your own posts versus mine :)

            Too funny :)

            I’m going to have to end it here, I’m starting to feel sorry for you.

            You are not a worthy opponent. Not worth my time.

            Give you the last word :)

          • Mike Richardson

            So magnanimous of you, Wilson. But I’ve never said you yourself watch Beck or Limbaugh — just that your impoverished thought processes mimic them. And you can’t miss hearing some of their garbage tuning your radio, or seeing stuff shared by right-wing relatives on Facebook. It is too funny, you’re right, how often you say the same things, though. Not much original thought coming from the right these days, just the same old trickle-down economics, appeal to base prejudices, and worship of fossil fuels and the worst excesses of unregulated capitalism. Hopefully you’ve found something more worthy of your time, then, such as going back to college or otherwise educating yourself in some new ways of thinking, instead of trying to boldly march back into the 19th century. It’s been fun, my man. :)

          • OWilson

            I don’t believe anybody could be that incompetent.

            Unless just mouthing the talking points.

            Bye!

          • OWilson

            Tom’s graph shows a data set from 1980 to 2015 (35 years)

            He puts a trend line on the first 17 years and projects the same trend line over the next 18 years.

            I work with this stuff, and we have a name for that.

            And, that same name for low info folks like you who try to flog it to the likewise feeble minded :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Yeah, nice dodge. Never a direct answer to a direct question, just more insults and unwarranted arrogance. At least you remain consistent, Wilson. :)

        • Biologyteacher100

          Statistic requires that you use all of the data, rather than cherry picking an outlier high data point for your starting point. The long term trend is clearly shown in Tom’s graph above.

          • OWilson

            Long term?

            From 1980?

            Oh, sometimes I forget it all depends on what “is” is! :)

      • Sparafucile

        Start that graph in 1950 and see how it looks.

    • Biologyteacher100

      Basic statics. If you take the mean of thousands of measurements to the nearest degree, you mean will have a precision greater than a tenth of a degree.

    • cunudiun

      It’s interesting that your graph of UAH 6.0 shows a trend of +0.114 C per decade or +1.14 C per century, while the Japanese Meterological Agency is showing only +0.74 C per century. Do you do science much?

      • OWilson

        It’s not “my graph”.

        It is NOAA satellite data plotted. The data set is easily found on their site.

        Take up your silly arguments up with them :)

        I’m done with you here.

        • cunudiun

          But the satellite data you posted shows more warming than NOAA’s. Wasn’t that clear to you? Mayne you didn’t understand that 1.14 is a bigger number than 0.74. I realize this is rocket science.

          • OWilson

            It is NOT rocket science!

            That’s why you have different rates of “warming” from NOAA, NASA, WMO, and our Japanese friends.

            It is also why the dire projections continue to fail.

            Himalayan Glaciers gone by 2035

            Arctic ice gone by 2015

            Hanson’s TIPPING POINT already passed.

            Al Gore’s TIPPING POINT due this weekend :)

          • cunudiun

            You’re not really capable of engaging in rational argument, are you? Repeating slogans from the websites of paid liars is not the same.

          • OWilson

            All those cites and statements above come from your own side of the debate :)

            At least you’re embarrassed.

            But then, you must be used to it by now :)

          • cunudiun
          • OWilson

            How true!

            (Sigh!)

          • OWilson

            NOAA have two sets of temperature records.

            Meteorological Stations (terrestrial stations) for the relatively longer term records that go back typically to 1890 and are the ones you see in the news, use proxies for the missing data.

            Then they have satellite data which covers the last 40 years or so.

            Guess which one gets all the publicity?

          • cunudiun

            What’s your point?

          • OWilson

            I don’t post for you, I post for the record.

            Time stamped for future reference :)

          • OWilson

            A reply to your post,

            ***But the satellite data you posted shows a faster rate of warming than NOAA’s.***

            NOAA measure temperature in two ways.

            The satellite record 37 years,

            And the relatively longer term back to 1890 using “proxies”.

            They return different products. :)

          • cunudiun

            BS

    • jmac

      #facepalm

  • odin2

    El Ninos are the product of ocean cycles that have been occurring for 1000s of years. An El Nino will cause global temperatures to spike and they are not related to or caused by human activities. El NInos are natural phenomena.

    Bob Tisdale: “Under normal conditions in the tropical Pacific, there is a trade wind-created pool of warm water in the western tropical Pacific (called the West Pacific Warm Pool). That sunlight-fueled pool of warm water can extend to depths of 300 meters and cover an area the size of Russia or twice the size of the U.S. In other words, there can be a monumental amount of sunlight-created warm water in the western tropical Pacific from time to time. Because the water there is naturally so much warmer than other locations, a lot of evaporation and precipitation takes place at the West Pacific Warm Pool.

    During an El Niño, the warm water from the surface and below the surface of the western tropical Pacific floods into the central and eastern tropical Pacific and spreads across its surface. The warm water is focused primarily along the equator (brought there by a prolonged surge in the flow of the equatorial countercurrent, which travels from west to east).

    Because the warm water has traveled into the central and eastern tropical Pacific during the El Niño, that causes that the evaporation, cloud cover and precipitation that is normally in the western tropical Pacific to accompany the warm water eastward.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/15/will-global-warming-increase-the-intensity-of-el-nino/

    ‘Historical changes in El Niño and La Niña characteristics in an ocean reanalysis” by Ray and Giese 2012

    “Overall, there is no evidence that there are changes in the strength, frequency, duration, location or direction of propagation of El Niño and La Niña anomalies caused by global warming during the period from 1871 to 2008.”

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JC008031/full

    • Science Boy

      El Ninos, like la Ninas, do not occur in isolation. They occur against the backdrop of overall climate. The planet has warmed substantially and so la Ninas, which are normally cool, have in recent years been much warmer than in the past. Indeed, la Nina years have been over the last decade included in the hottest years ever recorded. Similarly, the current el Nino is layered on top of a very warm Earth, and so it is an even hotter el Nino than would be expected without a warm planet.

      Yes, ENSO is a natural phenomenon and there is no evidence that they are caused by AGW. No one said there was. There is ample evidence, however that they will interact with overall heat content, which they have clearly been doing over the past few decades.

      Incidentally, please avoid posting links to conspiracy blogs like WUWT. If you cannot find support for your positions within the peer reviewed literature you should re-examine your position. That’s what a scientist would do.

      • odin2

        ROFLOL

      • TheEnergyGuy

        Thank you to Science Boy for a very well stated and perfectly accurate response to odin2. All that odin2 needs to do to understand the situation is to research the positive trend of average global land and sea surface temperature
        of El Nino years, and then do the same for La Nina years.

    • Heffer

      [From one of the papers citing the paper you linked, using the newer SODA 2.2.6]

      “The strength of La Niña is weaker than for El Niño and has less variability, a prominent asymmetry in the reanalysis.”

      “Overall, the tendency for ENSO is propagating eastward”

      “In the ensemble reanalysis, ENSO has prominent decadal variability and a weak long-term trend”

      “Since the impact of ENSO is worldwide, the teleconnections of ENSO on global climate in the last century is an interesting topic to pursue”

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrc.20284/full

      We know that radiance from the earth at CO2 frequencies is decreasing. Just one of many obvious indicators that the climate is storing solar energy.

      It’s a natural hypothesis that the increasing heat in the coupled system is buffered in the ocean in the ESNO/PDO/etc down-phase, and exchanged with the atmosphere in the up-phase. Some of it is no doubt advected to the deeper ocean, as well. Whether that implies changes in ENSO is not yet clear, but there are changes in El Nino which at least correlate with atmospheric temperature increase.

      • odin2

        From the paper you cite:

        “Long-term changes of El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) are studied using an ensemble ocean reanalysis that includes eight ensemble members from 1871 to 2008 and coupled model intercomparison project phase 5 (CMIP5). The presence of greater “weather noise” in the ensemble member forcing relative to the ensemble average has a conflicting impact on ENSO. In the western Pacific, higher wind speed cools sea surface temperature, which leads to a weaker zonal temperature gradient and hence weaker ENSO. In contrast, stronger episodes of westerly wind, which get averaged out in the ensemble mean, can lead to a stronger than average ENSO in some ensemble members. The ensemble reanalysis has weak El Niño throughout the record, whereas strong El Niño occurs at the beginning and end of the record. The strength of La Niña is weaker than for El Niño and has less variability, a prominent asymmetry in the reanalysis. ENSO variability is also analyzed in the CMIP5 historical experiments. Results show that most of the models have a realistic representation of the strength of ENSO; however, the location generally extends too far to the west. NONE OF THE CMIP5 MODELS INVESTIGATED SHOW A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE STRENGTH OR LOCATION OF ENSO FROM THE MID-NINETEENTH THROUGH THE TWENTIETH CENTURIES. One distinguishing difference between the CMIP5 models and the ensemble reanalysis is that ENSO in the reanalysis has prominent asymmetry between El Niño and La Niña, whereas ENSO in the CMIP5 models tends to have fairly symmetric El Niño and La Niña. [Emphasis supplied}

        This study has to be taken with a grain of salt as it is entirely based on climate models which have been a embarrassing failure. As the prominent mathematician John van Neumann said:

        “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.”

        The “missing” heat is not in the oceans:

        http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/12/701/2015/osd-12-701-2015.pdf

        http://www.nature.com/nclimate

        BTW, Believers have apparently given up on the 66 excuses for the pause (the missing heat hiding in the oceans being one of them) and they are now arguing that the missing heat was never missing in the first place. See Karl et al.

        • Heffer

          Maybe you should just read the paper. They are critiquing the CMIP5 models. The thing they are doing that is different from the paper you approved earlier is that they’re using a newer version Simple Ocean Data Assimilation data (2.2.6), than was used in the earlier paper (2.2.4).

          Your previous post asserted that there was no correlation between ENSO and increasing global temperture. That’s a reasonable scientific question.

          Now it looks more like you’re here to use cherry-picked quotes from scientific papers to try to prop up the fringe idea that the climate is actually not accumulating heat. That’s a lot harder to support, if you’re also planning on looking at data.

          Perhaps you dopn’t realize that climate models have actually been quite successful, though of course there is still a lot to be done. Furthermore, the idea that “climate change” is only shown in models is ridiculous. Do you really think that?

          Here’s the first paragraph from that same paper, to which I’m guessing you won’t be ADDING EMPHASIS:

          “Global warming has received great attention not only because of its scientific importance, but also because changing climate will have a significant impact on global economics and policy. Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, a major cause of global mean temperature rise, have been analyzed in coupled ocean and atmosphere models [Meehl et al., 2007]. Understanding the response pattern of the climate system to global warming forcing helps us understand how climate change arises and will improve climate predictions. In particular, the response of the tropical Pacific Ocean to global warming has been investigated because of its considerable significance to global climate, with impacts on global drought [Schubert et al., 2004; Seager et al., 2005], tropical cyclone activity [Vecchi and Soden, 2007a], and biological productivity [Chavez et al., 2011]. However, there is still uncertainty about how the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the most prominent climate phenomenon in the tropical Pacific Ocean, will respond to global warming.”

          • odin2

            Straw man. Obviously there is a relationship between El Ninos and rising temperatures. El Ninos cause a rise in GMT. But human activities do not cause El Ninos or , according to the study I referenced, to the frequency, or strength of the El Ninos referenced by the study.

          • odin2

            From your post:

            You: “Here’s the first paragraph from that same paper, to which I’m guessing you won’t be ADDING EMPHASIS:”

            ‘ Global warming has received great attention not only because of its scientific importance, but also because CHANGING CLIMATE WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON GLOBAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY. INCREASING CONCENTRATIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES, A MAJOR CAUSE OF GLOBAL MEAN TEMPERATURE RISE, HAVE BEEN ANALYZED IN COUPLED OCEAN AND ATMOSPHERE MODELS [MEEHL ET AL., 2007]. UNDERSTANDING THE RESPONSE PATTERN OF THE CLIMATE SYSTEM TO GLOBAL WARMING FORCING HELPS US UNDERSTAND HOW CLIMATE CHANGE ARISES AND WILL IMPROVE CLIMATE PREDICTIONS. IN PARTICULAR, THE RESPONSE OF THE TROPICAL PACIFIC OCEAN TO GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BECAUSE OF ITS CONSIDERABLE SIGNIFICANCE TO GLOBAL CLIMATE, WITH IMPACTS ON GLOBAL DROUGHT [SCHUBERT ET AL., 2004; SEAGER ET AL., 2005], TROPICAL CYCLONE ACTIVITY [VECCHI AND SODEN, 2007A], AND BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTIVITY [CHAVEZ ET AL., 2011]. [Emphasis supplied]. However , there is still uncertainty about how the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the most prominent climate phenomenon in the tropical Pacific Ocean, will respond to global warming.'”

            I emphasized the political language that you quoted from the paper. Note that the paper assumes that increasing concentrations of GHG are the major cause of GMT rise. This is the hypothesis for AGW, but there has never been a study or studies with the empirical evidence to support the hypothesis. Even with such obviously biased language in the paper (lawyers would call it dicta), the paper concludes:

            “However , there is still uncertainty about how the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the most prominent climate phenomenon in the tropical Pacific Ocean, will respond to global warming.”

        • Paul McCormick

          The next thing we will hear will be the dark heat theory!

          • odin2

            It’s where Darth Vader disappeared.

          • Paul McCormick

            What apparently happens when the answers aren’t readily obvious and the theoretical is employed to give it resolution. Now the search will begin to cover the unknown with rhetoric of the plausible.

          • RubyMontana

            Spit the wine on the keyboard with that!
            :)

    • http://otoomet.blogspot.com Ott Toomet

      This seems like a nice explanation (hope this is correct as well).

      But neither the explanation nor the paper you cite does tell much about the temperature trends. The study concludes with exactly what you quote at the end of your comment: no evidence for ENSO changing over the last century. There is no evidence for temperature not changing in that paper.

      • odin2

        The point was to distinguish AGW from El Ninos which are a natural phenomena.

        As for GMT (the El Nino has shortened the pause to 18 years and 8 months);

        https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png

        • Biologyteacher100

          Take a class in basic statistics. You might also spend some time reading scientific studies that use good statistics. The “no warming since…” puts in the class of statistics denier.

          • Sparafucile

            Why do you deny empirical data.

            It’s fantastically ironic that you and your ilk are constantly accusing (via projection, it seems) others of being “deniers”.

          • odin2

            And this one claims to be a biology teacher!

          • cunudiun
          • odin2

            Impressive credentials if they are true. Especially for someone who promotes Lysenkoscience.

          • cunudiun

            Do what he said. Go to Google Scholar. They are true.

          • odin2

            if is true only if one assumes that William R. DeMott stoops to posting AGW pseudoscience under the name of Biologyteacher100. I have read Biologyteacher’s posts and I have not been impressed with his science. It is more likely that a Believer assumed DeMott’s identity and picture at global scholar and is trying to impersonate him. There is precedence for Believers doing this. John Cook of Skeptical Science fame impersonating Luboš Motl for example.

          • cunudiun

            No one cares what you’re impressed with. And you’ve reached an all time low charging Biologyteacher100 with identity theft. I suppose this is the only tactic you have left now that all other means of defense have been stripped from you by rational argument. I wonder how silly you’ll feel should this little exchange come to deMott’s attention and he decides to verify his connection to Biologyteacher100 from the other side. On second thought, given all the public humiliation you’ve already suffered and laughed off, you’re probably immune to embarrassment by now.

          • odin2

            Why should I believe you? I accused no one of anything. I questioned whether Biologyteacher100 was William R. DeMott. I still do.

            Have Biologyteacher100 prove that he is William R. DeMott.

            And, Cook did impersonate Luboš Motl.

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/

            http://motls.blogspot.com/2015/07/identity-theft-thief-of-lubosmotl-turns.html#more

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/07/crook-cooks-identity-fraud.html

            http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/07/john-cook-of-univ-of-queensland-skeptical-science-ss-does-identity-theft-of-luboš-motl-a-theoretical.html

            Playing the outraged/cynical victim seems to come naturally to you.

          • cunudiun

            Nothing but garbage propaganda sites.

          • odin2

            Cook was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Was he wearing his uniform at the time? :)

          • cunudiun

            I believe it was you who said, “Thanks for conceding with an ad hominem.”

          • odin2

            Where is the ad hominem in anything I posted? Sarcasm yes, ad hominem no. Cook was caught with his hand in the cookie jar and there was a picture or him wearing a WWII German military uniform posted at Skeptical Science. Those facts go to the credibility of Cook and Skeptical Science and support my point that at least one Believer has been know to assume the identity of others. I have no idea how often this happens, but it is reasonable to assume that it is not an isolated incident.

          • cunudiun

            You have said nothing about anything Cook ever said.

          • OWilson

            They do it all the time.

            Peter Gleick, “Climate Scientist”, remember him?

            He admitted impersonating somebody else.

          • Woodfords Frog

            Why, didn’t Naomi Oreskes also dress up too? Or am I just imposing a mental image since she
            is calling for climate skeptics to be charged with crimes under RICO, proposing a Nuremberg style trial…..

          • odin2

            It might enhance her stature with Believers. :)

          • Woodfords Frog

            Yes! 😀

          • Biologyteacher100

            I use statistics almost every day in my lab research and have also published two studies based on long term field data (10-22 years of monthly data). Do you really think that the scientific requirement for valid statistical analysis means that the data are “denied?” Statistics is simply an object application of probability theory to understand whether differences and changes are real. Anyone who reads the scientific literature understands that statistical testing a an essential aspect of data analysis. I’ve been a reviewer or editor of over 1200 peer reviewed articles during a long career as a scientist. Improper or inadequate statistics is a main cause for rejection of a scientific manuscript.

          • Sparafucile

            So which are you? A grade school teacher, or a researcher?

            It seems the only thing you actually are, is a fabulist.

          • Biologyteacher100

            I teach biology and do research at a university. I am a full professor and have any Ivy League Ph.D. What are you?

          • Sparafucile

            Ivy-league educated physicist, published, with 25+ years in my field (solid-state physics). But I know enough loons to cherish my anonymity.

          • odin2

            https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png

            The above graph in starts from 1997. What would have happened if there had been no El Nino 1998 to offset cooling after the cooling that followed? Without that big spike, the trend would be down, showing cooling. The chart also includes the El Nino of 2010-11 and the increased temperatures from the current El Nino.

            The graphs of the RSS dataset shows the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean lower-troposphere dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not “cherry-picked” so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 El Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend.

            But if you want to show a longer period, here is a chart showing the temperatures from 1880:

            http://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2016/01/Global-2-copy.jpg

            The NASA data for the chart is here:

            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.txt

          • PRAFTD

            Wow, you can’t be serious…

            For starters, your first graph is patently wrong.

            I honestly don’t even know where that data is coming from. Since when was the global temperature diverages 1 degree Celsius above average in 1998?

            You realize it has never been that high, right? Where is your source for that?

            http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/images/giss_temperature.png

            You second graph is even worse.The scale is completely off to the point where you cannot even read it.

            You realize the changes are occurring at the decimal point, right? How exactly are you planning to see a trend line when your scale is per degree?

          • odin2

            The first graph is based on RSS data and 1998 was the “super” EL Nino. There is nothing wrong with the second graph. It is based on NASA data. The graph just does not use a vertical scale designed to visually enhance a very small rise in GMT. Believers use scale as a scaremongering tactic. BTW, the second graph does show a positive trend line. I never said that it didn’t . It is just nothing to be alarmed about. It’s called natural variation.

          • cunudiun

            First from all the overwhelming array of evidence that the planet is warming, you cherry-pick a single dataset RSS that even Carl Mears, who has produced it says should not be used this way. Then yoyu cherry-pick the subset of that data that can produce the illusion you want. Cherry Cherry Cherry.
            https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/cherry-cruz-cherry-monckton-cherry-christy-cherry-spencer-cherry-curry/

          • odin2

            When you show a trend, you have to have a starting point and an ending. The ending is a given. It is the most recent data available. The Believers only complaint is that they want to cherry pick the starting point. And, Mears is a Believer who must be under considerable strain and pressure because of the failure of RSS to validate the climate models. RSS and nature have not cooperated with AGW. It is a real conundrum for Believers.

          • cunudiun

            Total nonsense. There is no conundrum whatsoever. You are simply picking your starting point to show the trend you want. Others can pick other starting points to show other trends. There is no conundrum because such trends are meaningless.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Tamino is a professional statistician and, for anyone who understands statistics, provides great insights into data analysis and how some people use cherry picking to mislead and confuse.

          • cunudiun

            Tamino is brilliant, must reading, as far as I’m concerned, for anyone wanting to see through all the contrarian BS. Though he has written many insightful pieces peeling the layers off of complicated issues, my favorite is his Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise, in which he blew away the concept of a pause in global warming months before Tom Karl’s adjustments to the temperature record were reported to have done the same,
            _____

            I don’t know if you’re aware of it yet, but your authenticity has been challenged on the pages. I think 99 people out of 100 won’t take it seriously because it’s pretty obvious to any rational person you are who you say you are, but I thought you should be aware of this just in case you decide it is worth some kind of response. The original challenge came after I posted a link to the post where you identified yourself, here and was amplified here and here. Isn’t it amazing the extremes, the twists and contortions, these anti-science people will go to in order not to admit they’ve made a mistake. They have no hesitation about slandering a person and calling him a liar without a shred of evidence.

            I’ve been thinking about it, and the only way in the Disqus environment I can see to prove — if you care to do so — that you really are not someone who has falsely adopted W. R. DeMott’s identity would be for some authoritative source, e.g. someone at a university or publishing house to post at a site that no impostor could have access to (not Disqus) a statement like, “I see that our friend W. R. DeMott is commenting on Disqus under the name Biologyteacher100.” Then you could easily counter any doubters by posting a link to that statement. That does seem like a lot of trouble to go to to pacify an idiot, and it’s up to you whether you want to spend energy on something like that. As I said, I’m sure most people would laugh away Odin’s fantasies, like I do.

          • Biologyteacher100

            One verification is that the photo that I am using for Biologyteacher100 is the same photo that WR DeMott uses in his Google Scholar profile. Yes, Biologyteacher100 has had a long and successful career teaching biology and conducting and publishing research at a university. I am proud that my scientific articles are very well cited, totaling over 4600 citations in Google Scholar. Yes, I am on the editorial boards of Freshwater Biology and Aquatic Ecology. Yes, got my Ph.D. at Dartmouth and spend a postdoc, a sabbatical and a summer at the Max Plank Institute Fuer Limnology in Ploen, Germany. I also worked with Ellen Van Donk’s group during a sabbatical and several summers in the Dutch “Center for Limnology” Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences. If you search under Manca and DeMott 2099 you can find my only climate change publication, about how warming effect the food chain of Lake Maggiore on the border between Italy and Switzerland. Thus, you can notice that quite a few of my first author publications (and the second author Italian publication) are from these European Institutes. You might also check out Aloysio Ferrao, who worked in my lab during part of his Ph.D. on effects toxic cyanobacteria on zooplankton. Aloysio is not a professor back in his native Brazil. I am a second or third author on several of Aloysio’s publications. I guess that I don’t really care if people think I am not who I say I am.

          • cunudiun

            I certainly believe you and am in awe of your achievements. The problem is anyone can use any photo as their “avatar” and Disqus does not police for this. I’ve seen someone appropriate a professor’s photo before. As I say, there’s not a doubt in my mind who you are. I was just thinking about removing one tool from people like Odin’s slanderbox. Of course they never shut up anyway, so I guess you’re right not to give a damn whether people like that say they believe you or not.

          • OWilson

            You are wise to caution him.

            His ramblings and dissembling here are not the stuff of an educated man.

            If he is who he says he is, this sort of amateur low info bantering could be hung around his neck forever.

            Nothing posted on the internet is private.

          • cunudiun

            I’ve already shown here, OWilson, that your judgement is so warped by confirmation bias that you can’t read a graph or understand basic math, so your assessment of the competence of a real scientist is just laughable.

          • OWilson

            I posted a graph of NOAA satellite data.

            You didn’t like that :)

            Reality. Deal with it! :)

          • cunudiun
          • jmac

            So true.

          • OWilson

            Absolutely true!

          • Tom Moran

            How did the 3 previous naturally occurring warm periods effect Lake Maggiore?

          • Woodfords Frog

            “slandering a person and calling him a liar without a shred of evidence”
            Oh, you mean, like you do?

            By the way, Biologyteacher100, doesn’t respond to any comment that contains empirical evidence refuting what he claims…..

          • OWilson

            And here’s you calling Tom’s graph above from 1980 to the present “long term” :)

            That’s 40 years out of some 4,500,000,000.

            Signal, or noise? :)

            And your low info followers cheer you on.

            No wonder we’ll probably have a “congenital” liar in the White House and her sexual predator husband, or an outright socialist.

            Time for me to retire to my paradise island and kick back :)

          • Biologyteacher100

            Cherry picking means “selective use of data in a deceptive manner.” If you want to be honest, start your analysis back in 1978. If you want to be honest, also include data from the earth’s surface, where all of us live. The last cold global temperature record was in 1913, the last warm record will be announced by NASA and NOAA on Wednesday as 2015. That means “no cooling since 1913″ and no warming since 2015.”

            The only statistically rational approach uses all of the data that are available (satellites go back to 1978, I think) and looks at trends and possible changes in trend. Both the satellite record and the surface record show increasing temperature trends and no evidence for a decrease in the trend, much less a trend with a negative slope. You also note increasing trends in sea level, ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 and a strongly decreasing trend in arctic sea ice (don’t forget to point out that the Antarctic sea ice has increased.

          • OWilson

            Wrong again as usual.

            The coldest temperature ever recorded on earth was last year in the Antarctic. (Vostok Sta.)

            You are an embarrassment not only to the teaching profession, but to statistical analysis as well.

            Go peddle your junk to low info folks who don’t know better.

          • Biologyteacher100

            We were talking about annual mean global records, not records for one day at one place.

          • OWilson

            No “we” weren’t.

            You stated, “The last cold global temperature record was in 1913”

            You are no teacher :)

            Either that or you are the reason the Democratic inner city ghettos remain illiterate and dependent for ever on government handouts :)

          • Biologyteacher100

            Sorry if I misunderstood your meaning. I thought that we were talking about a graph of global annual mean temperatures. NASA has a nice page on this temperature record. If we look at the ten warmest and coldest year in the surface record, going back to 1880, all ten of the coldest years occurred before 1918 and all ten of the warmest years occurred after 1997. Just to be clear, I am talking about the ten warmest and the ten coldest years for the mean global temperature measured by thermometers at the earth’s surface.

          • cunudiun

            Since you repeated your graph, I’ll repeat mine.
            https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2095/6070/original.jpg

          • cunudiun

            I believe the second graph is mislabeled. It is obviously an electroencephalogram scan showing your brain activity.

          • odin2

            ROFLOL. Thanks for conceding with an ad hominem. Did you think of that all by yourself?

          • cunudiun

            Odin, why don’t you just give it up?

          • odin2

            I don’t have to. You conceded.

          • cunudiun

            I really don’t think the Kochs are getting their money’s worth with you.

          • odin2

            http://www.nature.com/nature/j

            Which has what to do with AGW? Drought and bad weather has never been good for crops.

          • cunudiun

            And weather extremes are on the increase due to the human influence on climate.

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html

          • odin2

            http://www.nature.com/nclimate

            As usual, you misrepresent the paper and use it to scaremonger:

            From the abstract:

            1. Here, we review the evidence and [ARGUE] that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence [empirical evidence of causation?] linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate.” [Emphasis added]

            Translation= Warm weather generates more heatwaves and precipitation (who knew?). Give us some more grant money and we will prove that cold weather generates deaths from exposure and frostbite.

            2. ” For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.”

            Translation: We have no empirical evidence that AGW is causing extreme weather such as storms etc., but send us more grant money and we will do another study and see what we can come up with by torturing the data ……

            Since the paper is paywalled, there is not much else to be said about it. But, point #2 is consistent with IPCC AR5:

            Roger Pielke Jr. :

            In the process of updating Senate testimony given back in July (here in PDF) I did compile some key statements from the IPCC AR5 WGI Chapter 2 on extremes.
            Here are a few:

            “Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”

            “There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

            “Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

            “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

            “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

            “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

            “In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

            There is really not much more to be said here — the data says what it says, and what it says is so unavoidably obvious that the IPCC has recognized it in its consensus.

            http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/10/coverage-of-extreme-events-in-ipcc-ar5.html

            http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

          • cunudiun

            This evidence is more recent that AR5.

          • odin2
          • cunudiun

            Your first paper is a good one. Here is it’s summary:

            This report contributes to the growing body of evidence that human influences on climate have changed the risk of some extreme events and that scientists are increasingly able to detect these changes. A failure to find anthropogenic signals for several events examined in this report does not prove anthropogenic climate change had no role to play. Rather, an anthropogenic contribution to these events that is distinguishable from natural climate variability could not be detected by these analyses. Thus, there may have been an anthropogenic role, but these particular analyses did not find one. This year, the number of events analyzed in this report has again increased, and the range of event types analyzed has expanded to include a blizzard, snowfall, and a midlatitude cyclone.

            It goes on:

            We acknowledge that these reports represent a small and nonrandom sampling of extreme events from around the world. However, with 22 studies looking at 16 events, a few interesting patterns emerge. Examining Table 24.1 reveals that the nine analyses of extreme heat events overwhelmingly showed that human-caused climate change is having an influence. In some cases, events have become as much as 10 times more likely due to the current cumulative effects of human-induced climate change, as found for the Korean heat wave of summer 2013.

            http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

            Your second link is to something from The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group whose stated objectives are to challenge government policies to mitigate AGW, and I don’t waste my time reading propaganda.

          • odin2

            Of course, the first report is written by Believers. Even then they failed “to find anthropogenic signals for several events examined in this report.”

            From the report:
            “In this paper, 20 different research groups explored the causes of 16 different events that occurred in 2013.The findings indicate that human-caused climate change greatly increased the risk for the extreme heat waves assessed in this report. How human influence affected other types of events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms was less clear, indicating that natural variability likely played a much larger role in these extremes.”

            The only thing that they could attribute to AGW is heat waves and then they cited the IPCC report and claim that “most” of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. This is an assumption for which there is no empirical evidence. How about the heat waives in the 1930s?

            The language you quote is just the authors ensuring that they will retain their government grants despite the fact that they could not link extreme weather events to “events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms”. The failure to genuflect to AGW can have serious effects on a scientists government funding.

            You ignore the GWPF report. Here is another GWPF report with an extensive review of the the current science on extreme weather events:

            http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/11/Khandekar-Extreme-Weather.pdf

            And a collection of data concerning the frequency of extreme weather events:

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/climatic-phenomena-pages/extreme-weather-page/

            But at the end of the day, there is no empirical evidence that human activities (primarily CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming. Provide a scientific paper or papers that prove me wrong.

          • cunudiun

            You’re a joke. Read their summary.

          • odin2

            I did. They found a link between global warming and heat waves. (surprise, surprise). Then, they assumed that there was an a human cause. No empirical evidence and no links to events such as droughts, heavy rain events, and storms.

            You: “The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group whose stated objectives are to challenge government policies to mitigate AGW…”

            From the GWPF website:

            :The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.

            We are in no sense ‘anti-environmental’. There is a wide range of important environmental issues, which call for an equally wide range of policy responses. Our concern is solely with the possible effects of any future global warming and the policy responses that may evoke.

            The GWPF is funded overwhelmingly by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.

            We have developed a distinct set of principles that set us apart from most other stakeholders in the climate debates:

            The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.

            On climate science, our members and supporters cover a broad range of different views, from the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism.

            Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and their economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.

            We regard observational evidence and understanding the present as more important and more reliable than computer modelling or predicting the distant future.

            Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time.”

            It is unfortunate that you do not read the GWPF papers and reports. By refusing to do so, you are choosing to remain ignorant. But, that is a choice you make for yourself.

          • Mike Richardson

            “Believers?” Science isn’t a belief system — either the evidence supports a theory/model, or it doesn’t. The overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that the average global temperature is rising, and that the main driver of this change is the release of greenhouse gases due to human activity. Most of us accept this preponderance of evidence as proving that fact beyond reasonable doubt. Belief is therefore not necessary. On the other hand, allowing your ideology or worldview to force you to reject solid evidence so that you can continue to cling to it — that’s the very definition of being a “Believer.”

          • odin2

            There is no empirical evidence that supports the theory that humans (primarily CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming. Whenever a hypothesis is believed without empirical evidence it is not science but a cult or religion, Believers are members of the Church of Climate Scientology. MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen agrees:

            “As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”

            “They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’”

            As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.”

            “Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”

            The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance.

            “Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/

          • Mike Richardson

            The strident language, the need to apply labels like “warmists,” and reject science with like-minded friends, all while posting from such far-right blogs as Breitbart, really isn’t helping your point that you aren’t the believer here.

          • odin2

            Attacking the source of the article and ignoring what Professor Lindzen has to say is a sure sign that you are an AGW Believer. If you want to prove otherwise, provide a scientific paper or papers that provide empirical evidence that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming.

          • Mike Richardson

            At this point, it’s pretty much the same as asking for papers providing empirical evidence that natural selection drives evolution, that the earth is round, or that the sun is the center of the solar system. I’m sure Breitbart can provide you with plenty of industry-purchased papers to convince you otherwise regardless.

          • odin2

            Still looking for some empirical evidence, eh?

          • Mike Richardson

            Not too difficult, really:
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
            And for more advanced readers:
            https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm
            Now if you wish to have empirical evidence that water is wet, I suggest running some water in a bathtub, and repeatedly bathing. Record the sensation, wet or dry, on each bath. Next time, we’ll discuss empirical evidence for whether or not the sun produces heat. :)

          • odin2

            Skeptical Science is a blog that promotes AGW and is not skeptical of even the most outrageous AGW claims. There is no empirical evidence of causation in those SS articles. There is a lot describing the AGW hypothesis and discussion of the correlation of observed climate effects and warming, but there is no empirical evidence of causation.

            “Empirical evidence is information that is acquired by observation or experimentation. This data is recorded and analyzed by scientists and is a central process as part of the scientific method.”

            ……

            “Because scientists are human and prone to error, empirical data is often gathered by multiple scientists who independently replicate experiments. This also guards against scientists who unconsciously, or in rare cases consciously, veer from the prescribed research parameters which could skew the results.”

            “The recording of empirical data is also crucial to the scientific methods, as science can only be advanced if data is shared and analyzed. Peer review of empirical data is essential to protect against bad science.”

            Today many studies and papers are published on line with their data and code so that anyone with the scientific expertise can critique and replicate the study or paper. This helps avoid “pal’ review by a close knit group of scientists and makes it more difficult for scientists who have a political agenda to keep scientists with a different viewpoint from publishing.

            Note the the data and methodology have to be made public so that disinterested scientists can replicate the experiment or observation to eliminate the possibility of bias, human error or outright fraud.

            The following are not empirical evidence :

            1. Appeals to authority;

            2. Appeals to consensus;

            3. A hypothesis (no matter how elegant);

            4. Computer climate models;

            5. Evidence of CO2 and temperatures rising at the same time (correlation is not proof of causation and besides studies show that temperatures increase before CO2 increases- which suggests that the AGW hypothesis of CO2 emissions causing global warming is backwards);

            6. Evidence of what happens when temperatures increase or decrease (this may or may not be evidence of the effects of changes in temperatures, but it is not evidence of what caused the change in temperatures);

            7. Predictions of dire consequences of global warming like increased frequency, duration or strength of climate phenomena (these are based on GCM projections and the assumption that there is global warming as projected by the climate models (usually the worst case scenarios)- if the projected warming does not occur, the dire consequences will never happen

            Provide empirical evidence of causation.

          • Mike Richardson

            “Attacking the source of the article…” Lol… Sound familiar? I’m sorry, but quite a bit of empirical evidence has been provided, from articles and papers you can find on that site and many others, but as expected, you won’t accept that. Maybe we can start from the water is wet premise, and work up from there. Or maybe next you can ask me for empirical evidence the earth isn’t flat.

          • odin2

            Believers attack the source of the article without addressing the content of the article. I didn’t do that.

            “Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.”

            “John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.”

            Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,”

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

            Love the picture of John Cook in a WWII SS uniform and the notation at the bottom of the picture designating him as “Reichstuhrer -SS. Is the uniform acceptable office attire at Skeptical Science?

            And, is this acceptable behavior at Skeptical Science?

            See also:

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/06/unskeptical-unsciences-manufactured.html

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/08/skeptical-science-authors-like-to-pose.html

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2015/08/there-is-no-correlation-between-co2-and.html

            http://www.c3headlines.com/2015/07/john-cook-of-univ-of-queensland-skeptical-science-ss-does-identity-theft-of-luboš-motl-a-theoretical.html

            http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/unskeptical-science-uses-unitless-fudge-factors/

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/18/skeptical-sciences-john-cook-making-up/

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/01/skeptical-science-crap.html

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/10/the-ultimate-skeptical-science-cherry-pick/

            Michael Mann described Real Climate (and sites like Skeptical Science) well when he wrote in an email uncovered in Climategate:

            Mann: the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site

            [Real Climate] is about. – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/climategate-2-0/#sthash.LhcIHi2f.dpuf

          • Mike Richardson

            Ah, Climategate. I guess next you need to invoke Al Gore. 😉 There’s really no need to wage a PR battle against deniers. PR is what your side focuses on, because you’ve already lost on the facts alone.

          • odin2

            Balderdash.

          • Steveglen

            Actually, they’re not. Instead, they’d like to make it a crime for people to present any evidence contrary to their beliefs.

          • OWilson

            No its “pretty much” not!

            Nobody wants to raise taxes and cut off the engine of Western Civilization, cheap fossil fuels, and “re-distribute” (steal) its Capital to third world despots in the name of fixing evolution, or the solar system :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Wilson, you really need to get off your knees in front of the gas pump. I know you think it’s great and all, but there are better ways of running an economy out there, as more and more people are coming to understand. All this right-wing hyperbole and worship of fossil fuels is really killing your credibility.

          • OWilson

            A government employee, Bernie Sanders supporter attacking my “credibility” is what I consider praise indeed!

            Tell us more about your “better ways of running an economy”.

            You just made joke post of the day, again! :)

            See why I enjoy it here?

          • Mike Richardson

            I’m sure you get plenty of “praise” from many quarters, Wilson. But as long as it keeps you happy, and not joining some militia group to protest the “gumbint” by taking over a bird sanctuary, I guess I’ve done my part. As for a better way of running the economy, I’d say not allowing the most exploitive forms of business to dictate the terms of our society would be a good start. But that’s common sense, something you apparently enjoy disputing on a regular basis. So please enjoy the rest of the weekend. :)

          • OWilson

            Common sense. from a socialist Bernie Sanders supporter?

            That’l’ be the day!

            On the other hand, maybe we do have something in common after all.

            I’d love to see Hillary Indicted :)

          • OWilson

            Ah, labels!

            To come up with the term “deniers” you must have “believers”.

            I know it’s confusing for the low info folks! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Perhaps you should discuss that with your good friend. He’s quite fond of the term “believers,” though he’s something of the sort himself, right? 😉

          • OWilson

            So, what is the opposite of “denier” again?

            Maybe your guru who knows more than those billions of people, including the “most educated” in the world can help you out :)

          • jmac

            Could a graphic display be any more misleading? Especially the y-axis.

          • odin2

            Yes, you can calibrate the y axis in .01/degree and use it to scare the uniformed. This chart helps to put things in perspective. That is why Believers hate it.

          • jmac

            #facepalm

          • odin2

            There is no need to hide your embarrassment with a facepalm.

          • jmac

            That is a common response I use for people displaying abject ignorance, that has not even a starting point for intelligent discussion. You have earned it more than once.

          • odin2

            Thanks for conceding with an ad hominem.

          • jmac

            You are welcome.

          • Allen Eltor

            If you’d like to explain how you came to the conclusion an overall colder bath of light reducing fluid,

            made the temperature of a light warmed rock higher than OUT of the

            light robbing refrigerated bath,
            while receiving full light,

            I’d like to hear your step by step explanation of the heater you claim is in the frigid, light robbing sky overhead.

            And I’d like to hear your refutation of thermodynamics blogger Konrad Hartmann’s experiment showing CLEARLY that atmospherically reflected infrared COOLS water not heats it –

            Hartmann’s some kind of porn author who said he knew of the effect and did an experiment.

            Note he threw down the gauntlet in 2011 : [Konrad: Emperical Test of ocean cooling and back radiation theory ]

            [Roy Spencer: Can Infrared Warm a Water Body?]

            And what do you have to say to convince everyone here the laws of thermodynamics don’t correctly arrive at the temperature of Venus with NO ghg effect WHAT EVER?

            First some ex government employee did it: EXTREMELY SIMPLY: [Huffman: setting the stage: no green house on venus ]

            Then came online thermodynamics metrics blogger and GHG EFFECT LECTURER Steve Goddard: who calculated the temp of Venus himself:

            NO ghge on Venus AT all.

            NONE.

            [goddard: venus envy//hyperventilating on venus ]

            then what do you PERSONALLY have to add by way of your PERSONAL CRITIQUE so WE can see if you even KNOW what you’re TALKING ABOUT:

            about Harvard astrophysicist LUBOS MOTL’s REVIEW when he heard of Goddard’s finding saying

            HE CONCURS: MOTL: former GHGE LECTURER HIMSELF: SURPRISED it’s so SIMPLY CALCULATED,

            ”always figured everybody checked,”

            No green house gas effect on Venus
            what
            ever.

            Not
            Once
            Not
            Ever.

            SIMPLEST of REAL fluid mechanics and *BINGO* the TEMPERATURE of VENUS.

            SIMPLEST of REAL fluid mechanics and *BINGO* the TEMPERATURE of MARS.

            SIMPLEST of REAL fluid mechanics and *BINGO* the TEMPERATURE of EARTH.

            GO FIGURE the – LAWS of thermodynamics written for ATMOSPHERES – WORKS on ATMOSPHERES.

            WHAT a COINCIDENCE and HOW do you explain the UTTER lack of compression fluid mechanics in Hansen and post Hansen climate models?

            BE CLEAR what you mean.

            There’s going to be a test.

            in the face of the follow up experiment performed after four years of real scientists mercilessly mocking phake physics frauds, by Magic Gasser Roy Spencer:

            showing CLEARLY: green house gas emitted light COOLS water. Not warms it.

          • jmac

            #Ignored :) Too nutty for me.

          • Allen Eltor

            Whenever you grow whatever you think it takes to defend your fake claim of a frigid light blocking bath, warming the rock it cools,

            you give it a try.

          • Allen Eltor

            You’re scared. So you run.

        • GnomeCoach

          These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

          What’s Really Warming the World?
          http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

          If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

          Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s
          http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-activists’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

          New study finds ‘no substantive evidence’ of a global warming ‘pause’
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/24/yet-another-study-debunks-the-global-warming-pause/

          On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming
          http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

          Evidence for global warming
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

          What is the role of stratospheric water vapor in global warming?
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-stratosphere-global-warming.htm

          The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
          http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

          Ben Stewart: exposing academics with concealed funding
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbuHy6ZYiDY

          Neil deGrasse Tyson On Global Warming
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g-FYa44hiE

          Conspiracy Theorists Are More Likely to Doubt Climate Science

          http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/06/conspiracy-theorists-also-doubt-climate-science

          Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

          • odin2

            Repeating the same or similar propaganda over and over again does not make it true. Where is the empirical evidence that humans (mostly CO2 emissions) are the primary cause of global warming?

          • PRAFTD

            You realize you are doing the exact same thing, right?

            Want evidence? Here:

            http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#General

            By all means, sift through it. Sorry, but just because you find a handful of fringe deniers doesn’t mean science is on your science.

          • odin2

            Obviously the concept of empirical evidence went right over your head.

        • cunudiun

          Here’s some context for your Christopher Monckton’s cherry-picked graph.

          https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2095/6070/original.jpg

    • DiogenesDespairs

      Climate will do what climate will do, as it has for hundreds of millions of years. Meanwhile, policy needs to be based on hard fact. Here are some crucial, verifiable facts – with citations – about human-generated carbon dioxide and its effect on global warming people need to know. I recommend following the links in the citations; some of them are very educational.

      The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:

      Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, averages (over a year) some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

      But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

      The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

      The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

      [1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

      by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK “http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html” http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html

      [2] ibid.

      [3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK “http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf” http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Conf09/UnderGrad%20Papers/Ojo%20-%20Paper.pdf. See p. 4.The 0 – 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

      [4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK “http://webbook.nist.gov/” http://webbook.nist.gov/

      [5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

      [6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK “http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html. The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

      [7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

      [8] New York Nature – The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.net/IceAge.html

      [9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK “https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs/Newsletter/NL99W/PDF/globlwrmw99.pdf” http://www.azgs.az.gov/arizona_geology/archived_issues/Winter_1999.pdf This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

      [10] Ibid.

      [11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK “http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009” http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009.

      See also HYPERLINK “http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html and

      HYPERLINK “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK “http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

      ADDENDUM

      What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.

      Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

      In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

      I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

      • GnomeCoach

        These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

        What’s Really Warming the World?
        http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

        If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

        Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane
        http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-erupting-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf.html

        Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s
        http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-activists’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

        Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

        Many people, in the denier community, try to sell the concept that because the present CO2 concentration is only 0.040% it can’t have much affect. This appeals to people with little scientific background. The odorant, that is added to natural gas, can be detected by the human nose at concentrations as low as 0.000,000,04%. Don’t tell the people at Porter Ranch, in southern California, that that is too low to affect them.

        • OWilson

          Now all you have to do is explain the cause of all those Ice Ages and Interglacial Warming Periods before humans were around :)

          Statistically you are looking at 100 years of “noise” in a record that goes back at leas 4,500,000,000 years.

          But as a slick animation it can be sold to the low info folks, which I guess, is the bottom line.

          I have to admit, that like Al Gore, you know your audience!

          • PRAFTD

            Nobody has ever denied Ice Ages and Inter-glacial Warming Periods.

            The problem is TIME. The sheer speed in which temperatures are increasing is beyond ANYTHING we have seen in the past. The rapid acidification of our oceans is something we haven’t seen since pre-great-extinction events.

            Has the planet warmed in the past? Yes, it has. Has it ever warms this fast in such a short period of time? No, it has not.

          • OWilson

            You mean the 00.44 degrees in some 40 years?

            (Satellite record)

            How do we ever manage to survive the 100.00 degrees or so it goes from winter to summer :)

            Ask an Eskimo, an Amazon tribesman (sorry-tribesperson) and an environmentalist what the optimum temperature is for the earth.

            Note:

            The former have been around a lot longer than the latter, so pay attention. :)

          • MorinMoss

            Your body temp is ~98.6 deg F; a ONE degree rise is considered a serious fever.

            The indigenous peoples have been noting – and suffering from – the changes. They may not know the “optimum temp” in degrees but they are aware of the shifts that are having increasingly severe impacts.

          • OWilson

            Folks live in the Arctic, and the Congo.

            They think their temps are normal.

            There are Canadian that know that tides over 30 feet are regular and normal.

            It can go up 50 degrees in my back yard some days.

            You are confused about bodily temperature relative to ambient air temperature :)

          • MorinMoss

            “Folks live in the Arctic”

            which is warming considerably quicker than the rest of the globe
            http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp

            “There are Canadian that know that tides over 30 feet are regular and normal”

            Only one Canadian? :-)
            If you are referring to the Bay of Fundy, those impressive tides are largely due to unique geographic features.

            “You are confused about bodily temperature relative to ambient air temperature :)”
            And you’re confused about a change of global temperature average relative to an ambient temp change across seasons – which we cope with by the use of clothes, shelter & heating 😀

          • OWilson

            Not to mention fossil fuels for some of us.

            Of course, I’m sure you would not be so hypocritical to use the very fossil fuels that are killing the planet!

            Tell me it’s not true!

            Oh, the humanity :)

          • MorinMoss

            There are good ways & bad ways to do just about anything.
            Indiscriminate extraction, pollution & disregard for health is no longer excusable – and hasn’t been for a long time.
            We all need to eat & eliminate but that doesn’t mean I get to dump my wastes on your lawn just because I have needs.

          • OWilson

            I trust you don’t have a flush toilet? :)

          • MorinMoss

            You trust incorrectly but there are more people without sanitary waste disposal than live in all the advanced Western countries combined.

          • GnomeCoach

            Fossil fuels act as a very concentrated source of solar energy. They formed as a result of solar energy falling on the dense forests this planet was covered with for over 100-million years. That solar energy was then stored underground in an ancient age when plant’s didn’t rot like today.

            Starting about 200-years ago some very clever engineers then created ways of extracting that stored energy source, burning much of it while dumping the stored carbon into the atmosphere as CO2. This has been taking place at an ever increasing rate despite warnings that suggested urgency, beginning around a half-century ago. In other words vast stores of carbon have been dumped into the Earth’s atmosphere during a comparatively short period of time, in what some would describe as an unintended consequence of our craving for energy to fuel our growth economy and progress.

            The vast majority of the Earth’s still rapidly exploding population of 7.38-billion people, who have become highly addicted to this concentrated energy source, are largely clueless about the processes I described above. This includes many of Earth’s most highly educated people.

            Perhaps you learned something from this description that you were not aware of before.

          • OWilson

            I have learned that narcissistic people like you are a danger to civilized society.

          • Mike Richardson

            So your response to a well-argued and supported point is a personal attack? Pretty weak, Wilson.

          • OWilson

            You believe this guy when he says he knows more than 7.38 billion folks, “including many of the Earth’s most highly educated people”?.

            That is nothing less than a self delusional fanatical rant!

            And you wonder why I call you a low info voter :)

            Actually I may change you handle to “poster boy” :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Nothing of substance, and the typical ad hominem attacks we’ve come to expect. But when you don’t have facts, go on the attack, right? And the facts continue to refute your assertion that the majority of climate scientists are wrong, and you are right. You might be projecting a bit in your above description, now that I think about it. 😉

          • OWilson

            You and he have a lot in common.

            I can see why you would want to defend him :)

          • Mike Richardson

            That we both call BS when we see it? Certainly. :)

          • OWilson

            We? He says:

            “7.38-billion people, who have become highly addicted to this concentrated energy source, are largely clueless about the processes I described above. This includes many of Earth’s most highly educated people.”

            You wouldn’t know BS if you climbed out of it :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Oh, you’ve provided me abundant examples. Thanks. :)

          • OWilson

            Abundant examples?

            Let’s see just one?

            A direct quote?

            Here’s your big chance to gain the credibility that you have always wanted, but never, ever had here (not even from your fellow travelers) :)

            Remember, except for the Left Wing Political Machine, nothing is ever lost on the Internet :)

          • Mike Richardson

            “Here’s your big chance to gain the credibility that you have always wanted, but never, ever had here (not even from your fellow travelers) :)
            Remember, except for the Left Wing Political Machine, nothing is ever lost on the Internet.”
            An endless stream, now that you point it out. Thanks! :)

          • OWilson

            You’re welcome :)

          • Tom Moran

            Why isn’t the other Pole warming?

          • MorinMoss

            It is and has lost gigatons of ice over the past decade – at an increasing pace.
            But there are dramatic differences due to geography.
            South Pole is almost entirely land-based ice surrounded by vast oceans while North is mostly sea ice (except for Greenland) encircled by land masses.
            There’s lots of tricky processes that really need to be explained by an expert, which I am most definitely not. But those who’ve made a career of studying the South Pole are very worried and there are vulnerable sections of areas of the West Antarctic where experts like glaciologists Eric Rignot have said “the fuse is already blown”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANBHZfH4l6M

          • Tom Moran
          • Tom Moran

            Please point to the area where CO2 is causing ice to melt at well below freezing ?https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/16df87cf9b3c70191a6e6ae514a23615ee35f6b2eb523ff923d8ba62e1690407.jpg

          • MorinMoss

            This is why science education & reading comprehension shouldn’t be neglected.

            “Dr Fürst says: In contrast to the situation in Greenland, the loss of inland ice in West Antarctica is not caused by melting. It is much too cold for that to happen. The decrease is due to the glaciers flowing into the sea at a faster rate than 20 years ago − what we call dynamic ice loss.”

          • Tom Moran

            …..Caused by increased surface mass pushing the ice out at the edges. You’ve also claimed that it is warming? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36928c85585d9d68cdd5725eba556c8d486baf831fa7a76a3255d6dea922f97e.png

          • MorinMoss

            Instead of selectively clipping the parts you think reinforce your world view, read the entire article and the conclusions of the people do this day in, day out.

          • Tom Moran

            You ask for glaciologist so I provided you with their peer reviewed study from 2004 that shows that Antarctica is getting substantially cooler. They predicted that antartica will warm and yet 12 years later it is still getting cooler.

          • MorinMoss

            So what? Why hasn’t that reversed the increasing dynamic ice loss in West Antarctica?
            Why is the Arctic on such a rapid downswing in ice area & volume?

            Wouldn’t a drop in Antarctic SSTs lead to less ice loss? Why has it been picking up speed for 20 years?

          • Tom Moran

            Dynamic loss isn’t caused by warming, which you incorrectly claimed was happening. 20 years compared to when? This is climate, not a bond. Antartica is cooling and gaining mass. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e30fdcaabc77db565819e49d1e7fb0416547deeed4123915519ae02edc067905.png

          • MorinMoss

            The fact remains that Antarctica is losing ice in vulnerable areas, despite your claims of cooling.

          • Tom Moran

            Losing ice is simply the dynamics of an unstable, chaotic ice pack. No warming, means CO2 isn’t working there inspite of your false claims. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12fddd2e6e48d685d8bc6d54eeaa3ae7279dc7f5e16ad85c5fea34962c36ef72.png

          • MorinMoss

            Let me know when you figure out:
            1) that “dynamic & chaotic” is driven by heat
            2) that you should be challenging the scientists who are doing the research
            3) that the world as a whole is warming and has been for decades, despite what you can cherrypick about Antarctica. The “global” in global warming was supposed to be a big hint.

            Is it too much to hope for that you might have read the article you chose to comment on?

          • Tom Moran

            1)Dynamic and chaotic is also driven by wind forcing, waves, sublimation,Gravity, basal melt[pressure, not heat] and calving. But Antartica is get colder on land and sea why do you persist in adding heat and denying science?
            2) I do challenge science deniers that claim the whole Earth has warmed
            3) regions of the Earth have warmed why cherry pick only those? It’s not global warming if it doesn’t include the South Pole…which is also the place that’s supposed to warm up first according to GHG theory

          • MorinMoss

            Why do you persist in denying global warming?
            BTW, waves are driven by wind which is driven more by heat than by rotation?

          • Tom Moran

            Because Antarctica is part of the globe and its cooling, both on land and sea https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98957570c0c7ede118f4b5587f55dae8c2765c7f9c4c29a6c5e79e05570aa6cc.gif

          • MorinMoss

            The Antarctic winter began over 2 months ago.

          • MorinMoss

            “not global warming if it doesn’t include the South Pole…which is also the place that’s supposed to warm up first according to GHG theory”

            As I’ve pointed out in earlier comments, the Poles are NOT identical.
            Antarctica is a very large landmass *completely* encircled by a vast & deep ocean with very active circulation and…..wait…for…it…a deep well of ocean HEAT uptake.
            The slower rate of Antarctic warming is also partially explained by the drop in CFCs caused by the Montreal Protocol as those gases also have very strong Global Warming Potential.

          • Tom Moran
          • MorinMoss

            And what do similar graphs for the rest of the world’s oceans show?
            (I do have qualms about relying on Tisdale’s “data”)

          • Tom Moran
          • Tom Moran

            No, it’s not SST either. It appears that CO2 doesn’t work in Antarctica? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4836b42e4c4847bb714bfe58b9ce00181fe50d9050c4ddd1bec2f1ad505c81d.png

          • MorinMoss

            Go point that out to the glaciologists who’ve actually been there.

          • Tom Moran

            Shindell and Schmidt 2004

            Shindell, D.T., and G.A. Schmidt 2004. Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.

            While most of the Earth warmed rapidly during recent decades, surface temperatures decreased significantly over most of Antarctica.

          • Tom Moran

            Cooler

          • GnomeCoach

            Humans tend to feel a vast sense of superiority over all the tens-of-millions of other species on Earth. Most have no strong backgrounds in biology and more specifically, environmental ecology. Humans may be able to live in diverse climatic conditions but many animals will die out if environmental conditions vary outside a range that they have adapted to over many tens-of-thousands of years of time.

            Most humans have no idea how dependent our survival is upon the survival of the diverse ecosystem that we evolved with. Those creatures serve as the foundation that supports human life. You may think in terms of dogs, cats, cattle, pigs, chickens and wheat. There is far more than that that serves as our foundation.

            It is quite understandable that the vast majority, of the still rapidly exploding population of 7.38-billion people on Earth, is largely clueless about the issues I raised above.

            Many, who have such a broad perspective, are quite worried.

          • OWilson

            The billions that you say are are “clueless” about these issues, should go down on their knees and thank you from the bottom of their hearts.

            It’s really sad that your superior knowledge goes unappreciated. :)

            I would suggest re-education camps, at least.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Scientists who study prehistoric climates have a reasonable understanding of climate change over the past 100 million years. Essentially all of these scientists agree that the recent warming is different, much faster and caused by humans. Your basic argument is illogical. It’s like saying that there were forest before humans inhabited a region, therefore forest fires are not caused by humans.

          • OWilson

            No forest fire was “caused” by humans, before there were humans :)

            The Ice Age is ending, glaciers are melting and mankind is thriving as never before in his history.

            Natural, and welcome, variability.

          • cunudiun

            As Biologyteacher said, the climate is changing as never before in history..

            From NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (U.S.)

            The data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years. It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes.

            If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised, then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

            http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/iscurrent.pdf

          • OWilson

            “If” you string enough “if”s together you can project any scenario that suits a politician’s fancy.

            (That’s why we look at their past projections before we bow down to their authority) :)

            We have now passed James Hansen’s TIPPING POINT, and we have only a couple weeks before we will pass Al Gore’s TIPPING POINT!

            Clean out your bank accounts and sign over your house to me.

            I’ll take a chance we’ll have business as usual from the lyin’ pols :)

          • cunudiun

            You provided no evidence to refute the fact that the climate is changing faster than ever before in history going back thousands o millions of years and the reason is us humans.

          • OWilson

            That is some data record you have :)

            I do not have refute stupidity :)

          • cunudiun

            Same to you, moron :)

          • jmac

            Also, from Berkeley, “The warming between 1970 and 2015 is nearly 3 times stronger than the warming since 1850 (when temperature records began).”

            Acceleration of the warming is very concerning.

            http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/2015-unambiguously-the-hottest-year-on-record-says-report/62357/

          • Tom Moran
          • cunudiun

            Tom thinks he has identified one place on the planet that isn’t getting warmer and that means he has won the debate. Do you think scientists haven’t measured warming and don’t know all the details of how much smaller warming gets in general the farther toward the south pole you go? The sum of a lot of positive warming numbers for everywhere on earth except the very farthest south plus zero still averages out to a lot of global warming.

          • Tom Moran

            CO2 doesn’t work at the South Pole in direct contradiction to the GHG theory? Takes the warming out of “global”

          • cunudiun

            But I just explained that’s not true. Is the reason you don’t understand and repeat your error because you are illiterate or innumerate? Which is it?

          • Tom Moran

            Explain how it’s “not true” that the South Pole is not warming ?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12fddd2e6e48d685d8bc6d54eeaa3ae7279dc7f5e16ad85c5fea34962c36ef72.png

          • cunudiun

            Ok, now lets talk about the other 99% of the earth.

          • Tom Moran

            For the record folks that’s cunudiuns way of agreeing Antarctica is not warming and it’s actually getting colder, the exact opposite of the GHG theory predicted. Inexplicably suggests others should pay attention to the scientists who claim Antarctica is warming? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/12fddd2e6e48d685d8bc6d54eeaa3ae7279dc7f5e16ad85c5fea34962c36ef72.png

          • cunudiun

            That’s dishonest Tom, folks, repeating his dishonesty.

          • Tom Moran

            ^ brings empty words to a data fight.

          • cunudiun

            Yes you do.

          • Tom Moran

            Science is still looking for reasons why Antarctica is not warming and Cunuduin is still claiming that Antarctica is warming.

          • cunudiun

            Here is what all your fuss is about. Notice the second headline:

            Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses

            Thickening in East Antarctica does not lessen worry about rapidly thinning glaciers elsewhere.

            http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486

            “Parts of Antarctica are losing mass faster than before,” says Jay Zwally, a glaciologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of a paper to appear in the Journal of Glaciology. “But large parts have been gaining mass, and they’ve been doing that for a very long time.”

            The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. “I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don’t have to worry as much as some people have been making out,” he says. “It should not take away from the concern about climate warming.” As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear.

            Also, NASA has a clear explanation of the science and why this does not contradict global warming theory here: http://www.nature.com/news/gains-in-antarctic-ice-might-offset-losses-1.18486 Not that I am under any illusion you are the least bit interested.

          • Tom Moran

            You claim Antartica is warming and losing mass. Zwallys paper shows it is still gaining mass. Study after study shows the same result. Antarctica is not warming.

          • MorinMoss

            “Now all you have to do is explain the cause of all those Ice Ages and Interglacial Warming Periods before humans were around :)”

            Those were driven by orbital changes / Milankovitch cycles.

    • Biologyteacher100

      But we are seeing that El Ninos are getting warmer and warmer. Why would you quote a crank like Bob Tisdale, rather than some who actually does research and publishes science?

      • odin2

        ROFLOL. Smearing the source is a propaganda technique that Believers use to deflect from their lack of science, empirical evidence, and facts. It appears that the current El Nino has peaked:

        Tisdale:

        “First, sea surface temperature-based indices and the Southern Oscillation Index indicate the El Niño has peaked. And we discussed in the December update the upwelling Kelvin wave that will be effecting (decreasing) El Niño conditions. Those indicators do not mean the El Niño will immediately stop impacting weather conditions around the globe. Strong El Niño conditions still exist in the tropical Pacific, and there is still a large volume of El Niño-related warmer-than-normal waters below the central and eastern equatorial Pacific (see animation from GODAS website here). Strong El Niño conditions are likely to exist through February to April and weak El Niño conditions might last until June. See Figure Supplement-1. Expect unusual El Niño-caused weather anomalies for many months to come…some bad, some good.”

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/12/january-2016-enso-update-it-appears-the-el-nino-has-peaked/

        BTW, my past experiences with you is that you don’t have enough knowledge of climate science to be qualified to carry Tisdale’s laptop.

        • GnomeCoach

          Bob Tisdale rejects the greenhouse effect (again)
          http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdale-rejects-greenhouse-effect.html

          These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

          What’s Really Warming the World?
          http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

          If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

          Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane
          http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-erupting-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf.html

          Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

          Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s
          http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-activists’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

          • odin2

            The Bloomberg piece is a nice cartoon of the AGW hypothesis, but it does not provide any science or facts. Hotwopper and desmogblog are alarmist slander sites that smear and sneer at scientists that they don’t agree with. They are not any more reliable than the Believers who engage in such tactics online. The Koch brothers smear piece speaks for itself. Where do you find such unreliable sources?

            Either provide a paper or papers with empirical evidence that global warming is primarily caused by human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) or go troll somewhere else.

          • CB

            “The Bloomberg piece is a nice cartoon of the AGW hypothesis”

            Don’t like a cartoon? Try reality, instead:

            AGW is science that’s withstood a century of testing.

            Odin, is the AGW hypothesis true?

            “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • Eric

            Wait a minute. So people can’t dismiss your sources, but you can dismiss theirs? At least practice what you preach.
            Watts is a known denier BLOG. Not a scientific source.

          • odin2

            The I criticized the Bloomberg piece because it was a AGW propaganda piece without science, facts or evidence. I did not smear Bloomberg.

            The hotwopper piece on Tisdale was a smear/attack on Tisdale. The Desomogblog article was a smear on skeptics in general. Hotwopper and desmogblog engage in this kind of personal/smear attacks against skeptical scientists and skeptics in general. They also promote Lysenko science. For these reasons, I ignore them.

            The Koch brothers smear speaks for itself.

            WUWT is the leading climate science blog sponsored by Anthony Watts. While Watts sometimes writes articles himself, most of the articles at the site stand or fall on the merit of the third party, independent (from WUWT) authors of the articles. The articles at WUWT deal with science and data, and do not engage in smear (although there is an occasional article poking fun at Believer fanatics like Mann). There is also a robust discussion of the articles by people on both sides of AGW debate. Each article at WUWT stands or falls on its own merits.

          • Scott Koontz

            Must. Not. Read. Actual. Science…

            Resist.

            Back to WUWT for basic science denial by non-scientist to feel better.

          • odin2

            Bloomberg= actual science? Desomogbog and Hotwopper = actual science? ROFLOL

          • cunudiun

            You should see someone about those laughing fits.

            hys·te·ri·a
            həˈstirēə,həˈsterēə/
            noun
            a psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior.

          • Eric

            The Bloomberg piece is only propaganda to you because you probably disagree with it.
            If what Desmog blog says is true about Bob Tisdale it isn’t a smear.
            WUWT is a know denier blog that only caters to authors that supports Anthonys view. Its laughable to claim they don’t engage in smear tactics. If by “robust discussions” you mean a giant echo chamber then I can agree. I gave Anthony a chance. Then he pretended like he never said he would accept the BEST study results after it turned out to go against his preconceived notions.

          • odin2

            Whatever.

          • Sir_H_Flashman

            I read a lot of WUWT before they overwhelmed me with their sheer number of daily posts, and came across very little that would qualify as science, and a great deal that would qualify as baseless sneering. In my opinion, of course.

          • CB

            “I criticized the Bloomberg piece because it was a AGW propaganda”

            Sweetie, AGW is science that’s withstood over a century of testing.

            Why would you think anyone would need to promote it?

            Little molecules of CO₂ just won’t absorb that IR without a cheering squad?

            Is that actually how you think the universe works?

            “Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (such as water vapor and carbon dioxide) absorb most of the Earth’s emitted longwave infrared radiation”

            missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget.html

          • cunudiun

            Thanks. I loved that.

    • GnomeCoach

      Bob Tisdale rejects the greenhouse effect (again)
      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdale-rejects-greenhouse-effect.html

      These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

      What’s Really Warming the World?
      http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

      Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane
      http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-erupting-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf.html

      Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s
      http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-activists’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

      Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

      • odin2

        Just in case you missed it:

        The Bloomberg piece is a nice cartoon of the AGW hypothesis, but it does not provide any science or facts. Hotwopper and desmogblog are alarmist slander sites that smear and sneer at scientists that they don’t agree with. They are not any more reliable than the Believers who engage in such tactics online. The Koch brothers smear piece speaks for itself. Where do you find such unreliable sources?

        Either provide a paper or papers with empirical evidence that global warming is primarily caused by human activities (mostly CO2 emissions) or go troll somewhere else.

        • zloppolz

          There is a good argument that, increased radiators to space, above the clouds, will Cool more. Colder air results in lower clouds, which implies lower surface temperature. ( assuming surface pressure stays the same — CO2 does remove some of the effects of H2O . .. … )

    • GnomeCoach

      Bob Tisdale rejects the greenhouse effect (again)
      http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/bob-tisdale-rejects-greenhouse-effect.html

      These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

      What’s Really Warming the World?
      http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

      If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

      New study finds ‘no substantive evidence’ of a global warming ‘pause’
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/24/yet-another-study-debunks-the-global-warming-pause/

      On the definition and identifiability of the alleged “hiatus” in global warming
      http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16784

      Evidence for global warming
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

      Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane
      http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-erupting-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf.html

      Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s
      http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-activists’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

      Conspiracy Theorists Are More Likely to Doubt Climate Science
      http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/06/conspiracy-theorists-also-doubt-climate-science

      Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

    • CB

      “El Ninos are the product of ocean cycles that have been occurring for 1000s of years. “

      Uh huh.

      Odin, which year was the warmest on record?

      …and which Vote-bot do you use to promote your dishonest comments?

      “The annual anomaly of the global average surface temperature in 2015… is estimated at +0.40°C (*) above the 1981-2010 average, likely to become the warmest record for the 125-year period since 1891.”

      ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/ann_wld.html

    • cunudiun

      El niño years are getting warmer. La niña years are getting warmer. And neutral years are getting warmer. Do you deny this?

      http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/9a021ccf-4b5c-450f-96fe-7bc987a23510-620×422.jpeg

  • odin2
    • CB

      “Interesting contrast”

      Interesting, indeed!

      On one side, there are the world’s scientists.

      On the other, there’s James Taylor, someone who is well-known for being paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.

      Which do you think is more believable?

      “James Taylor is a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute”

      http://www.desmogblog.com/james-taylor

      “several prominent global warming skeptic organizations are actively working to sow doubt about the facts of global warming… Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006. Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011.”

      http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html

  • GnomeCoach

    These graphics may help some understand whether natural forces, or human effects are primarily driving global warming.

    What’s Really Warming the World?
    http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

    If this does not support your sense of certainty that natural forces predominate then you can always assume that this information is part of a massive conspiracy, as millions of others are doing. Many find great comfort in joining that crowd.

    Temperature, carbon dioxide and methane
    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/11/methane-erupting-from-east-siberian-arctic-shelf.html

    Annual mean carbon dioxide growth
    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/01/greenhouse-gas-levels-and-temperatures-keep-rising.html

    CO2 Concentration during the last 316-years
    http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2016/01/greenhouse-gas-levels-and-temperatures-keep-rising.html

    For the last 420,000-years the CO2 concentration cycled between 180 and 290ppm, a range of 110ppm. By the time I was born, in 1945, the concentration had climbed to 310ppm. During the last 70-years it has risen to just over 400ppm. That is a rise of 120ppm above the peak levels of the pre-industrial period, about a 200-year time-span. The rate of rise continues to increase despite warnings that began over a half-century ago.

    Climate denial activists’ parallel to anti-relativity movement of 1920s
    http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-denial-activists’-parallel-anti-relativity-movement-1920s

    Kerry Emanuel Testifies In Defense Of Climate Science
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12kMjUkNl5Y

    The Pentagon & Climate Change
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN8M8Onnngk

    Climate Change Deniers’ Anthem
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skVrKVJb1Sc

    • zloppolz

      No one knows for sure, if CO2 warms. In general, given
      an extra variable, the system will use it to maximize Cooling.

      • GnomeCoach

        For some people their minds won’t allow them to believe it unless 100% of all scientists, on planet Earth, agree that increases in CO2 concentrations, in our atmosphere, leads increased warming. For these people they require require absolute certainty.

        The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

        Evidence for global warming
        http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming.htm

        History of climate change science
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science

        Global warming
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

        Perhaps you have been feeding your brain only with information that supports what it want’s to believe in. You are in the company of millions of others that are absolutely convinced that this evidence is part of a grand conspiracy.

        • zloppolz

          “For some people their minds won’t allow them to believe”

          On such an important subject, as the CO2 warming scare,
          why does one want to believe, destroy their confidence
          and the validity of their own mind, instead of thinking hard?

          • GnomeCoach

            I love your use of the term ‘scare.’ That is something you deeply believe is happening and you probably believe it is wrong to sound the alarm. I suggest that millions of others don’t want to hear that alarm because it has such profound consequences if it is true. It suggest that we are not the supreme creature that most of us like to view ourselves as. Attacks on human intelligence is bound to create a counter-reaction. That is the nature of humans.

            I can understand why the film “An Inconvenient Truth” has created so much hostility towards it. It presented a message that was a direct attack on many people’s ego.

            it appears to me that perhaps you are thinking a bit harder about the path you’ve taken.

          • zloppolz

            “it has such profound consequences if it is true”

            How close are we to a Willie the Woolly Mammoth event,
            when weather instanly turned into climate?
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsbwfP0dqjk&feature=player_detailpage#t=38

          • GnomeCoach

            Thank you for the link to that cartoon. I was the first time I’ve seen it. As something created for children it was not very accurate. The woolly mammoth became extinct around 12,000 years ago in what is referred to as the quaternary extinction event.

            Quaternary extinction event
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event

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

            Extinction event
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event

            The quaternary extinction event took place over a time span of thousands of years. Today, evolutionary biologists are seeing evidence of extinction rates that appear to be at least a hundred times higher than right after the quaternary extinction event. Most of the recent extinctions appear to be linked to human impacts on the Earth’s environment. Their evidence suggest that we are rapidly heading into a 6th mass extinction event. Their evidence is separate from the field of climatology.

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

            The field of climatology is based upon 30-year periods of time. Initially the time period, studied started in 1901. It is different than weather which has existed along side it since the beginning. Your concept that weather became climate likely stems from the sources you follow who have little interest in communicating the details of the differences.

            In response to how much time we have left I’ve heard that humans may go extinct by the year 2030. It is based upon the dozens of positive feedback loops that humans have set in motion and the fact that little progress has been made since the first warnings were made to the U.S. Congress a half-century ago. We remain on track with the “Limits of Growth” study done in the late 1970s which indicated a collapse of industrial society will likely occur somewhat before mid-century.

            This is a concept that does not sit well with young people which is completely understandable. I believe that humans will try to prevail during the crash and that effort will further destroy Earth’s life support systems so what will be left will be simple organisms, such as bacteria. In other words some future being will hold us responsible for causing the extinction of tens-of-millions of other species.

          • zloppolz

            “The last mammoths died out on an Arctic island around 4,500 years ago”

            ===================================================

            “It is based upon the dozens of positive feedback loops”?
            There are no positive feedback loops in nature.
            Correct is to use amplifier.

            ==================================================

            “weather became climate”
            Climate is weather, low pass filtered.

            ===================================================

            “evolutionary biologists are seeing evidence of extinction rates that appear to be at least a hundred times higher than right after the quaternary extinction event.”

            90% of species are not identified. So, the extinct could be replaced
            without anyone knowing.

            ===================================================

            “on track with the “Limits of Growth” — Scaring to control, neglects
            technological advances. Humans enhance biological activity.

          • GnomeCoach

            It sounds like you may have an electronics background based upon some of the terms you suggested substituting.

            Many people today view technology and human ingenuity as something that can get us out of any unintended consequences of yesterday’s solutions. I once thought that way but I then realized technology was not a god to be worshiped, as many seem to do today.

            Consider the U.S. program called Project Plowshare. It lasted about 19-years and consumed about $770 around the 1960s period. The main promoter was the eminent nuclear physicists Dr. Edward Teller, also known as the father of the U.S. H-bomb. The program involved testing and designing nuclear explosives for application in various civilian nuclear projects. The engineers and scientists involved in the project felt certain that it would bring great things for future generations. It turned into an embarrassment that few people mention anymore. When I mention this program, to young people, they say these people must have been crazy.

            At the Nevada test site the U.S. conducted 824 underground nuclear test explosions. Most were done below, or just above the local water table resulting in the dispersal of spent nuclear fuel like materials around the blast centers. A report was released, in 1997, that estimated the cost to do a partial cleanup of the dispersed buried radioactive debris. The estimated cost was $7.29-trillion. The plan was rejected due to numerous impracticalities, including cost. Instead the agency, that was responsible for creating the mess now gets to monitor the situation. Since a potential hazard will remain for about a half-million years the agency expects to be paid for that length of time. Now that is some job security. They justified this by claiming that they feel certain that future generations will come up with a remediation technology that doesn’t exist today. That is just one of the legacies that have been left for your generation to deal with. They tend to be quite about such things since they don’t want to “alarm” anyone unnecessarily.

          • zloppolz

            “Many people today view technology and human ingenuity as
            something that can get us out of any unintended consequences
            of yesterday’s solutions.”

            Limits to growth, Malthusian philosophy, is negated by Second
            Law violation. Build lapse exploitation power generators.
            ( Different gases have different lapses . .. … )

  • Bug

    I may sound elementary here, but I would like to think of it as being simply confused. I have been in several discussions about global warming/El Nino. So many argue it is happening. I ask them to explain the unseasonably warm weather we are having this Fall/Winter, and explain the extreme fluctuations in temperature from day to day;yet, nobody can explain it to me at all. They literally go blank. But let me bring up global warming and I get all sorts of conversation. Even with proof of climate changes and maps such as these presented in this blog, people still do not believe our Earth is in trouble. My 20 year old son was interviewed by our local news channel about the unseasonably warm weather we were having here in our area. He, who is a biology major, stated it was an affect of El Nino. That one comment was lost during editing; however, the common statement he made about how he cannot wait for winter to finally get there was clearly played. It frightens me that people refuse to see what is happening, or maybe they know it is true, but if they do not talk about it then it will go away. Global warming is not going to go away; it is going to continue. And we do not know how to stop it. Is it just to far gone? Is it that Earth is gone?

  • GnomeCoach

    Full Interview with Ben Stewart – UQx Denial101x
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiQreJh7I8w

    6:00 – “Climate skepticism may not be this kind of noble search for the truth that skeptics proclaim themselves to be involved in.”

    • zloppolz

      What are his connections, his motivations,
      who is Ben Stewart funded by?

      • GnomeCoach

        There must be a very good reason you are seeking out a means to dismiss what he has to say here. That is a strategy that the denier brain feels is essential to defend the personal ego. The question, about funding, suggests that you believe some conspiracy exist here. Typically, deniers have come to explain a lot of stuff that is not going their way, is due to a conspiracy.

        • zloppolz

          Something that does not exist, does not have to be disproved.
          Deceiving warmists are avoiding a simple experiment, while
          spending hundreds of billions on psychological operations.

          • GnomeCoach

            I’ve known some people who think in those terms. Often they have been prescribed medications to keep such thoughts under control. Typically, they come to view the medication effects as part of a conspiracy as well. As I said before, the human brain has an astounding capacity to believe almost anything it wants to believe in.

          • zloppolz

            “Often they have been prescribed medications to keep such thoughts under control”

            Engaging in common sense, is labeled as a conspiracy theory.
            Questioning known certified liars is an act of heresy.
            ( paraphrasing Alex Jones )

          • GnomeCoach

            Alex Jones is like a god to many. I, along with most of the climate scientist in the world, don’t give much of what he says much credence.

          • zloppolz

            “don’t give much of what he says much credence.”

            One has to correlate. Alex Jones does defining interviews, mainly
            reports what is in publications and information from insider sources.

          • GnomeCoach

            Here are a couple of links, from the DESMOG website, regarding many climate denier’s hero, Alex Jones.

            Alex Jones
            http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6935
            http://www.desmogblog.com/norwegian-terrorist-anders-breivik-reveals-climate-denial-influences

          • zloppolz

            MkUltra mind controlled, encouraged and monitored? — What is the story?
            What does Anders Breivik think of the Muslim invasion conspiracy.

            As fro Penn State Michael Mann — from abeldanger; “pedophile traps allegedly set up by her
            DOJ Pride associates to extort concessions from the likes of former FBI Director Louis Freeh,
            Knights of Malta member Rick Santorum, and Penn State’s Michael Hockeysticks Mann.”

  • Ttoe

    Actually, the NOAA isn’t even claiming that the warmth is due to global warming.

    They’re saying it’s due to two things, the 2nd strongest El Nino on record, and another weather phenomenon that traps colder air at the poles and doesn’t let it travel down.

    I hope that you realize that one of the primary reasons we don’t trust you on your global warming rhetoric is because of the shear difficulty you all who are Democrat-loyal have with simply admitting basic realities that are inconvenient for you.

    You religiously denied the hiatus, failed to debunk it several times, and then when you finally succeeded not in debunking it, but in a stalemate, you stole that stalemate by hiding key information as to how you derived that the hiatus didn’t exist.

    You’re proving, essentially, that your need to make us believe that humans are causing global warming far outweighs any desire you have for the simple actually scientific truth.

  • zloppolz

    “(exceedingly warm) water” — 2 peaks were warmer last century
    https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/figure-33.png

    • cunudiun

      Zlop, why is a smart person like you pulling crap from Bob Tisdale? Perhaps you’re practicing you comedic skills.

      • zloppolz

        Increasing lower troposphere temperatures slightly,
        this El Niño has not surpassed the 1998 El Niño.
        Solar activity declining, rapid cooling, after the heat is gone?
        http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2015_v6-1.png

        • cunudiun

          C’mon, you know better than that. Solar activity is not declining anywhere near fast enough to make a dent in the overall picture.

          • zloppolz

            Climate system is adjusting — not much change, yet.
            However, this is a bad omen — “The global integral of
            vertical heat flux shows an upward heat transport in the
            deep ocean, suggesting a cooling trend in the deep ocean.”

  • Sparafucile

    Oh my goodness! A whole warm month!

    And we’ve all been “lectured” that the 18-year “hiatus” isn’t long enough to be relevant.

    • cunudiun

      In addition:

      November 2015 was the hottest November ever recorded;

      October 2015 was the hottest October ever recorded;

      September 2015 was the hottest September ever recorded;

      August 2015 was the hottest August ever recorded;

      July 2015 was the hottest July (and hottest any month) ever recorded;

      June 2015 was the hottest June ever recorded;

      May 2015 was the hottest May ever recorded;

      April 2015 was tied for the third hottest April ever recorded;

      March 2015 was the hottest March ever recorded;

      February 2015 was the hottest February ever recorded;

      January 2015 was the second hottest January ever recorded;

      http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.ca/2015/12/no-surprise-another-heat-record.html

      • Sparafucile

        Not quite 18 years, now, is it?

        What happened to your shrill screeching about the need to take the long view?

        • cunudiun

          You got the wrong guy. I never said there was a pause at all, 18 years is your invention.

          • Sparafucile

            meh. you’re all each other’s sockpuppets, repeating propaganda, and never offering an original thought.

    • zloppolz

      The adjusters, supporting the Evil World Order Carbon taxers
      are able to conjure up scary temperature illustrations.

  • zloppolz
    • OWilson

      He also believes in ghosts!

    • OWilson

      WHATS YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT?

      • zloppolz

        “WHATS YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT?”

        I newer thought of it. In general, humans enhance planetary biological activity.
        There is more. Technological advances and development are the limitations
        that constrain. Next are Second Law Violation power generators, which will
        provide the cleanest energy possible and power Mars colonies.

        • allin58

          Hey zloppolz, had to jump in from MJ. My link kept blowing up, no clue why. Thank you for the link to the UT site it is quite good with a lot of stuff. I’ll be perusing it for sure. As to your comment, you really need to re-read that first paragraph. It explains nicely were the heat is coming from and why it’s warmer at the surface than at high altitudes. It has nothing to do with pressure. My high pressure gas bottle is still at room temperature. If you’d like to understand it better go back to the previous two lectures at the UT site. Good stuff.

          • zloppolz

            “It has nothing to do with pressure …
            My high pressure gas bottle is still at room temperature.”

            For a molecule in the air, approximation is; mgh+(7/2)kT=constant.
            ( plug in the numbers, to get an approximation fot dry air lapse)
            Ideal gas law basics including density
            http://www.molecularsoft.com/help/Gas_Laws-Ideal_Gas_with_Density.htm
            http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ideal-gas-law-d_157.html

          • allin58

            The ideal gas law is simply an equation of state; there is no energy term in it. You need energy to change the state. Go back and read the earlier lectures in your previous link and re-read that first paragraph of the one you showed first. The energy comes from the sun; it warms the earth, the earth then warms the atmosphere from the ground up creating a thermal gradient out to the top of the atmosphere, independent of the density of the air.

          • zloppolz

            ” there is no energy term in it”
            dW = d(PV) = VdP + PdV

            “earth then warms the atmosphere from the ground up creating
            a thermal gradient out to the top of the atmosphere”?

            Opposite is the Truth.
            Ner warming of the atmosphere is from above, where the Potential Temperature
            is greater. Near surface zone, net loses enegy gained from above.
            https://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/moist-potential-temperature-mp2008.png

          • allin58

            LOL. You originally stated that low pressure is the reason that is cold at high altitudes, now you’re saying the opposite! How can that be??
            What is being described in the picture is a natural convection cell. The earth warms the air; that warm are rises and the cooler air on top falls. That’s internal to the system. If you look at Figure 5.7 from that same link you will see varying temperatures across different pressures, that’s because they are independent!
            I think you would agree the original energy source is from the sun. The atmosphere is virtually transparent to the sun’s short wave radiation; therefore the sun does not heat the atmosphere. So there is no warming from above.

          • zloppolz

            “You originally stated that low pressure is the reason that is cold at high altitudes”
            Why don’t you quote the basis of your concern?

            ==============================================

            “The earth warms the air” — Absolutely incorrect.
            Air warms the Earth. Near surface zone (net) loses energy
            by radiating it to space. 3 kilometer above the Tropics, net gains
            energy both from above and from below — where does the energy go?

            Net energy flow is perpendicular to Potential Temperature contours.

            ====================================================

            Mt Everest is colder because there is less air to warm it.
            Moon is 155K because there is no air to warm it.

          • allin58

            OK, now I think your just messn’ with me. I’ll play along. OK. If the air heats the earth and the air is transparent to the sun’s rays (which it is), where does the air get the energy to heat the earth??

          • zloppolz

            ” If the air heats the earth and the air is transparent to the sun’s rays”

            Air is semi transparent — considerable heating takes place from above.
            Ultraviolet heats the Stratosphere and X-rays heat the Thermosphere.

            Interesting is that the greenhouse factor is 1/3. The IR window
            is 2/3 open. Closing it 1/3 cannot account for the warming.

          • allin58

            That’s ozone in the stratosphere and doesn’t even start
            warming until over 20km up, you were talking about Mt. Everest, get your story’s straight. The lower stratosphere is practically isothermal so no heat transfer is happening there.

          • zloppolz

            “The lower stratosphere is practically isothermal so no heat transfer is happening there.”?

            What do you make of this? – Potential Temperature plot 75°W 40°N
            http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_2/2_Js/2-20.jpg

          • allin58

            Sigh. Whatever. You’re in the trees, I’m not going there. My original point was pressure has no relationship to temperature. The last two graphs you’ve showed have temperatures varying all over the place with pressure in the atmosphere. You’ve proved my point. You also don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) your own link (see UT first paragraph). Venus is hotter than Mercury
            because CO2 is a GHG.

          • zloppolz

            “My original point was pressure has no relationship to temperature.”
            If a gas expands without constraint the temperature remains the same.
            If it expands against gravity, the temperature decreases.

            “Venus is hotter than Mercury because CO2 is a GHG.”?
            CO2 is not so special, all gases are greenhouse gases.
            (even liquids and solids have gravitational temperature lapses)

          • allin58

            You’re confusing internal system energy exchange with overall system energy exchange. Yes air will cool as it rises up and expands against gravitational pull. What is causing the air to rise up in the first place???? The earth is heating it!
            If the air were heating the earth as you stated with your Mt. Everest example,
            that would cool the air and it would fall. So do you see you’re making no sense? And please explain the GHG properties of nitrogen. That should be good.

          • zloppolz

            “What is causing the air to rise up in the first place???? The earth is heating it!”

            Turbulence is the rejoinder. Greater Potential Temperature above,
            is a driving force of energy transport from high above to near the
            surface. Remember, we are discussing net energy flow.

            ——————————————————————————-

            “please explain the GHG properties of nitrogen. That should be good”

            Even a better thought experiment is a planet in intergalactic space,
            without a star and a He3 atmosphere. He3 has vapor pressure of
            about half an atmosphere at the Cosmic Microwave Background.

            Can you analyze details?

  • William Boothe

    If scientist were actually genuine about curbing carbon emissions they would be calling for the end of the FED and its endless stimulus programs (all about increasing consumption). Of course scientist are not doing this because they understand that the government relies on the FED to fund all of its programs (subsidization of science being one). So the one measure that would have the greatest affect on carbon emissions is conveniently overlooked by the field of science.

  • Samiya Illias

    Quran foretells the heating of the seas. This blogpost might be of interest: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2014/10/when-seas-boil.html

    • OWilson

      Global Warming is very popular with the fundamental religious these days.

      The Pope already made the case for his side.

      Maybe Christians and Muslims should call a temporary halt to killing each other in the Middle East, while they discuss the “Greatest Threat to Mankind”, the weather, 50 years from now!

      • Samiya Illias

        The “Greatest Threat to Mankind” is not the weather but we ourselves. Through our own ignorance and foolishness, we humans are ourselves trying to extinct our own species, in so many different ways. Our unscientific approach to the scriptures further prevents us from taking any guidance on the matter: neither for our survival in this world, nor for our happiness in the Hereafter.

        This might be of interest: http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2015/11/mission-of-messengers-iii.html

  • Barry Marshall

    Wish I knew where this global warming was. Northern Alberta has pretty much been under a deep freeze all winter.

    • cunudiun

      A bit toasty now, eh?

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

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

Collapse bottom bar
+