Here’s what real science says about the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat

By Tom Yulsman | March 12, 2018 2:07 pm
CO2

The relatively thin atmospheric cocoon that protects us from meteor impacts and radiation also makes for a habitable climate, thanks to the greenhouse gases it contains — carbon dioxide first and foremost. In this photograph captured by an astronaut aboard the International Space Station on July 31, 2011, the oblique angle reveals the atmosphere’s layers, along with a thin crescent Moon illuminated by the Sun from below the horizon of the Earth. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

Whenever I post something here at ImaGeo involving climate change, it’s a good bet that I’ll get a spectrum of critical responses in the comments section. These range from skepticism about the urgency of the problem to outright dismissal of humankind’s influence on climate through our emissions of greenhouse gases.

A recent post here about thawing permafrost releasing climate-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere was no exception. For the story, I reviewed dozens scientific research papers, and used information and quotations from two interviews. Based on that reporting, here’s what I wrote at the top of the story:

The coldest reaches of the Arctic on land were once thought to be at least temporarily shielded from a major — and worrisome — effect of a warming climate: widespread melting of permafrost. But a recent study suggests these northernmost Arctic areas are likely to thaw much sooner than expected. That’s concerning because melting permafrost releases climate-warming greenhouse gases.

As always, I expected skeptical pushback — but nothing as extreme as this:

As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.

I took this to mean that a liberal scientific establishment invented the idea that carbon dioxide plays a role in Earth’s climate system to support raising taxes.

Never mind that relatively simple physics worked out in the 1800s, and since corroborated by experiments and observations, show that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should raise Earth’s average temperature.

I ordinarily ignore comments like the one I quote above. Discover is a science magazine, not a platform for political grandstanding. And it is especially not a platform for ideas that run counter to basic physics and more than a century of hard scientific work by generations of researchers.



This is not to say that I and the other writers and editors here at Discover view science as being infallible. Far from it. We recognize that as a human endeavor, science is prone to error born of vanity, preconceived notions, confirmation bias, a herd mentality, etc.  Scientists know this better than anyone, so skepticism is one of their cardinal values. So is the recognition that even today’s most widely accepted theories may have to be modified or even replaced tomorrow if new evidence requires it.

Journalists are also supposed to be skeptical and self-critical. We should frequently ask ourselves things like, “How do I know this? Am I sure? Maybe I should check because I could be deceived by my preconceived notions.”

And so in this case, I thought it would be useful to delve deeper into what scientists know of the link between carbon dioxide and climate over the geologic timescale, and CO2’s overall role as a kind of thermostat for the planet.

I don’t pretend that what follows is a definitive primer on these issues. Not even close. But I thought it might be useful to share what I learned — if for no other reason that it might arm readers with some useful scientific information when they encounter people peddling politics in the name of science.

So, back to that original claim that “CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years,” the commenter wrote this to support it:

My evidence for my comment, is climate history over 600 million years, during which time, when CO2 increased, global temperature decreased, for several million years, and when CO2 decreased, global temperature increased, also for several millions of years.

He also used a graph originally posted online by someone named Monte Hieb at this website. Hieb has changed the graph a number of times over the years. The following version is one that has been frequently picked up by people who deny the science on humankind’s impact on climate, including such well known figures as Christopher Monckton:

CO2

Source: APS Physics

It purports to show that CO2 and climate really aren’t well linked.

When I sought more information about this graph, I landed first on a post at RealClimate by Gavin Schmidt, who heads NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. From his article, titled “Can we make better graphs of global temperature history?,” I learned that Hieb had hand drawn his temperature record based on the work of a scientist named Chris Scotese. And as Schmidt puts it:

Scotese is an expert in reconstructions of continental positions through time and in creating his ‘temperature reconstruction’ he is basically following an old-fashioned idea . . . that the planet has two long-term stable equilibria (‘warm’ or ‘cool’) which it has oscillated between over geologic history. This kind of heuristic reconstruction comes from the qualitative geological record which gives indications of glaciations and hothouses, but is not really adequate for quantitative reconstructions of global mean temperatures. Over the last few decades, much better geochemical proxy compilations with better dating have appeared . . . and the idea that there are only two long-term climate states has long fallen by the wayside

The “proxy” records Schmidt references are preserved physical characteristics of the environment that stand in for direct measurements — in this case, chemical fingerprints in the geological record of changing climatic conditions. (For more on proxy records, see this explainer.)

Based on Schmidt’s post, here is part of my response to the commenter claiming no link between CO2 and climate:

You are deluded by hubris — the idea that by reading one graph of suspect origin you know better than an entire scientific community consisting of literally thousands of researchers, operating over many decades and doing the actual hard work of science — and holding up their findings to rigorous review by expert peers.

I went on to say this:

. . . your alleged “evidence” is a graph, in part hand-drawn, posted to a website that hasn’t been updated in six years by an obscure person with no discernible expertise in this area, and based on the work of a scientist who is not an expert in paleo temperature reconstructions and whose ideas were long ago supplanted by better work based on actual physical proxy records.

I then pointed him toward an example of real researchers doing the truly complex and hard work of science — a peer-reviewed paper titled “CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate”.

In their paper, the team of five scientists analyzed a wealth of different data to examine the role of CO2 in climate over the past 540 million years. Their conclusions are nuanced — which is to be expected for a system as complex as global climate, and especially when looking at it over such long time periods. But here is the most relevant fundamental finding:

Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that CO2 was low (<500 ppm) during periods of long-lived and widespread continental glaciations and high (>1000 ppm) during other, warmer periods.

Other scientists have addressed particular details of the geologic record. These include a period of glaciation that occurred during late Ordovician Period. Climate change dismissives say it happened despite sky high concentrations of climate-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 440 million years ago. This, they claim, is proof that CO2 plays less of a role, or even no role, in determining Earth’s climate.

In supporting this claim they use a geochemical model called “GEOCARB” that provides estimates of CO2 concentrations through geologic time. But the critics fail to mention that the data included in the GEOCARB model come in very long time steps of 10 million years. With this in mind, the creators of GEOCARB explicitly warned that their model cannot discern changes in CO2 occurring over periods less than 10 million years long — including shorter-term drops of the kind that scientists have shown likely occurred during the late Ordovician glaciation.

“Thus, exact values of CO2 . . . should not be taken literally and are always susceptible to modification,” GEOCARB’s creators said.

Yet climate dismissives do just that. And they ignore copious evidence gathered by scientists supporting lower CO2 levels in the atmosphere during that period. For example, a 2009 paper in the journal Geology came to the following conclusion, as described by Phil Berardelli in a story in Science:

The rise of the Appalachians plunged Earth into an ice age so severe that it drove nearly two-thirds of all living species extinct. That’s the conclusion of a new study, which finds that the mountains’ rocks absorbed enough greenhouse gas to freeze the planet.

For more details about the Ordovician glaciation and related issues, the website Skeptical Science has an excellent overview. And for a broad overview of  CO2’s role in Earth’s climate over geological history, check out this lecture by Richard Alley, a renowned Penn State geoscientist:

Commenters on my blog also often claim that since the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is so low compared to that of water vapor, also a greenhouse gas, it could not possibly play the role of a thermostat. But here, too, rigorous research shows otherwise.

For example, a team of four NASA scientists led by Andrew Lacis and including Gavin Schmidt, found this: “Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere.”

Yes, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect. And, in fact, a companion study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.

So given that CO2 accounts for just a fifth of Earth’s overall greenhouse effect, what supports the claim that it nevertheless is the most important greenhouse gas?

The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out. By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.

The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases — CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out.  And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling. In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.

“Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state,” the authors of the first study concluded.

Just how much does carbon dioxide contribute? The second study led by Gavin Schmidt concluded that the CO2 in our atmosphere is itself is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains Earth’s greenhouse effect.

CO2 and Earth's Energy Budget

Scientists have worked out the fine details of how energy flows through Earth’s atmosphere, as seen in this diagram. It shows how energy contained in sunlight warms our planet, and how this energy becomes temporarily trapped as it flows away from Earth’s surface as longwave infrared radiation. This energy trap produces the greenhouse effect, the main driver of global warming. (Source: Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo and Jeff Kiehl via UCAR)

This brings me to another claim made by some commenters here at ImaGeo. Climate records show that global temperatures drop before CO2 does as Earth enters an ice age, and visa versa too: Temperatures rise before CO2 as we come out of an ice age. So once again, CO2 cannot be the most important factor.

Scientists have actually long known that something something other than CO2 sets things in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation reaching Earth due to variations in the Earth’s orientation to the Sun. (These are known as Milankovitch cycles). Then other natural feedbacks kick in — most especially changes in carbon dioxide.

Scientists haven’t fully teased out all of the details yet. But in general, the picture looks like this:

As Earth starts to warm at the end of an ice age due to increased solar radiation reaching Earth, ice sheets and snow begin to contract. These surfaces are very reflective. So as they shrink, less sunlight is reflected back into space. This helps to enhance the warming. The warming causes ocean waters to give up CO2 — because CO2 is less soluble in warmer water. This strongly enhances the warming, which reduces the ice and snow, which causes more warming, which increases the CO2, leading to even more warming.

The bottom line is that a change in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going, but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role.

This general picture leaves out some important details, such as the role of fresh water flowing into the oceans as ice sheets melt. A 2012 study led by Jeremy Shakun, now a Boston College climatologist, examined some of these details. Skeptical Science posted an excellent explainer about the results here. But the upshot of the study was this: “While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase.”

I’ll finish with one recent piece of research in which a team of five scientists examined the role of greenhouse gases in temperature anomalies, including the overall warming trend, since the onset of the industrial revolution.

Here, too, commenters on this blog often claim that since recent periods in Earth’s past were almost as warm as it is now, we can’t know for sure that the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere is responsible for the observed recent warming.

But in their paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, the scientists confirmed that our emissions of greenhouse gases, “especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.”

Earth’s climate is clearly an incredibly complex system. And climate scientists have never contended that they’ve understood all the details, or that their current understanding isn’t subject to revision when new evidence comes along. This is why they continue to do their research – to improve our understanding of how one of Earth’s key life support systems works.

They’ve also never contended that CO2 is the sole factor driving climate changes over geologic history. As we’ve seen, however, it plays a key role: Without the CO2 thermostat, Earth would likely be a proverbial snowball.

And now, we humans have turned the thermostat up, with predictable results that we’re already observing — such as changes to permafrost in the Arctic that got me going on this post to begin with.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • nik

    I have never seen a scientific report, where the scientist says, ”CO2 is definitely the major cause of climate warming.”
    What I see is vague comments like, ”could be,” ”is strongly suspected to,” maybe the…” ”we feel this may well be..,,” etc.
    Perhaps someone could supply a few.

    • Mason
      • nik

        Its the same article as this one!

        • Mike Richardson

          That’s the point! 😁

          • nik

            Were you born the town fool, or did you take classes?

          • Mike Richardson

            I prefer to be the best at anything I do, so I’d really need to study under a master. When are you available to teach?

          • nik

            By definition, its impossible to teach a fool anything.

          • Mike Richardson

            As you have well demonstrated in your responses to these articles, master. :)

          • nik

            …..and your contributions to the discussions?
            ZERO!
            Which is to be expected from the town fool.

          • OWilson

            His contribution is to end all rational discussion.

            He’s moderately successful too.

            Do a dump in the middle of the classroom and you will quickly clear the room!

            Alinkyism 101

          • nik

            Having served 9+years in the military, where insults can be a matter of life or death, his attempts at insults are at the kindergarten level.
            My normal response would not be appropriate on a site which is supposed to be for polite discussion.
            In any case, one should not abuse the village idiot, one should rather pity him, as he doesn’t have the intellect to even realise that he is the village idiot.
            In times past, the village blacksmith, or some other worthy, would have taken him aside, and give his backside a good walloping, this being the closest part of him to his brain, and usually this would have persuaded him not to interrupt adults with his infantile comments.

          • OWilson

            He goes away from time to time, when he starts losing it.

            That’s when the Discover Blogs get quite chummy, respectful, and informative.

            Check it out, it’s actually in the record!

          • nik

            I’ve challenged him to point out any defects in my logic, that can justify his criticisms.
            Its gone very quiet, so far.

          • OWilson

            He eventually runs out of Ad Hominems, then he has nothing more! :)

          • nik

            When I was in the RAF in Gib, I had a bloke who decided to take the pix/micky out of one aspect of my anatomy. I’m pretty thick skinned, so that didnt worry me, but after several months of the same thing, every day, I eventually told him the joke was worn out, ‘find another!’ The following day, after I’d just come off a 16 hour night shift, without sleep, and was feeling more than a little irritable, he gave it to me again. So, I gave him some back.
            Without a word, he left the room, and did so every time I entered a room, even in mid sentence, for the remaining 6 months he was there.
            I hit him with everything he was self conscious about. The other guys in the room, didnt even notice what I’d said to him.
            ‘People who live in glass houses, should not throw stones!’ applies.
            So far, I’ve been very restrained with M. R. but that could change!
            I’ve had two or three idiots making irritating comments, until I gave some hard stuff back.
            They never came back for more!
            It comes from my school days, When I left at 15, there were 1st year kids bigger than me. I’d learned that verbal could be very effective, and physical then only as a last resort. They only made the mistake of annoying me once. Even the biggest guy in the school, who was foot taller than me, learned the hard way, and copped a wallop in the ‘bread basket.’ (I was also the second fasted 220 yard sprinter in the school:-) He never, ever, bothered me again.

          • OWilson

            Thanks for that!

            This is one thread that could end on a on an interesting post.

            Unless HE comes back! Lol!

          • CB

            “This is one thread that could end on a on an interesting post.”

            Uh huh.

            OP is denying evidence right in front of his face, and ignoring evidence that’s been around for centuries.

            Why is that?

            Will ignoring the evidence make the evidence go away?

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

            climate.nasa.gov/evidence

          • OWilson

            As it was it scientifically demonstrated that peeing in the sea increased sea levels.

            But it does NOT cause the washing away of Tuvalu and the Maldives.

            That’s a flawed conclusion from a scientific fact.

            This is old stuff, responding to infantile and juvenile logic!

            I’m outa here!

            Time for my sunset cocktail.

            Or maybe I’m just dreaming, because the true believer above says I don’t live here, and some Kuch brothers are buying me my Presidente Lite!

            No, geez, damn, I don’t see a Western Union remittance, so I do have to stop at the ATM, and take something from my modest savings!

            Lol!

          • CB

            “it was it scientifically demonstrated that peeing in the sea increased sea levels.”

            …because that’s what you think global warming is about?

            …or are you playing pretend?

            If you pretend reality doesn’t exist, does that mean it cannot affect you, Mr. Wilson?

            “If the Greenland Ice Sheet melted, scientists estimate that sea level would rise about 6 meters (20 feet). If the Antarctic Ice Sheet melted, sea level would rise by about 60 meters (200 feet).”

            nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html

          • OWilson

            “IF” :)

            “IF” I pick the right lotto numbers I will be rich!

            But why should I bore the readers with how I will spend my money when I do! ?

            ” I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out, (next year)” said Dr Serreze, Director NSIDC! –

            The Independent – Thursday 26 June 2008 23:00 BST

            Wrong!

            Lol!

          • CB

            “why should I bore the readers”

            It’s a mystery only you can solve! You are well-known for prevarication. That means no one is likely to believe you.

            If you understand that, why do you bother to post anything at all?

            psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAprSepCurrent.png

          • OWilson

            Simple answer?

            Because I like to see the nonsense that you true believers can come up with! :)

            Free phony psychanalysis, delusion, and totally incorrect assumptions about my lifestyle, but yet, strangely no response to my request to you and others provide evidence that reputable scientists, or scientific organanizations have stated that Co2 is the “pre-eminent” “primary” or “main” driver of the climate!

            Still waiting, …..yawn!

          • CB

            “I like to see the nonsense that you true believers can come up with!”

            You are lying for attention, then. Why is lying the only way you can get people to pay attention to you, Mr. Wilson?

            vimeo.com/34099316

          • OWilson

            You sent me to YouTube?

            I got a million of rebuttals for yer on YouTube!

            Lol!

            I can see where you get your authoratative science!

            (A quote would have been sufficient, not a another cheap liberal “awards” ceremony!)

            NASA, or NOAA, will be quite sufficient, thank you!

            I just dismissed NSIDC from my own list of experts due to there last two completely wrong and contradictory estimates of when we would have “an ice free Arctic”

            Lol!

          • CB

            “You sent me to YouTube?”

            Nope. I sent you to Dr. Richard Alley.

            Sweetheart, why is lying the only way you can get people to pay attention to you?

            How pathetic must you be that you cannot get people to notice you in any other way?

            “An increasing body of science indicates that CO₂ has been the most important controller of Earth’s climate.”

            blogs.nasa.gov/whatonearth/2010/02/26/post_1262067702260

          • OWilson

            Why do AGW fans always try to play tricks?

            I asked for a scientific cite.

            You sent me to YouTube to hear from a guy who says,

            An “increasing” “body of science” “indicates” that Co2 “has” been the most importantant controller of the Earth’s climate?

            I would expect no less from the Lead Author of the U.N. IPCC Report! (They are the ones demanding $trillions in third world reparations, and to prevent Tuvalu from sinking beneath the waves, when it is actually growing :) remember?)

            I was looking for that “body of science” he is referring to.

            So, round and round we go, down the AGW rat hole!

            I will give you the point that you did at least link me to a scientific opinion.

            Thanks, but no thanks!

            Now I’m outta here!

          • CB

            “Why do AGW fans always try to play tricks?”

            Your question assumes that which is not in evidence. AGW is a fact we can see from space. It doesn’t need “fans” to be true. Lying about it might get you attention at first, but what happens when people become bored of your sad attention-seeking behaviour and simply begin ignoring you? Did you not realise that might happen?

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

          • OWilson

            Black Body Emissions?

            Lawdy, who ordered THAT?

            I’m now outta here, and will go back to my “cult commune”, to pick up my cheque from Koch for posting on right wing web sites, and pretend I just spent a beautuful day at the beach with good friends on my tropical island, with karaoki at the beach bar tonight at 8!

            I’ll leave you chicken littles, to be concerned and worried about the weather a hundred years from now, like you have been tought to do by your political masters, priests and shamans.

            Go get a group hug!

            Y’all need one badly!

          • CB

            “Black Body Emissions?”

            Uh huh. If the only reason why you’re lying is for attention, and if it’s not getting you attention, why do you persist?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6b86330ccdfe2a84b1fde980320051f67bfb7bc4d51f4f501081a9595569b858.png

          • yetanotherbob

            IPCC? Aren’t they the folks who announced the final melting of all the Himalayan glaciers to India when India was noting the glaciers growth?

            great “Experts”.

            “Who are you going to believe me, or your own eyes?” Wow! some experts.

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s a good question. You should check out his post in reply to me about where he posts, from about a day ago. Funny thing — you can check that in the public Disqus profile. If you can’t tell the truth about something as easy to fact check as that, why would you ever expect anyone to to believe you about anything else?

          • CB

            “why would you ever expect anyone to to believe you about anything else?”

            He doesn’t, and he openly admits he doesn’t.

            He’s lying for attention, and the more brazen and obnoxious the lie, the better.

            Sort by oldest.

            Sort by best.

            Talk over him and past him.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Earf heats up at the equator, and transports that heat to the poles, via winds and currents. Hadley cells, “the Gulf Stream” current, etc. The Arctic imports more heat from this transport, than it gains do to insolation.
            Floating sea-ice insulates the warm oceans. When this ice melts, sure, the albedo is lower, but the sunshine is weak up there. The increased moisture from exposure of the water vs ice, increases cloud incidence, which helps cool in summer by restoring at least part of the missing albedo … but, the ice, which used to insulate the (relatively) warm water, is gone, and the heat transfer from the water to the atmosphere, increases two orders of magnitude … 100X … This heat increases the upwards long-wave radiation, cooling Earf.

            Kim 2016: ”As sea ice decreases, warmer sea surface is exposed to air, yielding increased upward longwave radiation in the Barents–Kara seas.”
            Kim 2016: ”The upward longwave radiation is determined primarily by the [surface air temperature]. ”

            Tietsche 2011: ”The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the ice free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic, partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat advection from lower latitudes.”

            Tietsche 2011: ”In summer, the oceanic heat anomaly is enhanced by the ice–albedo feedback, but in winter the excess oceanic heat is lost to the atmosphere due to a lack of insulating sea ice cover. This leads to an anomalously warm atmosphere, which in turn causes increased heat loss by long wave radiation at the top of the atmosphere and decreased heat gain by atmospheric advection from lower latitudes. A lasting impact of the ice–albedo feedback is not possible because the large scale heat fluxes quickly adapt to release the excess oceanic heat from the Arctic.”

          • Mike Richardson

            Cool story. But pardon me for pointing out that in this case, the bloke who started off with the insults (village fool), was you. All in response to my simply noting that you were being directed back to an article that actually provided the information you needed. You don’t sound much like that thick skinned chap from your story. Perhaps a little self reflection is in order. I’ve had little success ( but much amusement) trying to encourage Ol’Wilson in such introspection, but perhaps you can do better. As for the topic of this article, and your dispute of it, you’ve shifted your argument so many times, it’s impossible to know what you expect others to debate. You appear to agree that there are greenhouse gases, that methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and that the world is warming. You appear to disagree that CO2 is significantly contributing to climate change, but plenty of folks here, beginning with the author of this article, have beaten the dead horse into glue explaining why it does. There’s not much more I can add at this point, but if trading insults will make you feel better, I suppose you can resume that, though it really won’t achieve much else of value.

          • nik

            OK, I’ll make it easy.

            If CO2 caused global warming, you would have a positive feedback system, and the much threatened runaway greenhouse, would occur.
            That has not occurred in 600 million years, even when CO2 concentrations were 17 times present.

            Therefor the alleged effect cannot be real.

            Simple enough?

            As for who started, you, with snide sarcastic comments.
            Also, as I’ve pointed out, no sensible contribution to the discussion whatsoever.

            If a fly is bothering you, eventually, you swat it!

          • OWilson

            So what do you call someone who claims that low lying coastal areas will be washed away, but lives on one that is under government flood warnings, gets flooded out, then rebuilds on the same spot?

            Not only are you a fool, but more seriously, you are a danger to your children, and first responders, who may have to come looking for you, next flood!

          • Mike Richardson

            You moved to an island nation at far greater risk of devastation from hurricanes than I am from floods. People rebuild there all the time. Do you have the same opinion of your new neighbors, or is this another example of your abundant hypocrisy?

          • OWilson

            I don’t expose my children to the risks I take in life!

          • Mike Richardson

            Sounds like your method of argument, actually.

          • Mike Richardson

            Losing it, as when one makes comments like “Get a life, please!” in response to a simple observation and straightforward question? LOL! Perhaps the reason you don’t see me with the frequency that others see you on these boards is that I actually have a life, and enjoy getting out and living it. It’s actually in the record! Now you and nik get back to devoting several more posts to me. If I had poor self esteem, you’d actually be doing me a favor! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            You’ve managed to contribute less with far more words. Arguing against well researched and supported science with nothing but your own assertions has certainly shown someone to be the fool here. However, that someone isn’t me.

          • nik

            How would you know, you dont have the intellect to make even one sensible comment.
            Oh! They are not my assertions, if you look beyond the AGW propaganda, now well discredited, as, like ”weapons of mass destruction” the alleged warming has also failed to be found.
            Silly little boy, dont interrupt adults when they are discussing things.

          • Mike Richardson

            I was never under the impression I was interrupting an actual adult.

          • nik

            Of course not, because you are the village idiot.
            How could you?

          • Mike Richardson

            Nik, how many people (with the obvious exception of Ol’Wilson, of course) have found you to be more persuasive than the author of this article? As terribly impressed as you appear to be with yourself and your accomplishments, you really don’t appear to be impressing too many other people as a towering intellect or brilliant scientific mind. Nope, you’ve been arguing pointlessly with the blog article’s author, who now seems to be ignoring you, and ironically calling other folks idiots while decrying infantile comments. You really are a lot like Ol’Wilson, unfortunately.

          • nik

            So, as I’ve said, where is your intelligent contribution to the discussion, …nowhere!
            Like all village idiots, full of hot air, and nothing more.
            I am not calling ”other folks” idiots, just you, as you merit the term.
            As I’ve shown, CO2 cannot CAUSE heating of the climate, as is claimed by the AGW lobby, no matter how much they fudge and fiddle with the data.
            The main criticism, of the graph shown, was not that the temperature was wrong, but that it was ”hand drawn.”
            Well, until PC’s reached a level and the programs were written, ALL graphs were hand drawn, and were accepted for at least two hundred years or more, so that criticism has no value.
            Only if the data is wrong, can it be criticised, and the major points that I used to show that the claims by the AGW lobby were obviously false, are all well accepted, and cannot be criticised.
            So, where’s your argument?

          • Jammy Dodger

            “… the reason I posted my credentials was to show that I have a brain”

            ‘cos there is no evidence of it in your posts? :)

          • nik

            How would you know?
            You dont have the intellect required to recognise intelligence if it bit you on the nose.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Burn!!!!

            Oscar Wilde would not be impressed.

            The reason you posted your credentials is because you are insecure about your intellectual standing so you felt you had to big them up. I suspect they are bigged up too!

          • OWilson

            Just follow the crowd, Mikey, don’t question authority, and you’ll get to spend your generous government pension!

          • OWilson

            Why our our “best” always gravitate to government employment? :)

            What a waste!

          • frflyer

            Because the “best” are more interested in actual scientific research, rather than working in the private sector where the motive is profit and scientists can make a lot more money

          • OWilson

            So you really believe that?

            Who would you choose to build say a Web Site or a back up system for government emails for the State Department, IRS and the FBI?

            Oh yeah, the FBI spooks finally realised they could not float their “lost” communications excuse so close to Hillary and Lois Lerner’s little adventures.

            Like the purloined FBI files the Clinton White House had on their Republican opponents, and like Hillary’s lost Whitewater Billing records, they just as mysteriously turned up. Lol!

          • nik

            …and you think politicians are in government for purely altruistic purposes of course!

          • Mike Richardson

            I would have sought tutelage with you instead, but I figured with your immense popularity, you’d be booked solid. :)

          • OWilson

            Look at his emoticon.

            Take a guess! :)

    • Tom Yulsman

      Perhaps you should actually read the story carefully, and pay careful attention to the real words I wrote, and the real words said by the real scientists I quoted. You could also click on some of the links to the primary sources of real science I provided and check for yourself. But of course you won’t do that because you are obviously uninterested in what’s real, only in clinging to what you want to believe is real.

      • nik

        xx

        • frflyer

          “What I see is vague comments like, ”could be,” ”is strongly suspected to,” may be the…” ”we feel this may well be..,,” etc.”

          And that shows the scientific integrity of scientists, who almost never speak in terms of absolutes, since they always understand that science evolves. But deniers think it shows a weakness in the science, which is False

          • nik

            What it really shows, is that scientist do not want to compromise their integrity, but still need to appear to be complying with Government directives, to keep their funding, and their livelihoods.

            Those that do not, are sacked, blacklisted, and have their characters assassinated in the media, which primarily follows government dogma. There were several examples of this when AGW was first proposed, those remaining dont dare bite the hand that feeds them, and their families.

            Cant blame them for that.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            What, besides “denier” would you call someone who rejects the opinion of the vast majority of the world’s scientists? You do realize, I hope, that the other 194 countries in the world also have scientists. The US does not have a monopoly. Although is does have the dubious distinction of being the only country in the world to reject the Paris Accord. Whoopee, good for us.

          • OWilson

            I would call them brave skeptics like Socrates and Galileo who were “brought to jusice” by the establishment for denying the conventional wisdom of the times! :)

            Science without skepticism is Dogma!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There is a huge difference between Galileo on the one hand and climate change “skeptics” on the other. Socrates was “brought to justice” for religious heresy and doesn’t really fit with scientific disagreements.

            Galileo presented new ideas that contradicted the prevailing dogma, notably that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. I don’t know what other scientists thought AT THE TIME (obviously his heliocentric view is now accepted as fact), but he, too, was tried for heresy by the Catholic Church.

            Present day scientists who do not accept that the climate is changing because of human activity have not been able to provide an alternative explanation that stands up to scrutiny by other scientists. Nor have they – despite valiant efforts to pick holes in it – been able to disprove the accepted theory.

          • OWilson

            Freedom of speech!

            Alternate explanations?

            You ever hear of at least 6 cyclical glaciations and warming cycles, the Earth has experienced?

            Bye, again!

            Too much! :)

          • With Respect

            Where does a skeptic begin?

            Does a skeptic begin and end as a nihilist, who accepts nothing because there is no foundation the skeptic can agree to?

            Or does the skeptic accept “I think, therefore I am”, and consider true only what pure logic tells?

            From pure logic, an assiduous skeptic can with just the Peano postulates that emerge from acknowledging self-existence come to accept all of mathematics, including theorems of statistics and probability.

            Within mathematics, Newton-Raphson shows the skeptic reason to accept approximations that on iteration tend to converge to a single value in the limit. That same skeptical method is the foundation of science: hold exact or most nearly true the approximation inferred from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation converges to amended or new inference.

            So you are no skeptic, if you do not accept that CO2 is the preeminent controller of climate, as that conclusion is what inference from all observation — over 10,000 new published studies a year, for years — tells.

          • OWilson

            Pre-eminent?

            Defintion:

            “Main”, “Primary”,”above all others”

            Go away you silly person with the grandoise vocabulary!

            You also are a joke, not worthy of an adult response! :)

          • With Respect

            Ah, yes. The familiar strains of Ad Hominem from a deadbeat who must resort to abuse and absurdity to avoid facing his obligations.

            You have an interest in lands and waters. Others dump their fossil wastes upon them. You fail to charge them a fossil waste disposal fee, and let them freeload on your property, lowering property values all around.

            Shame on you.

            Collect what you’re owed.

          • OWilson

            This “cult commune” you have me living in (in your addled brain), are there any hot chicks living there too?

            Any free weed?

            Lol!

          • yetanotherbob

            Logic has it’s own limitations. Also, there are several different forms of logic, including strangely enough purely emotional thought. Each though has limitations and weaknesses.
            That’s why you have to compare the results with reality in the end. Logic is never enough.

          • With Respect

            Pointless bafflegab led nowhere, but at least it was brief.

          • nik

            I dont reject the opinion of the ”vast majority of scientists.”
            What I reject, is the opinion of the vast majority of politicians, who claim the vast majority of scientists ….etc.
            As you, obviously consider that you accept ”the opinion of the vast majority of scientists,” name me one!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Michael Mann, James Hansen,Gavin Schmidt (extensively quoted in the article), Richard Alley, Katherine Hayhoe, Fillipo Giorgi, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Charles Keeling (and his son Ralph), and Kevin Trenberth come to mind. But it must be pointed out that the “vast majority” work relatively anonymously as part of a university department or government institute.

            You can see more names, and their affiliation, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_of_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis

          • nik

            Here’s another list;

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

            Of scientists who disagree. They must be the ones who are not government funded, and so cant be sacked, for not toeing the government line.

            :-)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I saw that list and chose not to include any of the names that jumped off the page. Somehow the deniers have managed to be much more visible than their counterparts.

            That could be because they are not government funded. Whatever their academic or institutional affiliation may be, there is a pretty good chance that they are being funded by the Koch brothers and others whose wealth depends on extracting the last drop of fossil fuel while they can (among them our ex-Secretary of State).

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I must just add that some on the list have made important contributions to the body of knowledge about global warming and the resultant changes in the climate. However, with or without a financial incentive, they have drawn the wrong conclusions.

          • nik

            That may be, but, until such time as CO2 can be proven to be the SOLE cause of global warming/climate change, which is very unlikely, then it matters not one iota who funds who, or what.

            Considering the millions invested by government, to promote their agenda, and the trillions in carbon tax that they expect to receive from it, which will dwarf anything any other parties in the opposite camp is likely to benefit, you cannot assume that the governments aims are for purely altruistic purposes.
            When have they ever been?

            ”Somehow the deniers have managed to be much more visible than their counterparts.”

            Why do you think that is, as there are far fewer of them?
            Perhaps because the governments case doesn’t ring as true, to anyone with a brain that functions, and they prefer the scientists with science to back their argument, instead of political propaganda?

            In addition, governments are formed from politicians, and politicians are notorious liars. If all the promises that were made by politicians before elections, and were never kept, were put into a book, it would almost definitely be the largest book ever produced in the history of the human race.

            If someone said to you, ”trust me, I’m a politician,” would you?

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You do come up with some rubbish arguments.

            The SOLE cause? That’s like saying that until we can find the one and only cause for cancer we should carry on using all the many substances that are know to cause particular cancers. Or you can keep on eating cakes, cookies and candies to your hearts content because you don’t know which ONE of them is making you so fat.

            And are you seriously suggesting that the government – this government – is about to tax carbon?

            When will you get it into your head that there are thousands and thousands of scientists around the world who are not affected by the corruption of the US political system by corporations? Or the fact that there is no “government case”. (Where have you been for the past year? Have you not noticed that the current government is almost entirely on your side? You need to modify your arguments to fit reality)

            Or the strange phenomenon that just about all the scientists you trust so much are closely connected to one or more of those corporations? Is that just coincidence?

          • nik

            ”You do come up with some rubbish arguments. The SOLE cause? ”

            Thats EXACTLY what the global warming/climate change lobby, is suggesting, so you have now supported my objections to it fully.
            Thank you.

            ”And are you seriously suggesting that the government – this government – is about to tax carbon?”

            No, I’m not suggesting it, they already have taxed carbon! Where have you been in the last decade?

            ”Have you not noticed that the current government is almost entirely on your side? ”

            Yes I have, and its the most sensible one since Kennedy.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            So now you are saying that your only objection to the “global warming/climate change lobby” is that they maintain human activity is the SOLE cause of global warming. Does that mean you accept that human activity is partially responsible?

          • nik

            ”So now you are saying that ……etc.”
            My attitude has been consistent, only your ability to understand it seems to have improved.

            Look at the worlds deforested areas, especially those deforested by humans, and what do you see?
            Mostly desert! Hot desert!
            Trees cool the climate, by putting vast quantities of water into the atmosphere, and by converting solar radiation into wood.
            Because they cool, they also promote rainfall, which requires clouds, which reflect solar radiation, and that also cools the atmosphere.
            Remove them, and all that is lost.
            There are other natural factors that reduce trees, and their cooling effectiveness, so humans are not solely responsible.
            If there were no trees, the tropical rain forested areas would be hotter than the
            Sahara. They are not!

            To summarise my position, for clarity.
            I dont accept that human caused CO2 is wholly responsible for, or even that it is, responsible for climate change, given the tiny amount of additional CO2 that can be attributed to human activity.
            At present I will accept that it may act as an atmospheric stabilising agent, I have more to read.

            That there are many other factors, that can, and do cause climate change, and have been doing so for millions of years, long before humans could have any effect, is well known. Milankovitch cycles being the obvious one, and Volcanoes being another. Volcanic effects tend to be short term, but that depends on how long they erupt for. In the past there have been eruptions that lasted for tens of thousands of years, like the Permian extinction period, amongst others. Milankovitch cycles operate over about 100,000 years.
            In addition, during its orbit of the galaxy, the sun passes through the arms of the galaxy, and intergalactic dust attenuates the solar radiation reaching Earth. So thats another, at approx 150 million year periods. These periods are associated with major extinction events. The solar system is in one now. So the ”sixth extinction event” may have nothing to do with humans, and their presence is merely coincidental.

            The problem, is that these events may happen simultaneously with human activity, so for any group to claim that human activity is solely responsible for climate change is irresponsible at best. Also, it is difficult to separate which is the main cause, so that human activity is responsible at all, is also dubious.
            Volcanoes can release more CO2 in a day than humans release in a year, and there are thousands of volcanoes erupting continuously, worldwide. The majority are under the sea, so we dont notice it.
            In geological terms humans have been around for just a pinprick in time. Their importance to climate change has been greatly exaggerated, by the AGW lobby, for political purposes.

            The whole AGW debacle was started to support a political policy, and has continued to serve that purpose ever since, even tho’ the specific political purpose may have changed.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Which political policy would that be?

          • nik

            In 79, Maggie Thatcher became prime minister, and she was determined to break the power of the unions, who had caused the fall of the earlier, Heath-the-Teeth Tory government. Especially the miners, who had been the most aggressive.
            She ‘threw’ £4 million at one of the top UK universities, as asked them to give her something to justify closing pits, and introducing nuclear power.
            CO2/global warming was what they cooked up. At about the same time, scientists were asking, ‘are we moving into a new ice age?’ Obviously the two are incompatible. So the universities forgot about the ice age, allowing the government to concentrate on closing pits, and breaking the miners union. The miners had the grip on the power generation of the country, like the Arabs have had more recently.
            The myth lay dormant for some years, until someone revived it, and refined it to collect carbon taxes, by the $trillion.
            Simple as that.
            I remember all the union strikes, the ”winter of discontent” 3 day working, and street protests, as I had to pass through them to college and later to work some times.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There are a couple of flaws in your Thatcher story.

            From 1975 until 1990 Mrs Thatcher was a vocal supporter of the climate cause. She was instrumental according to The Telegraph – in the setting up of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988, and she promised the Met Office lavish funding for its Hadley Centre, which she opened in 1990, as a world authority on “human-induced climate change”. Hadley then linked up with East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). (Perhaps that is the university you are thinking of).

            In 2003 she seemingly changed her mind, but as I read it she did not so much reject the science (she graduated from Cambridge with a degree in chemistry), as she rejected the solutions, more specifically the cost of solutions.

            Lastly, the carbon tax was only introduced in Britain in 2013.

          • nik

            ”Trust me, I’m a politician!”
            One scam lead to another.
            I dont think Thatcher was connected to C Tax. Just another group saw an opportunity to scam $trillions

            By 1988, she had achieved her objective, the miners union was divided, and under full control, as were the rest of the UK unions. Some had destroyed their employment entirely, so disappeared, like the London Dockers, as their employment was containerised, and moved to coastal locations, so they became irrelevant.
            Once she had started the ball rolling, she couldnt just drop it, as her credibility would have evaporated. So, the scam continued.

            I think the University was either Oxford or Cambridge, as being the most prestigious, would have been less likely to be criticised.

            Chemistry, is not too closely connected to biology, and the carbon cycle is part of that.
            Volcanoes spew CO2, trees and plant life absorb it, convert it to carbon, and oxygen, and animal life gets to breathe.
            Deforest, and there are less trees, so CO2 will increase, increase CO2, and trees and plant life increase, and CO2 goes down.
            While plant life proliferates, the CO2 steadily reduces, until either volcanoes increase their output, plant life reduces, or often both simultaneously. as one cause the other.

            Its just as likely that deforestation caused an increase in CO2, as it reduced sequestration. That combined with burning the trees, and then fossil fuels would have had a double effect. Planting more trees would reduce it, but at its present impoverished level, its of no danger to the world, except if it reduces.

            The falsehood that CO2 is a pollutant, and needs to be reduced, is a very effective way of eliminating all life on Earth. Reduce it to 150 ppm, and all plant life will start to die, from CO2 starvation, closely followed by all animal life, dependent upon it.
            Commercial greenhouse companies pump CO2 into their greenhouses, at not inconsiderable cost, to increase crop growth. Increasing CO2 to 1000 ppm would do nothing but good, for all life on Earth.

            The first to suffer, would be US, as we are at the top of the food chain!
            Thats part of the reason I contest the CO2/Global warming scam.

            Bankers print the money, so the more of it that gets to be circulated, the higher their apparent worth, and the greater the rest of the world becomes in debt to them.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Here and there you make good points, but they are so wrapped up in conspiracy theory that they have little impact.

            Take your statements: “The first to suffer, would be US, as we are at the top of the food chain!

            Thats (sic) part of the reason I contest the CO2/Global warming scam.”

            Yes, indeed. The US has the most to lose by facing up to the reality of global warming (and the need to do something about it). That being so, why on earth would people be inventing a problem?

            Isn’t it more logical that those – notably the fossil fuel industry – who really have a lot to lose would promote the idea that there is no problem? They want to continue extracting and selling their dirty fuel for as long as possible in order to recoup their investments. If they can persuade the gullible populace that politicians are trying to fleece them, that the science is not settled, then they will be able to carry on selling this nasty stuff.

            That is the scam

          • nik

            You have missed the point entirely.
            THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!

            Please read my last post again.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I could read your last post twenty times. It would not make you any less of an idiot/moron/ imbecile/troll/menace to society.

            You can repeat 200 times that there is no global warming. Every repetition just confirms your idiocy.

          • nik

            OK,
            I cant argue with religion, its mindless.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I absolutely agree that religion is mindless. But you have obviously forgotten our quite interesting comparison of rejecting religion at an early age.

          • nik

            OK, I’ll try to explain;

            When the glaciers recede at the end of an ice age, they leave behind, loads of ground up rocks, rock dust. Rock dust is an excellent all round fertiliser, so when it is colonised by trees, they grow prolifically. One mature tree can transpire 150,000 litres of water per year, which cools the atmosphere. multiply that by billions, or trillions of trees, and you have a significant effect, world wide. They also absorb large amounts of CO2, store the carbon, and release the O2.

            During the 10-15 thousand years of an inter ice age, these nutrients gradually get washed down through the soil, until they are out of reach of tree roots. The trees are then weakened, become more susceptible to disease, and as they are drier, forest fires. Obviously this means that less CO2 is absorbed, and less water is transpired. Add to this vast amounts of deforestation, carried out by humans, in the last 2-300 hundred years, and the effects will be noticeable, world wide. So, the climate warms, and CO2 level increases.

            One of the paradoxes of an end of an inter ice age, is that it first gets warmer. This warming causes more evaporation, and therefore more precipitation, of rain and snow. The deeper snow takes longer to thaw, and so reflects sunlight for longer, so the climate in those areas cools. This cooling allows snow to lay for longer, which, again reflects sunlight, and causes more cooling. The cooler atmosphere causes more precipitation, and therefore more snow. This is a positive feedback loop, and the effects are asymptotic. (ie, increase very rapidly.)

            Look at news events over the last 10 years or so; the coldest temperatures ever recorded have occurred, and also the deepest snowfalls, in both hemispheres. Even snow in the Sahara desert. So have vast forest fires, world wide. All these are symptomatic, of an inter ice age, reaching its end.

            This inter-ice age has lasted around 15,000 years, which is about the average maximum, so is due to end soon. In the 70’s, scientists were asking, ”are we heading into a new ice age,” but they were subsequently drowned out by the ”AGW” fiasco. Analysis of climate data from deep sea, and lake core drillings, have shown that the change from inter ice age to full ice age, with rapidly advancing permanent snow lines, during the last million years, has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.

            So, climate changes, as the world is experiencing at present, have occurred over the last million years, without any assistance from humans, regular as clockwork. This time however, deforestation may well have accelerated the process.

            Thats why, I find the claims, and its associated misinformation, that the minute amounts of human produced CO2, of 0.002% to 0.005% have caused climate change, both ridiculous, and arrogant.

            (I’ve qualified my last statement re; global warming.)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            It’s a neat(sh) explanation. But wrong.

            It is true that the world SHOULD be cooling, but it is not.

            Global warming and climate change are not the same thing. There are three stages to the problem. The first is environmental degradation. This is caused by too many people burning too much. Too many people cutting down trees, sucking water out of the ground, developing and improperly disposing of too many chemicals.

            These various activities have led to a noticeable increase in greenhouse gases. (300 to 400 may not seem like a large increase, but it is 25% which is statistically significant). The increase is GHGs has led to a measurable increase in temperature, and higher temperatures have led to many disruptions in natural cycles, most notably water cycles. And that has led to climate change. Those are FACTS, not some tin-pot theory put out by an ex-pat Brit who is quite happy to see the global environment go to the place that rhymes with bell, as long as the fossil fuel-based economy continues to grow.

            You can go to bell as well.

          • nik

            Your whole diatribe is based on a fallacy or Phallacy. It was based on a claimed increase of CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm, which was attributed to human production of CO2. However, the 280 figure was derived from Greenland ice cores, and they have since proven to be faulty, because ice is not an impervious medium, and the CO2 can and does migrate, and in doing so, reduces the amount of trapped CO2.
            More recent calculations using plant stomata (as used in the link provided) have produced much lower figures of between 0.002%and 0.005% which is statistically insignificant.

            Therefore your whole diatribe is based on a Phallacy, Perhaps you should cogitate on that, or maybe sit on it.

            You are confusing two separate issues, pollution by human garbage, and climate change.

            If you consider the explanation that I have given, wrong, then please explain the faults. Also, it is not MY explanation, it was the explanation given in a documentary, long before the ”AGW” political fiasco commenced.

            In addition, the recent alleged ”gigantic” warming, actually amounts to a fraction of one degree.

            As I’ve said, I cannot argue with a religion, and although you abandoned the ‘god’ religion, it seems that the human necessity for a god of some sort has been filled by the ‘Global Warming’ god, by you.

            Good luck with that.

          • yetanotherbob

            Careful what you say. She jumped on “THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!” and completely missed “Caused by human produced CO2.”

            Also, I don’t believe that last is strictly speaking true. There is some effect. There has to be. There is some effect to everything. It may not be significant, or it might be the most significant thing out there.

            I don’t think we really know just yet. Who knows, she might even be right. If we could just get the politics out of all this, some really neutral studies could be done.

          • Donald Donovan

            I have to agree with nik. I just sat through an education seminar with a Scientist/Professor of chemistry who said the very same things that he described in regards to the CO2 and its effects on our Climate. he also said that Livestock, mainly cattle plus the deforestation is the biggest contributor to our problem.

          • nik

            Nice to have someone agreeable!

          • yetanotherbob

            That would be methane, which is a much stronger “Greenhouse Gas” than is CO2.

            Oh, and by the way, you should be made aware that every gas is a “Greenhouse Gas”. All gasses retain some heat below them. The thicker the atmosphere, the greater the retention.

            Every gas is a bit different though in how effective it is at heat retention. The most effective I believe is Halon, the old refrigerant that is currently banned worldwide because of how it interacts with ozone. It’s like 10,000 X more effective at that than CO2, which is actually not very good for that. Water vapor and methane are both at least 20 X better as a greenhouse gas. There is more water than CO2 in the atmosphere as well, thankfully.

          • yetanotherbob

            As Arthur C Clark famously said “When a renowned and famous scientist says something is definitely possible, then it almost certainly is. When he says something is impossible, he has a large chance of being wrong.”

            Be careful of consensus in science.

            There was once a consensus that morning dew rose higher than the moon.
            There was once a consensus that heavier than air flying machines were impossible.
            There was once a consensus that nothing in the nucleus of a cell had anything to do with heredity.
            There was once a consensus that Negros were inferior mentally.

            None of these things are considered true now. A consensus merely means the idea is popular. Truth must be determined by measurement and accurate prediction.

            That is what Global Climate Science currently lacks.

            Consensus it has, measurement leading to accurate predictions is does not have. Hence the controversy.

            Time may solve the problem.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            For someone who claims to be an engineer, you know remarkably little about the scientific method.

      • nik

        Hi Tom, I will give you a little on my background, then perhaps you will understand the reason for my ”Heretical” views.
        I’m educated to Chartered engineer level, which is roughly equivalent to a masters degree. Most time when I mention ‘engineer’ people think, ‘motor mechanic. In fact the term engineer has become so debased in some parts of the world, that people who clean lavatories are sometimes referred to as ‘sanitation engineers.’
        As an engineer I have to have a wide range of knowledge, with several ”..ics.” eg. mechanics, statics, dynamics, mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, ergonomics, economics, soil mechanics, electrics, electronics, aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, hydraulics, gas flow, weather, chemistry, production, management, and statistics. etc, etc, etc. In fact anything that an engineered product may come into contact with.
        I also served nine years in the RAF as an electronics tech, which took me to the Near East and the far east. Travel broadens the mind and opens the eyes to the real world. i worked as fabrication welder, forklift truck mechanic, as well as a design draftsman/engineer.
        You may feel that this comment has no place on your blog, but this is the only way that I can communicate with you. However, if you decide to remove it, I will not be offended.

      • nik

        PS, thank you, yes, I have read the article and looked at the links.
        I think we need to agree on terminology. All trades and professions like to have their own terminology and jargon. eg. you cut your finger, and it bleeds. A doctor would say you have a lesion, which is haemorrhaging.
        CO2 cannot CAUSE warming, it can only modify or manipulate it. The only element that can CAUSE warming is solar radiation. Nor can it force anything, force would cause movement, by Newtons laws, eg, ”a body will remain stationary unless a FORCE is applied to it.” This is again use of inappropriate and misleading terminology.
        CO2 can act as a weak insulator, either by reflection or insulation, but as it is one of the weakest of so-called ‘greenhouse’ gasses, it is very inefficient. If it was efficient, it would be used to increase the insulation properties of double glazing units, especially as its cheap. It isn’t. Usually argon or other more exotic gasses are used.
        I note you have removed my original reply to Spider jon, which I find inexplicable, because it was based on straightforward science, no politics whatsoever.
        I would therefore be grateful if you would supply a reason, so that I can avoid ‘offending’ you or your sensibilities in the future.
        Regards.

        • David Rice

          “CO2 cannot CAUSE warming”

          Yet it is observed doing so, and has been observed doing so since the 1910s. How do you explain your odd assertion?

          • nik

            What proof do you have that the alleged warming is due to CO2, and not another entirely different factor?
            Government? Mr Obama?
            Governments are formed from politicians, and politicians are notorious liars.
            The world still has not seen the, ”Weapons of mass destruction….!”
            So why would you believe governments or politicians, or the scientist that are funded by them, and sacked by them if they contradict government policy?

    • SpiderJon

      > “I have never seen a scientific report, where the scientist says, ‘
      > ‘CO2 is definitely the major cause of climate warming.”

      That’s probably because scientists are inherently cautious, especially when dealing with complex multi-factor issues.

      However, Anne Slinn, executive director for research of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, *has* said “CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming. That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists.” Will that do?

      Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/mar/10/scott-pruitt/epa-head-scott-pruitt-says-carbon-dioxide-not-prim/

      > “When the climate is warm, the oceans release more CO2, when
      > it is cold, they do not. Therefore CO2 is bound to be higher when
      > the climate is warm. That does not prove that CO2 is the cause,
      > of the higher temperatures, only that the changes operate in
      > tandem.”

      You’re right to be cautious about cause & effect.

      However, CO2 has been identified as a principal causal factor in climate change — see, eg, https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

      So, if the oceans release CO2 (rather than absorbing it) that will exacerbate warming, and, as a result, the oceans will release even more CO2, causing more warming, causing more release of CO2 – it’s a positive feedback loop.

      > Between 700 million years ago, and 600 million years ago, the
      > Earth was a snowball. What changed that? Massive volcanic
      > eruptions leading to huge amounts of CO2 being released?
      > Unlikely, as it was volcanic action that has been blamed for
      > the fall in temperature that occurred. They cannot be the
      > cause of both the cooling and the heating.

      Actually, they can.

      The ones that caused the cooling were on land. Amongst other gases they released lots of sulfur dioxide. That became reflective droplets of sulfuric acid after reacting with moisture in the atmosphere, which prevented solar radiation from reaching the planet’s surface. Hence cooling. Hence “snowball Earth”.

      The ones that ended snowball Earth were underwater. They released lots of CO2 — more than the oceans could hold — which ended up in the atmosphere and gradually resulted in warming,

      See, eg, https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0119/How-did-Snowball-Earth-end-Scientists-blame-underwater-volcanos

      • OWilson

        “Anne Slinn, executive director for research of the Center for Global Change Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, *has* said “CO2 is a primary contributor to global warming. That fact is not in dispute among climate scientists.” Will that do?

        Certainly not!

        Primary, (Adjective) definition:

        of chief importance, main, chief, key, prime, central, principal, foremost, first, most important, predominant, paramount, overriding, major, ruling, dominant, master, supreme, cardinal, pre-eminent, ultimate; number-one.

        • frflyer

          What nonsense.
          Global warming causes the climate to change.
          Though the two terms are often used interchangeably, they are two different things.

          Oh, and nobody changed the name from global warming to climate change as deniers faithfully believe. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was founded and named in 1988. That’s 30 years ago. The term “climate change” is hardly new. Scientists have been using the terms climate change and global warming interchangably since at least 1970.

          A change of even one or two degrees, in global average temperature is HUGE. It took 11,000 years for the Earth to warm to temperature much like today, an increase of about 5C, when the last ice age (glacial period) ended.
          So, that’s roughly 2,200 years for each 1C warming
          We have warmed the planet by about 1C in just 135 years or so.

          That is because we have increased atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature did, in the last 450,000 years and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years, according to ice core data.

          • OWilson

            “What nonsense.
            Global warming causes the climate to change.”

            I rest my case! :)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Which case?

          • OWilson

            That the statement “Global Warming” CAUSES climate change” IS nonsense! :)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Really? The great and wonderful OWilson says that “the statement “Global Warming” CAUSES climate change” IS nonsense!” so it must be true.

            Please explain how it is that you, sitting on a third world island, know better than thousands of scientists around the world.

            Please explain what IS causing climate change.

          • OWilson

            Show me one reputable scientist that has ever made that statement!

            Lol

            Bye again!

            Thanks for the laughs!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I started off by thinking that you were an amiable sort, but not any more. For you it is fun to undermine science. You are the worst kind of troll. You are doing this for laughs (and quite obviously the odd check in the mail).

            You make me sick.

          • OWilson

            You are delusional!

            You believe I don’t live where I actually do live!

            You believe I get paid to comment on a science blog. I don’t.

            You’ll believe anything!

            You really are sick, and need help!

            Seriously!

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Looks like you’re losing it, here. Might want to take a nice walk on the beach to calm down. Just watch out for those worms.

          • OWilson

            I’m not the one claiming to be sick!

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Storm surges aren’t a problem, and I’ve only flooded once. How often do hurricanes strike where you live? Better keep an eye out yourself.

          • OWilson

            I am a retired old gentleman.

            According to your new, but very sick ladyfriend, I do not live where I live, I get paid to post here, and I am:

            “a danger to the continuation of humanity”.

            I WILL keep an eye out for sick, delusional haters like you two!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yep. Triggered alright. “Three Little Piggies house made out of straw like you have!” LOL! I thought you were at middle school level maturity, but this is positively preschool! Naw, Ol’Wilson’s probably living in something more like a straw hut (if you’re living in a tropical third world island) than I am. Hope it’s built to the standards of my home, which has weathered some pretty high winds, or you’ll get the three pigs experience next time a hurricane strikes, regardless of how high you built. But I’m sure your offspring appreciate you moving off the continent and far away. Just tell them and the first responders not to bother looking for you when disaster strikes. I’d hate for you to sound like a hypocrite after what you’ve told me — but I guess it’s a bit late for that, right? 😉

          • OWilson

            YOU got flooded out, not ME!

            Ok?

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Don’t live on the coast Sherlock, and I’m more than 20 feet above sea level. The August 2016 flood event was the result of an unprecedented 2 feet of rain falling in under 24 hours, not storm surge or rising sea level. It affected areas never before flooded in over 100 years of habitation, and flooded homes in my neighborhood which had been here over 70 years without ever taking water. Yet I still got flood insurance and encouraged my older, more conservative family members to do the same, to no avail. I built my house high enough so less than a foot of water came in, while my family sheltered upstairs with electricity and plenty of stockpiled food and water. We were never at risk of actual harm.

            I’ve never been stuck in a city during a blackout, in the middle of a blizzard. Can you say the same? And I’m quite sure at some point you’ve lived with family members in an area prone to some type of natural disaster, whether blizzard, wildfire, earthquake, tornado, hurricane, or flood. To insist otherwise is stupid, and not credible in the least, but I expect you’ll try.

          • OWilson

            You got flooded out not me!

            Stand in front of the mirror and compain to yourself!

            You blamed global warming.

            Then promptly re-built!

            You tell us it will be getting worse real soon?

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yep, people rebuild after disasters, as you’ll have to do next time a hurricane hits — unless you cut and run, and leave your less fortunate neighbors to deal with that. Seems more your speed, right? 😉

            Keep an eye out for hurricanes, and karma — you’ve got a pretty big bill coming due, I think. :)

          • yetanotherbob

            Watch out!

            The statement as he has phrased it is a tautology, so it can be shown to be circular and therefor not true. It’s a logic trap. Don’t fall for it.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Thank you so much for your advice. However, I very much doubt that Mr Wilson knows what a tautology is. He certainly has not tried to trap me logically, or illogically.

          • With Respect

            Not so much.

            He might also be describing a positive feedback.

            Then again, he’s an absurdist who reliably demonstrates DH.

          • nik

            ”We have warmed the planet by about 1C in just 135 years or so.”

            Not according to statistics, and your claimed ”proof” has since been shown to have been based upon faulty data. Ice core data!

            You wouldn’t know that of course as you very obviously confine yourself to political propaganda, and not science.
            Also, like all the religious fraudsters in the world, you love to deliberately misinterpret the data, ie Lie!

            So that claim falls flat, like a cowpat.

            ”Denier” is a term used by priests, who are the longest term fraudsters in human existence. So, Ha Ha, to that.

        • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

          Leaving aside your possible motivations for wanting to consider climate change a hoax, do you deny that the earth is warming?

          • OWilson

            According to NOAA’s 40 year satellite record, since 1979, the anomaly above the mean is 0.20 degrees (as at February, 2018)

            I don’t argue with that!

            But please do the math!

            That’s only half a degree by the year 2100!

            Statistically scientifically insignificant “noise” given any scientific margin of error!

            Their terrestrial instrument record since 1850, shows slightly higher readings, but that record relies on proxies like ancient tidal guages, ancient ice core samples, ancient tree ring anaysis, ancient steamship intake valve records, as to be expected from an age where the North and South poles, and large portions of the Earth were yet to be explored, much less covered in thermometers, Lol!

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            UAH satellite record (these are the folks that invented this technique) shows a trend of 0.13C/decade. Over the 38 years of the satellite record that computes to a 0.49C change.

            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2018-0-20-deg-c/

            The RSS satellite record shows a trend of 0.19C/decade. That works out to 0.72C of change.

            http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

            The terrestrial instrument record since 1850 does NOT depend upon proxies. Proxies are NOT instruments. It is strange that I actually have to point that out! 😉

            The NASA GISS land + ocean trend over the same time period as the satellites (so no ship intake valve data) is 0.168C/decade or a 0.64C change.

            https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

            This is approximately 3x the 0.22C you claim for the NOAA satellite data. Not really “slightly” higher.

            Please link to the NOAA data.

          • OWilson

            “The terrestrial instrument record since 1850 does NOT depend upon proxies. Proxies are NOT instruments. It is strange that I actually have to point that out! ;)”

            Say what?

            How did they manage to collect temperatures of the Earth in 1850 when half the Earth had still not been explored, including both poles

            Enough of your foolishness!

            Bye!

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            First, the use of the word “instrument” means the measurements are coming from just that – an instrument! Again, proxies are NOT instruments. It is strange that I have to point this out a second time!

            Second, you could educate yourself on the subject. Here’s a starting point:

            https://www.scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-101.pdf

            Third, where’s my link to the NOAA satellite data.

          • OWilson

            You need to find out how the NASA/NOAA’s average temperature (to one hundredths of a degree) was determined back as far as from 1850 before a large part of the Earth, including both Poles had even been explored!

            How much “instrument” coverage actually was there in those days?

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            As usual, you are avoiding the specific criticism I am making. You just cannot admit that you used the word “instrumental” wrong. It’s very funny!

            And I see that you posted a graph above. That data may come from a NOAA satellite, but it is processed by an algorithm created by UAH. So that is UAH’s data. You only confuse things by being ignorant. [RSS also processes the same data, but use a different algorithm. That is why they get a different answer than UAH.]

            And we’ve discussed this before: you know you are reading that graph wrong. The full change starts from the beginning of the graph. The zero level depends upon what baseline is chosen, but the change over a particular time period does not.

            I also know, however, this concept does not penetrate your mind.

          • OWilson

            So you DON’T know how the Earth’s average temperature to within one hundreth of a degree was “devined”, back in the 1800s, before a large part of the Earth has even been explored, including both Poles.

            Your deflection is noted!

            But I’ll deal with your strawman anyway:

            This is how I described the graph, above:

            “According to NOAA’s 40 year satellite record, since 1979, the anomaly above the mean is 0.20 degrees (as at February, 2018)

            Factually correct and apparent to all but the “true believers”!

            Gotta go!

            Lol!

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            So you DON’T know how the Earth’s average temperature …blah, blah, blah

            No, that’s not what I said. I said you could educate yourself on the subject if you want to know that. But you won’t.

            No strawman here. You phrase your comments to be “factually” correct, but you also are not being truthful with what the data says. You want to be just correct enough so that if someone calls you on it, like me, you can claim that you are correct. We both know better, right?

            Gotta go!

            Promises, promises! 😉

          • OWilson

            Thanks for the laughs! :)

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Happy to oblige! 😉

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s useful to know. I’ve provided a link to a journal article written by two of the folks from RSS describing a discrepancy they noted in the figures used by NOAA. Since you seem very knowledgeable about this topic, do you find the UAH figures more accurate, or those produced by the RSS? Has there been any dispute from other researchers and remote sensing data processors regarding the RSS findings in the article linked here?

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0744.1?af=R

            I know that 0.20 degrees figure is off according to both sources you discussed, but I’m just curious as to which is the most reliable source to cite. Thanks.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Hi Mike,

            I know just enough to be dangerous, as they say! :)

            Both RSS and UAH went through large changes in their algorithms a few years ago and they both changed in the opposite direction! RSS went warmer and UAH went cooler.

            This has always seemed like a difficult measurement since there is a lot of calculation involved – far more complicated than surface temperatures.

            Hopefully as time progresses, these two data sets will begin to show the same consistency as the surface temperatures. But it doesn’t seem like we are there yet.

            I’ve not seen anything with regards to the paper you linked to. That doesn’t mean it isn’t out there, though!

          • Mike Richardson

            Thanks for the reply. What you’ve said just reinforces what I’ve been thinking with regards to satellite versus ground based measurements. The satellites should show the same basic trends, but there’s no reason the ground based readings should be dismissed. If anything, they should be more reliable for the actual temperature readings, though that fact appears to elude some. I appreciate any good source of information on this topic.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Hi Mike,

            The one link I can give you is to a piece written by Carl Mears at RSS. Here is the link:

            http://www.remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/

            In this he writes, in the Measurement Errors section:

            “A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You do the math!
            https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201801

            And point out where you found this .20 degrees anomaly.

          • OWilson
          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            And you are basing your entire argument on the measurement for one month? Even when that measurement was taken in February, the coldest month of the year for most of the landmass of the planet.

            What are you trying to prove?

          • OWilson

            That, dearie, is the ENTIRE NOAA 40 year satellite record, plotted right up to date!

            The Earth’s average temperature is actually lower now than when Al Gore won his “Nobel”

            Bye dearie!

            No more time to waste with true believers! :)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Sigh. I realize, sweetie pie, that the chart shows 40 years of NOAA data. But you only mentioned the last point.

            Obviously your island paradise does not run to reading glasses. Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007. According to the chart you supplied, every single year since then (except for 2008) has been hotter. And 2018 is some 3.5 degrees (centigrade) warmer than the 1981-2010 average.

      • nik

        Hi! I gave a long response, which explained the reasons for the eruptions, and the primary reason for the cooling, all based on reputable science.
        However as it conflicted with the CO2 = global climate control myth, it has been removed.
        In essence its caused by astronomical factors, which reduce the solar radiation reaching the Earth. This causes cooling, at regular 150 million year intervals. When this agent is removed, the radiation levels return to normal, and so does the climate on Earth.
        These 150 million year events are well documented, as the cause major extinctions, ‘snowball Earth, and the Permian being two examples.
        These same factors also cause gravitational effects, which results in the massive volcanic long term eruptions, perhaps mare accurately termed as seepage’s, constant out flowing of magma, and gasses.

        • frflyer

          Guess what was a major player in ending every glacial period? CARBON DIOXIDE

          Glacial periods come and go when Milankovitch cycles trigger those changes in climate. [changes in Earth’s orbit and the angle of the Earth’s axial tilt with respect to the orbital plane – the obliquity of the ecliptic) ]

          But those Milankovitch cycles are not strong enough to melt ice sheets and warm the world to interglacial conditions on their own. Feedbacks that kick in after the initital warming are what do much of the warming.

          Studies have shown that over 90% of the post glacial period warming happened AFTER the increase in CO2. – (Shakun et al)

          And CO2 is a major player as a feedback. But now humans are Directly pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate of about 38 Billion tons a year. So CO2 is acting as a climate forcing, not a feedback. That CO2 warms the atmosphere has been known since 1859. There is no question about that.

          It’s been estimated that human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are nearly 3 times as strong as radiative climate forcing, as those Milankovitch cycles.

          • nik

            You are still confused.
            You should read the article more closely.

            The beginning of the end of an ice age is as follows;
            First, net solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth increases. This causes gradual melt, as the melt proceeds, the land exposed increases, which absorbs more energy, instead of reflecting it, and the climate warms.
            As the climate warms, the oceans warm, and begin to release CO2, so atmospheric CO2 increases, in that order.
            However, the oceans form 70% of the Earth surface, and water takes longer to warm than land surface, as water has a greater heat capacity, (which is why water is used in radiators,) this delays the total heating of the whole planet, and is why the greatest heating occurs after the increase of released CO2.

            ”It’s been estimated that human emissions of CO2 …..”

            Those original ESTIMATIONS, were based upon Greenland ice core drillings, and have since been proved to be flawed, because, the CO2 trapped in the ice can migrate, so the readings are well below reality. (Ice is not an impervious medium.)

            A more accurate method is to use fossilised plants, and count plant stomata, which are a more direct reflection of CO2 levels. (In the link, given by Tom, in the article above, this method was used.) This has been carried out for the period since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and instead of the 280 ppm, a figure of 350 ppm, and above was obtained. (up to 380 ppm was obtained, but I have quoted the lowest figure).

            Therefore, the whole hypothesis of the AGW body collapses, as it is unsupported by the data.
            AGW, has since been abandoned, as the predicted phenomena failed to present itself, and was replaced by the ambiguous term ”climate change.”

            You should be aware that, in recent years, the lowest ever temperatures have been recorded, in both hemispheres, since records began, and also the greatest volumes of snow falls, even in the Sahara desert.

    • frflyer

      “When the climate is warm, the oceans release more CO2, when it is cold, they do not. Therefore CO2 is bound to be higher when the climate is warm.”

      Sorry but that is a case of turning a fact into a lie, something the denier misinformers do All The Time.
      ————-
      from comment by climate scientist Daniel Bailey at NASA article on facebook

      “CO2 solubility increases with increasing difference in the partial pressures of CO2 between atmosphere and surface waters.

      In the real world, all things are not equal, our emissions have caused a difference in partial pressures, which is increasing the oceanic uptake, which more than compensates for the temperature driven change in fluxes.”

      http://www.nature.com/…/v365/n6442/abs/365119a0.html

      • nik

        Oh dear!
        Another person who does not understand basic physics, which is becoming all the more prevalent, since the AGW debacle started.

        Lets try and explain it in common terms.

        When beer is brewed, yeast is used to do the brewing, and, as a mate of mine who brews his own beer, puts it, it gobbles sugar, and farts CO2. It is the CO2 that forms the bubbles in your beer. The reason beer is served chilled, is because it retains the CO2 longer, otherwise in a very short time, you would have ‘flat’ beer.

        If you dont believe me, try putting a beer in an oven, at say 30 deg C and another in the fridge, and see which goes flat first.

        Partial pressures, are not identical to temperature, so the comment is irrelevant.

        • frflyer

          That is utter nonsense as Every climate scientist will tell you

          • nik

            Oh yes?
            Name me one!
            Try the beer test.
            Then tell me your rubbish.

          • nik

            Here’s a response on another site, kindly provided by, ”cgs”
            John M. Quinn
            As a physicist/geophysicist who has worked for the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office and the U. S. Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon (the first two of which were at the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I have come to two conclusions.

            First Global Warming is real. Second, CO2 regardless of its origin (i.e., either natural or anthropogenic) does not drive Global Warming.

            The CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory is totally irrelevant to the Global Warming phenomenon. Why? One finds on the secular time scale that both of the X- and Y- component temporal, annual-means profiles of the Earth’s Orientation mimic exactly the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) annual means profile On the decade time scale one finds that the GTA mimics the Geomagnetic Dipole variations and the variations in the Earths Anomalous Rotation Rate [i.e., Excess Length of Day (ELOD) Annual Means]. The Dipole Field, the GTA and the ELOD all have a 60 year period on the decade time scale. There are many other such correlations on both time scales.

            Thus, if CO2 were driving the GTA, and given the geophysical parameters that change over time in sync with the GTA, CO2 enhancements would reasonably have to drive the Earth’s dynamo which creates the Dipole Field and somehow also affects the Earth’s orientation and its rotation rate. But CO2 cannot do this because it has no pondermotive force associated with it. Furthermore, CO2 on the decade time scale lags the GTA by about 9 years according to Mauna Loa, HI Observatory data collected since 1955, which is a period of time that is at the height of anthropogenic activity. Furthermore, on the millennium time scale the time lag averages about 800 years (Monin et. al., 2001). Therefore, if CO2 were the driver of Global Warming through the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then it would have to violate the Principle of Cause and Effect.

            I have a short paperback book that explains this in more detail. It should be available in the book stores (e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Amazon.com, etc.) in late December 2009, or January 2010. Its title is:

            GLOBAL WARMING: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory

            Publisher: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA

            ISBN: 978-1-4349-0581-9

            While I do not know what precisely (though I know a little) causes Global Warming, I do know what does not cause it. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), all of which act, react, and interact in a very complex manner.

            Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900. Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture. Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2 (Fenton, et. al., Nature, 2008). There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.

            John M. Quinn
            Lakewood, CO
            USA

          • frflyer

            Your source is a quack

            “Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2”

            For starters, Mars has hardly any atmosphere, compared with Earth.

            Secondly there is no actual evidence that Mars is warming.

            from Skeptical Science

            “Mars and Jupiter are not warming, and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly
            (for about 57 years now)

            “All the outer planets have vastly longer orbital periods than Earth, so any climate change on them may be seasonal. Saturn and its moons take 30 Earth years to orbit the Sun, so three decades of observations equates to only 1 Saturnian year. Uranus has an 84-year orbit and 98° axial tilt, so its seasons are extreme. Neptune has not yet completed a single orbit since its discovery in 1846.

            •Mars: the notion that Mars is warming came from an unfortunate conflation of weather and climate. Based on two pictures taken 22 years apart, assumptions were made that have not proved to be reliable. There is currently no evidence to support claims that Mars is warming at all.

            •Jupiter: the notion that Jupiter is warming is actually based onpredictions, since no warming has actually been observed

            •Neptune: observations of changes in luminosity on the surface ofboth Neptune and its largest moon, Triton, have been taken toindicate warming caused by increased solar activity. In fact, the brightening is due to the planet’s seasons changing, but very slowly. Summer is coming to Neptune’s southern hemisphere, bringing more sunlight, as it does every 164 years.

            •Pluto: the warming exhibited by Pluto is not really understood. Pluto’s seasons are the least understood of all: its existence has only been known for a third of its 248 -year orbit, and it has never been visited by a space probe. The ‘evidence’ for climate change consists of just two observations made in 1988 and 2002.”

            ————–

          • frflyer

            from your comment
            “CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), ”

            Oh my. Deniers are so good at repeating long disproven arguments.
            —-
            from Real Climate

            “A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success”

            “A number of blogs were excited after having leaked the second-order draft of IPCC document, which they interpreted as a “game-changing admission of enhanced solar forcing”.

            However, little evidence remains for a link between galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and variations in Earth’s cloudiness. Laken et al. (2012) recently provided an extensive review of the study of the GCR and Earth’s climate, from the initial work by Ney (1959) to the latest findings from 2012. ”

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/12/a-review-of-cosmic-rays-and-climate-a-cluttered-story-of-little-success/

          • frflyer

            from Wikipedia

            “Liquid water cannot exist on the surface of Mars due to low atmospheric pressure, which is less than 1% of the Earth’s”

            “The highest atmospheric density on Mars is equal to that found 35 km (22 mi)[141] above Earth’s surface.”

            not only that….
            “Mars lost its magnetosphere 4 billion years ago”

            Why don’t we compare apples and oranges?

          • yetanotherbob

            Great, a booster website. Where is the Peer Review? Who is considered a Peer? Anybody on that website will automatically be a supporter. Nobody else is allowed.

            Why don’t you address what I see as the real issue. None of the predictions are accurate. Why not?

            Name calling is not the same as evidence.

          • nik

            ”…..and anyway the sun has recently been cooling slightly
            (for about 57 years now)”

            LOL, I think you should revise your figure to about 30 million years or more, to when there were no ice caps, and forests existed on Antarctica, and it will continue to do so for many more.

            ” Skeptical Science” is a site set up purely to promote the AGW agenda, and cannot be relied upon.
            As, so course is the IPCC, which is a political organisation set up to promote the C Tax agenda.

            What happens on other planets in this solar system or any other, for that matter, is of no relevance to this discussion, as each planet is unique by virtue of its location, and composition, and cannot be compared to Earth.

            If you go to the site, kindly provided by cjs, you can read the response.

            So far, most of the responses I’ve read
            follow a similar theme, but then I’m only 1/4 of the way through them.

            However, the writer of the blog, specifically states in the introduction, that his intention is not to prove or disprove AGW, but to show the real effects of CO2 in the climate, (by mathematical calculations.)

          • frflyer

            Same old denier nonsense. It seems to never end.

            Skeptical Science purpose is to Debunk the lies and myths about the science, promoted by the fossil fuels industry. That they fund misinformation on climate change is a PROVEN FACT

          • nik

            Who funds Skeptical Science?
            Show me the ”facts” of the misinformation that you claim the fossil fuel industry has funded.

          • frflyer

            Here is how the deceivers spread their misinformation about climate change and “wipe the oil” off the money, by funneling it through groups like these and others.

            These 32 conservative ‘think tanks’ (really industry front groups) have all been involved in the tobacco industry’s campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.

            They have all been involved in the campaign to deny the science of climate change.

            ———

            1. Acton Institute
            2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
            3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
            4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
            5. Americans for Prosperity
            6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
            7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
            8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
            9. Cato Institute
            10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
            11. Consumer Alert
            12. DCI Group (PR firm)
            13. European Science and Environment Forum
            14. Fraser Institute
            15. Frontiers of Freedom
            16. George C. Marshall Institute
            17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
            18. Heartland Institute
            19. Heritage Foundation
            20. Independent Institute
            21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
            22. International Policy Network
            23. John Locke Foundation
            24. Junk Science
            25. National Center for Public Policy Research
            26. National Journalism Center
            27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
            28. Pacific Research Institute
            29. Reason Foundation
            30. Small Business Survival Committee
            31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
            32. Washington Legal Foundation

            #5 and #9 were created by the billionaire oil and lumber tycoon Koch brothers, who fund all kinds of anti-enviromental PR. They also fund denial of the science saying formaldahyde causes cancer. This is no surprise, since they are major owners of Georgia Pacific lumber company.

            #24 Junk Science, which is aptly named, is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News like to feature as an “expert” on climate change. Milloy is NOT a scientist. He’s a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests and a professional PR man. Fox ever divulge that to you? I doubt it. And Milloy gets funding from, guess who? – the Koch brothers.

            ———–

            “Forty public policy groups have this in common: They seek to undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing the earth to overheat. And they all get money from ExxonMobil.”
            Chris Mooney at Mother Jones

          • frflyer

            Here are some books documenting the global warming denial misinformation PR machine and its history.

            “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”
            by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

            “The Inquisition of Climate Science”
            by James Lawrence Powell

            “Climate Cover-Up”: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming”
            by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

            “The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars” by Michael Mann

            “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change” by Clive Hamilton
            He outlines the decade-long, coal-industry funded campaign in Australia to deny climate science.

            “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate”
            by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery

            “Global Warming and Political Intimidation, How Politicians Cracked Down On Scientists as the Earth Heated Up” by Raymond Bradley

            “Climate Change Denial, Heads in the Sand”
            by Hayden Washington and John Cook

            “The Heat Is On” and “The Boiling Point” by Ross Gelbspan

            ——————

          • frflyer

            Ross Gelbspan is a journalist who was a global warming skeptic. His books are about what he stumbled onto.
            ———————–

            Denial For Hire: Willie Soon’s Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money

            “Willlie Soon, the notorious climate denier who has made a career out of attacking the IPCC and climate scientists, has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade…

            [Desmogblog}

            ===

          • frflyer

            W Bush administration

            The former head of he IPCC was Dr. Watson. The oil industry (American Petroleum Institute) and the Bush administration, which were one and the same, didn’t like that Watson agreed with AGW theory.

            So they maneuvered to have him removed and replaced with the new guy, Pauchari (may be spelled wrong). He was an agnostic on anthropogenic climate change. Now he agrees with the consensus.
            So, all the deniers attacked him and smeared his name.
            —————————-
            The Oil and Coal industries used to give 60% of political donations to GOP and 40% to Dems

            Then GW Bush was elected. His entire inner circle was conected to the fossil fuels industry. This includes Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz

            Under Bush the oil and gas industry got a $32 billion increase in subsidies for the next 5 years.

            Since then:
            The oil industry gives 79% to GOP
            The coal industry gives 90% to GOP

            And isn’t it a big surprise, that the GOP is the ONLY political party in the world to deny global warming?
            ——————–

            the Bush administration had a Petroleum Institute lawyer edit the federal climate study to water it down. Then this same lawyer (Cooney), headed efforts to censor scientists at NASA.

            They also tried to prevent climate scientist James Hansen from releasing a report about global temperature for 2005, because 2005 was either the warmest year on record or tied with 1998 for warmest.

            There was a systematic attempt to stifle the free speech of climate scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which Hansen was head of. They had public policy people inserted into the Institute to ride herd over the scientists.
            The same Petroleum Institute lawyer (Cooney) led this assault on science.

            To learn much more about this, read the book:
            “Censoring Science: the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming” by Mark Bowen

          • frflyer

            the Bush administration had a Petroleum Institute lawyer edit the federal climate study to water it down. Then this same lawyer (Cooney), headed efforts to censor scientists at NASA.

            They also tried to prevent climate scientist James Hansen from releasing a report about global temperature for 2005, because 2005 was either the warmest year on record or tied with 1998 for warmest.

            There was a systematic attempt to stifle the free speech of climate scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which Hansen was head of. They had public policy people inserted into the Institute to ride herd over the scientists.
            The same Petroleum Institute lawyer (Cooney) led this assault on science.

            To learn much more about this, read the book:
            “Censoring Science: the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming” by Mark Bowen

          • frflyer

            denier propaganda with no credibility is the movie called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”. “scientific advisor” for the movie is Martin Livermore, who has no scientific credentials other than being the director of an online right wing think tank called The Scientific Alliance, which was established by the anti-green lobbying and public relations company, British Aggregates Association.
            Appearing in the film was Dr. Paul Reiter, who’s connected with the Annapolis Centre for Science Based Public Policy, a right wing think tank, which received $763,500 from Exxon Mobile.

            Dr. Paul Copper, Listed as an “Allied Expert” for the Natural Resource Stewardship Project (NRSP), a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it’s funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball. An Oct. 16, 2006 CanWest Global news article on who funds the NRSP, it states that “a confidentiality agreement doesn’t allow him [Tom Harris] to say whether energy companies are funding his group.” The NRSP also has ties to Canadian energy-sector lobbyists
            —————————

            How oil and coal industry money is funneled through different foundations to bury the money trail, and “wipe the oil” off of it.

            They set up organizations like Policy Communications, The Western Business Roundtable, Partnership for America, and Americans for American Energy, to make it seem like there is this groundswell of grassroots organizations opposing the scientific theory of man made climate change and opposing the move to sustainable energy. These are actually all the same people from the fossil fuel industry and mining industry. They are all staffed by the same executives.

            It’s called “astroturfing” – the setting up of fake grassroots organizations and it’s one of the oldest tricks in the books.

            Policy Communications
            “An energy industry-backed astro-turf network concocted by a single PR/Lobbying firm that is working to undermine the efforts of environmental groups and organizations like the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). that are pushing for solutions to climate change.”

            http://www.desmogblog.com/policy-communications-inc-astroturf-shell-game

          • frflyer

            Another example of “wiping the oil’ off the money is how the inaptly named Friends of Science(FOS), had money funneled to what they called the Science Education Fund. The money came from the Alberta oil and gas industry through the Calgary Foundation, who funneled it through the University of Calgary and ultimately ending up at FOS.

            FOS has funded Fred Singer, Sherwood Idso, Robert Balling and Pat Michaels.
            ====

          • frflyer

            Some well known “skeptic” climate scientists

            Fred Singer is linked to the fossil fuel industry and was once a hired gun for the tobacco industry to give “expert” testimony that cigarette smoke is not bad for you. Fred Singer has been paid by the tobacco industry to the deny the science about dangers of tobacco, and by the fossil fuels industry to do the same on climate change

            Richard Linzen was paid $2,500/day to be a consultant for the fossil fuel industry. His trip to Washington to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuel co.

            The Heartland Insitute is largley funded by Exxon/Mobile.

            Patrick Michaels has admitted to getting 40% of his income from the fossil fuels industry

          • nik

            Well, I am not paid by anyone.
            I wish.
            However, IF CO2 caused global warming, you would have a positive feedback system, which would produce the much threatened runaway ”greenhouse effect.”

            That has not occurred in 600 million years, even when CO2 was 1700% over present, not a minute 0.125% increase, as is the present case.

            Therefor, ”As the observed facts do not support the theory, the theory is wrong!”

          • With Respect

            Feedbacks have limits.

            Every change in global climate fitting the orbital predictions of Milankovitch far exceed — by over ten times — the amplitude orbital changes alone cause. Getting a fraction closer to the Sun, tilting a little in its direction: these account for tenths of a degree, when the warming or cooling is on the scale of five degrees. All the rest?

            That’s feedback running away until they run out of room within the parameters of the global climate system.

            Humans have reset the upper bounds on the parameters, and the planet is warming 15-200 times faster than any rate of climate change (even the YD episode) in global climate, and rising higher in temperature than the globe has seen since humans evolved.

          • frflyer

            “What happens on other planets in this solar system or any other, for that matter, is of no relevance to this discussion”

            So why did your quack source talk about Mars warming?

          • nik

            I have no idea, why dont you ask him, the link is in the article.
            Perhaps because he was not involved in this discussion, dont you think?

          • frflyer

            “I think you should revise your figure to about 30 million years or more, to when there were no ice caps, and forests existed on Antarctica, and it will continue to do so for many more.”

            Really? The Sun is warming long term, not cooling. However, solar output has declined since about 1960, while 2/3 of the warming since 1880 happened – about 0.6C warming since 1960

          • nik

            The value of your ‘information’ is exceeded by your ignorance.
            Solar radiation, reaching the Earth has been diminishing steadily for the last 30 million years, with minor fluctuations during that period.

            The sun operates in a galactic system, not in grand isolation. So galactic events cause effects that can, and do change the suns radiation reaching the Earth.

            The Earths climatic temperature consistently follows a ‘saw-tooth’ pattern, so up for a period, and then down for a period.

            The real crime against science that the ‘global warming’ lobby committed was to take one minute section of the Earths climate history, over the last 50-60 years, at the end of a short cooling phase when the climate started to warm again, ignore anything before that, and then extrapolate that section into the future, which gave ridiculous results, that have consistently failed to materialise.

            As to ”warming long term” your time scale is rather distorted, 50-60 years, when compared to 30 million, is hardly long term!

          • With Respect

            You seem unfamiliar with the facts of the Faint Young Sun Paradox.

            Also, you cling to handwaved and known wrong cyclic dogmatism like a drowning man to an anchor around his neck.

            Currently a main-sequence star on the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, the Sun varies due to stellar evolution as it burns its hydrogen supply along this sequence expected to last a total of roughly ten-billion years. The early Sun was approximately 70% as bright as at the present when it joined the main sequence about 4.6 billion years ago and has a current rate of increase in luminosity of 0.009% per million years (Hecht 1994). At this rate, it will take ten-million years for the background solar-brightness to increase by the 0.1 % typical of a solar-cycle variation, and another 3.5 billion years for heating from the Sun to create Earth surface conditions similar to those of the present-day Venus; although additional effects, such as feedback from enhanced ocean-evaporation, may accelerate this warming and make the Earth uninhabitable (at least to present-day complex lifeforms) in about one-billion years (O’MalleyJames et al. 2013). I

            — Kopp, G. Magnitudes and Timescales of Total Solar Irradiance Variability (2016)

            The Sun has been running contrary to global climate trends for the past six decades, and the Hale Cycle, once a reliable correlation, no longer shows up in the global temperature record.

          • nik

            Seems that the asylum door has been left open again.

          • With Respect

            And there we have sufficient samples of absurdity, the Deadbeat Hypothesis once again accurately predicts the behavior of a debtor refusing to face his debts, by flinging absurdities and abuse.

            There is no need to further observe these behaviors, and the subject joins many others who billions of people simply ignore. Thanks, Disqus Block User feature.

          • frflyer

            “IPCC, which is a political organisation set up to promote the C Tax agenda.”

            Said like a true tin foil hat conspiracy theory nut.

            Such nonsense is why deniers should not be taken seriously. It is politics, not science, that motivates you. Meanwhile deniers go on and on about how the science can’t be trusted, because it is politicized. Projecting much?

          • nik

            OK, I’ll take your criticism at face value.
            So, tell me WHO DID set up the IPCC, the boy-scout brigade?
            Please enlighten me!

          • frflyer

            from the SkS websi
            “Skeptical Science is a non-profit science education organisation, run by a global team of volunteers

            There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations – it’s run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any political organisations or groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love.”

          • frflyer

            The IPCC does not do scientific research. Scientists all over the world, in Universities and national science agencies, like NASA, NOAA do the research, independent of the IPCC.
            2,500 leading climate scientists review the research for the IPCC, as volunteers. They are not paid. The IPCC just presents the findings to the public and policy makers.

          • nik

            ..and you can prove those claims absolutely?

          • yetanotherbob

            No, nik, they farm out the work, then just compile studies that meet their criteria.
            IPCC has had several rather embarrassing exposures in the past, but they rely on their friends in the press to not mention them beyond a few months each.
            In the past, IPCC has declared the melting of all Himalayan glaciers, when India was watching. They got caught.
            They also claimed the disappearance of a large island, inhabited by one of the few remaining “Stone Age” tribes. The natives are still there, blissfully unaware that their island home is no longer there by UN fiat.
            Though to be fair, it is only a large sand bar and is no more than six inches above sea level, mostly mangrove swamp. It is true that a tidal wave did wash over it, but mangroves are tough. Such is the evidence arrayed against you.
            Hope you are not too discouraged.

          • yetanotherbob

            Don’t need a tinfoil hat when you keep your eyes tightly screwed shut.

          • yetanotherbob

            I would question your source, as it flies in the face of established planetary science.

            The polar caps of Mars have been observed to shrink compared to what they were in the Mariner days. That gives us a nearly 50 year timeline.

            They actually can be seen to grow half of the year and shrink the other half, but the overall trend is shrinking slightly over a long timeline. NASA photos from orbiters are the best evidence, but, most analysis don’t really compare the same time of year, so it can be and is argued by planetary astronomers.

            Actual temperatures on Mars are not things we can track very far back in time.

            Mars has only a few percent of the atmosphere of Earth, but it is largely carbon dioxide. So for that matter are a lot of the polar caps. You seemed to me to be alluding that there is no CO2 on Mars. That is not true and I hope that wasn’t what you meant.

            What this means is that for Mars, there is some evidence of “Global Warming”, but it is tenuous at best. Just like the evidence for life on Mars.

            For the other planets, no one claimed they had any connection with the entire “Warming” question.

            Jupiter has almost as much interior warming as it gets from solar radiation, and the planets beyond that get very little heat from the sun.

            Saturn’s moon Titan does have some warming, but we don’t know enough to say if anything there is changing or not. Probably not. Hopefully.

          • frflyer

            Given the thinness of Mars’ atmosphere, the CO2 is not an effective warming factor.

            From Skeptical Science

            “Planets do not orbit the sun in perfect circles, sometimes they are slightly closer to the sun, sometimes further away. This is called orbital eccentricity and it contributes far greater changes to Martian climate than to that of the Earth because variations in Mars’ orbit are five times greater than the Earth.

            Mars has no oceans and only a very thin atmosphere, which means there is very little thermal inertia – the climate is much more susceptible to change caused by external influences.

            The whole planet is subject to massive dust storms, and these have many causal effects on the planet’s climate, very little of which we understand yet.

            We have virtually no historical data about the climate of Mars prior to the 1970s, except for drawings (and latterly, photographs) that reveal changes in gross surface features (i.e. features that can be seen from Earth through telescopes). It is not possible to tell if current observations reveal frequent or infrequent events, trends or outliers.”
            —————————
            from Skeptical Science

            “The global warming argument was strongly influenced by a paper written by a team led by NASA scientist Lori Fenton, who observed that changes in albedo – the property of light surfaces to reflect sunlight e.g. ice and snow – were shown when comparing 1977pictures of the Martian surface taken by the Viking spacecraft, to a 1999 image compiled by the Mars Global Surveyor. The pictures revealed that in 1977 the surface was brighter than in 1999, and from this Fenton used a general circulation model to suggest that between 1977 and 1999 the planet had experienced a warming trend of 0.65 degrees C. Fenton attributed the warming to surface dust causing a change in the planet’s albedo.

            Unfortunately, Fenton’s conclusions were undermined by the failure to distinguish between climate (trends) and weather (single events). Taking two end points – pictures from 1977 and 1999 – did not reveal any kind of trend, merely the weather on two specific Martian days. Without the intervening data – which was not available – it is impossible to say whether there was a trend in albedo reduction, or what part the prodigious dust storms played in the intervening period between the first and second photographs. Indeed, when you look at all the available data – sparse though it is – there is no discernable long term trend in albedo.

            At this time, there is little empirical evidence that Mars is warming. Mars’ climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo, not solar variations, and we know the sun is not heating up all the planets in our solar system because we can accurately measure the sun’s output here on Earth.

            “A good example of how dust affects Mars climate: over 2007, Mars suffered a titanic dust storm that engulfed the entire planet. The dust storm contributed to a temporary warming effect around Mars, raising the temperature of the atmosphere by around 20-30°C. Interestingly, whereas the atmosphere of the planet heats up, the surface of the planet cools down because it receives much less solar heat.”

            ——————-

        • yetanotherbob

          Partial pressure and temperature are related slightly, but they are actually different things. Sorry, nik, you blew that one.

          The ocean uptake thing is different. Water can take in CO2 or give it off. CO2 dissolves in water, you see. Beer is largely water, so you first dissolve the maximum CO2 in it. That’s responsible for the bubbles of the “head”. The brewer does that.
          Sea water also dissolves CO2. More as it warms, but, there is a two way traffic with the atmosphere.
          That’s true of the beer as well, and it happens faster as the liquid warms. That’s why the beer goes “flat”. The same thing is true of Coke, BTW. Beer isn’t unique.
          Partial pressure is really just a measurement of the maximum pressure of the CO2. There is a partial pressure for every gas. If the CO2 partial pressure in the air is greater than the partial pressure for that temperature in the water, the CO2 will be going into the water, if it’s lower, then if there is enough, it will go from the water into the air.
          CO2 in the water can also be used by the plankton and converted into sugars. It also changes the waters Ph slightly. It’s actually rather complex. There are arguments among experts on just how much CO2 fuels sea life.
          But it’s not as you described it.
          You may want to work on that.

    • David Rice

      “What I see is vague comments like, ”could be,” ”is strongly suspected
      to,” may be the…” ”we feel this may well be..,,” etc.”

      You object to scientists using the language of science? Really? If you want absolute conviction, stay in church.

      • nik

        That is not the language of science!
        The language of science would be more like, ”The results of our work shows that …., and confirm our theory that…”

        • With Respect

          We’ve already demonstrated you know little of science; who appointed you arbiter of what is or isn’t?

          Science takes no man’s word for truth, but holds most nearly true only inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation leads to amended or new inference.

          So we know your fossil waste dumping has consequences bottlenecking in our air, and disposal of those wastes is performed by our lands and waters. If you use our lands and waters, you owe us Market rents set by the Law of Supply and Demand. You haven’t been paying. You’re in arrears. Pay your debts.

          • yetanotherbob

            I’m still just looking for accurate predictions.
            Still not finding any.
            I’ve seen everything from an Ice Age by 1999 to a 40 degree C temperature rise by 2010 predicted.
            Neither happened naturally.
            No one ever came out to say why they were wrong, but they did come out to loudly denounce anybody who questioned them.
            That’s what hucksters do, not real scientists.
            That’s my problem here. These people are not real scientists. If they were, then they would welcome analysis of why the predictions failed so miserably and so often. Then they would fix the prediction process.
            But that doesn’t happen.
            Just websites devoted to denouncing others, and “consensus” backing bad predictions.
            Kind of like here, really.

            It’s sad.

          • With Respect

            Pointless tone poem of absurdity.
            None are so blind as the trite repeating propaganda.
            Hansen 1988 Scenario B is remarkably accurate.
            And Hansen identified where and why his simulations erred.
            What hucksters we hear of are mainly fringe bandwagon jumpers, or victims of unjustified defamations painted so.
            Real scientists? Science is by what you do, not who you are.
            Hold exact or most true only inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation lead to amended or new inference. –That’s all the science there is in a scientist.
            Tone poem slanders handwavingly.
            It’s just not what’s happening.
            Kind of like yetanothertroll. Sad troll.

    • Damn Nitpicker

      Let’s compare the amount of CO2 released by fossil fuel burning, to the natural sources of CO2 produced by the planet. I’ll use plant decay, and ocean venting, forest fire, but ignore ocean absorption and plant formation. Fossil fuel contribution (2016, about 34 Gt CO2) is certainly significant … but, where does it fit in, to Earf’s “breathing”?

      One ton of carbon = 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide.

      (34 Gt CO2 ÷3.67)=9.264305 Gt Carbon.

      Let’s just say that, in 2016, Mannkind emitted 9¼ GtC.

      Estimates of terrestrial soil respiration is about 60 GtC per year; the oceanic outgassing is estimated to be 90 GtC per year. Wildfires, about 1.6. Previous estimates of terrestrial vegetation respiration were about 60GtC … (90+60+60+1.6)=211.6 GtC in circulation

      Harde 2017 198.2 GtC/yr (http://www.klimarealistene.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/17HardeCO2HumanInput2017.pdf)

      (9¼÷211.6)=0.043715≈4½%

      So, Mannkind emits about 4½% more, into Earf existing carbon cycle … which has not been steady.

  • OWilson

    Does it take this level of argument and, ‘splainin’ for well understood Earth processes?

    Most scientists, except for a few notable wild eyed radical marchers, who get arrested, hedge their bets when making predictions based on their ever changing models.

    Lots of “ifs”, “may”, “could”. “likely”, qualifications, as the poster above notes!

    The problem is, politicians, their followers, reporters, journalists, schoolteachers totally ignore the “ifs”, “may”, “could”. “likely”, usually expressed in the study’s conclusions, and use the most extreme speculative interpretation to scare, pursuade, threaten, “bring all climate deniers to justice”, and denigrate, as “deniers”, “deplorables” and worse, those who question the over the top exaggerations.

    They use, stock photos of sick Polar Bears and actually show photoshopped photos of New York under 30 feet of water. If I was a school kid in NY that would scare the hell out of me! Lol! They used to be posted here all the time!

    The truth? The World’s major waterfront cities, like New York, are growing their urban area, not shrinking it!

    Another simple example of journaistic exaggeration and politics mixing with science is the conventional wisdom that Tuvalu is being washed away as we speak, and the U.N. is demanding $55,000,000,00 (per year?) to, they tell us, “prevent Tuvalu from being the last country to join the United Nations, and the first country to disappear!

    The truth?

    Tuvalu is growing, not shrinking!

    NSIDC says the odds 50/50 are that Arctic Ice will disappear completely “next summer” That was in 2009, Lol!

    So until global warmers and their liberal accomplices stop acting like Chicken Littles and more like scientists, the carbon taxcheme will continue to be a hard sell!

    (To behave like a scientists is to behave like Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Geologists, and NOT like Astrologists, Chiropractors, Homeopathists, shamans, medicine men etc)

    Respect and trust have to be earned, not enforced! :)

    • Mike Richardson

      “skepicism”[sic] based on rigid ideology and a refusal to accept and incorporate abundant evidence that contradicts previously held views is also dogma, as you’ve so frequently demonstrated.

      • OWilson

        Dogma is when the Powers that be, use force to quiet free speech.

        Your own choice for President, so you told us, Bernie Sanders is a good example!

        He almost got elected on the promise to bring “all climate deniers to justice”!

        Your left wing struggles with logic are the only reason I engage you. :)

        Aside from embarrasing yourself, and pointing out spelling mistakes, you have nothing of interest to add to these blogs!

        • Mike Richardson

          If you had the sense to be embarrassed, your ever more frequent misspellings and ironic comments about adding nothing to the blogs would embarrass you. Fortunately for you and those of us who appreciate ironic humor, you don’t. :)

          • OWilson

            To those readers who are as distressed as Mikey is with my occasional typo, my abject apolgies! I would invite them to join him in his latest crusade to spell check these blogs.

            He can FINALLY get some satisfaction there. Nobody is going to argue with his Funk & Wagnalls! :)

            The world would be a much better place without spelling mistakes!

            But please don’t claim to speak for “we” or “us”, paleface.

            Just look at our relative Disqus approval ratings.

            You and your “us” are in a distinct minority, even in your own backyard of global warming blogs! :)

            I just upticked you for your new anti-bad spelling campaign, and I’ll try to do better, but you should also take to task your trolling heros, that show up from time to time, they are positively illiterate! Lol!

            Later!

          • Mike Richardson

            Man, I haven’t seen this much concern over popularity since middle school. It’s not something I worry about when posting, as I appreciate the gesture, but am perfectly fine if I don’t get an upvote. You, on the other hand, really seem to place a lot of importance on this. I’m sure you get plenty of upvotes on right-wing blogs, where you can take advantage of the less educated. But since you prefer up-to-date information over cumulative data, you might want to compare the current upvotes you have versus mine on the last blog post about melting permafrost. :)

            On topic, though, do you dispute as “dogma” the principle that carbon dioxide, which has measurably increased in the atmosphere as a result of industrial activity, is now trapping more heat and raising global temperatures? I’ve seen you minimize the impact of climate change, but do you really agree with your buddy nik that rising CO2 does not cause rising temperatures?

            And I’m glad to see you corrected “heros” to “heroes.” We’re making progress here, I think. :)

          • OWilson

            Get a life, please! :)

          • OWilson

            I disagree with even premise stated in the title of Tom’s article, namely that:

            Here’s what real science says about “the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat”.

            “Pre-eminent”?

            Why do AGW promoters use the nebulous term, “climate change”?

            And I still can’t find a “climate denier”

            I maybe need a course on bible studies to truly appreciate the subtleties of the man made global warming language! :)

          • yetanotherbob

            “I’m still trying to find a definition of “real science”!”

            It’s not “Funk and Wagnalls” though I’m more a Webster guy myself, but here goes.

            As commonly used, science is an organized system of investigation where hypothesis are tested against evidence to produce results, and the results are then used to correct the hypothesis. Skepticism is encouraged, and the proposer has to defend against those proposing competing ideas, or just disputing the use of the evidence as presented. Often the ideas presented require a generation or more to achieve acceptance.

            “Real Science” or more commonly “Science” is a religion where ideas in the often changing world of science are accorded the status of divine revelation and researchers who may have little or no knowledge of fields outside their own narrow specialty are quoted to reinforce or strengthen some dogmatic position which may or may not be related to actual scientific thought and often in fields unrelated to the actual expertise of the person quoted.

            How’s that?

          • OWilson

            I only post on Discover, NYT, WP and The Hill!

            Its on the public record!

            ” Right wing blogs”?

            Lol!

            More delusion, more foolishness.

            Bye Mikey!

          • Mike Richardson

            “I only post on Discover, NYT, WP, and The Hill!”

            … and The Daily Caller, The American Mirror, and NewsbBusters (I particularly like their tagline, especially ironic here: “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias”). That’s just what Disqus shows for the past few weeks. As you say, it’s on the public record! LOL!

            You really made it too easy this time, Wilson. Is lying just such a habit for you now that you don’t even care when it’s obvious? More delusions and more foolishness, indeed. 😉

          • OWilson

            Out of some 18,000 DISQUS posts you picked an odd one, or two?

            Care to guestimate the relative percentage for our dear readers?

            I “never” eat liver, but I’m sure with your research skills you could find a dish where I did! :)

            Like when I said “half the country” voted for Trump you also pointed that out as a lie.

            Did more than half the country vote for Hillary? :)

            You need to get a life Mikey :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Not “semantics.” Facts. The truth. Things that give you considerable trouble , apparently.

            You do need to quit lying, Wilson. :)

          • OWilson

            You need to get a life and find out how adults talk to each other, Mikey! :)

    • David Rice

      “Lots of “ifs”, “may”, “could”. “likely”, qualifications, as the poster above notes!”

      That’s called “science.” If these words and phrases are not included by scientists, they are not doing science. If you want absolute confidence, stay in church where you belong.

      • OWilson

        You miss my point.

        Those words are conspicuously missing from the pronouncements of the AGW Leaders. Al Gore, Heinz-Kerry, Obama, and their Hollywood crowd.

        To them it’s “Settled Science”, we have only 5, 10, 20, 50 ………(fill in the gap) years to “save the planet”, So we “must act NOW!”

        • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

          The people you are belittling are making a conscientious effort to stem what they (and the overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide) see as a disastrous tide carrying us all towards extinction.

          Personally, I see climate change as a symptom, not the problem. the problem is that certain human beings view the natural world as their own personal pantry from which they can take whatever ingredients they need create a life of luxury and ease. The problem is that they are looking for exponential growth with finite resources.

          My mission is to persuade as many people as possible to modify their consumption of energy, water, and unnecessary products and packaging, thereby reducing the enormous amount of waste that Americans generate.

          What are you doing to make the world a better place?

          • OWilson

            I live simply on a third world tropical island, have no heat, have no vehicle, walk to everything, and eat only locally grown produce!

            My carbon footprint is zero.

            As a young man one of my hobbies was planting trees!

            And you?

            But I don’t insist on telling others how to live, nor do I want to “bring to justice” all those who disagree with my own views.

            Your poster child Tuvalo, is not sinking, it is growing!

            But you can send them $55,000,000.00 or so as the U.N. demands, but please do not add it to the Natinal Debt of $21,000,000,000,000.00 that you are kicking down the road to be paid back generations unborn, long after you are dead!

            That is obscene, selfish, immoral and un Contitutional “Taxation without Representation”!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You’ve changed this, adding the stuff about Tuvalu. “My” poster child? I have never even mentioned it.

            Think you should find out more about the United Nations. Or at least share where you got the idea that the UN tells the US who they should give aid to, and how much.

            You should also look up the history of the national debt. You might be surprised which presidents added the most. But I can assure you that I had nothing to do with it.

            PS. I no longer believe that you live simply on a tropical island. But it made a good story.

          • OWilson

            Well dearie, there’s ya problem!

            What you “believe” is complete nonsense, and should never be confused with reality!

            I can assure you I know where I live! :)

            I don’t have anymore time to waste with your delusional nonsense!

            Bye!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I’m sure you do know where you live. It’s just that so much of what you write is inaccurate, that I question the veracity of your zero carbon footprint existence.

          • OWilson

            That’s your problem, because you are wrong about that too! :)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If you have no more time to waste on my “delusional nonsense” why bother to reply? As far as I can see, you have not supplied one shred of evidence to support a single contention you have made.

          • nik

            ”….UN tells the US who they should give aid to, and how much.”
            Who controls the UN, and the USA?
            Understand that, and you have the answer to a lot of the worlds events.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            “Who controls the UN, and the USA?”

            I give up. Who?

          • nik

            Bankers.
            He who controls the money, controls the country.

          • Mike Richardson

            So Abe Lincoln’s assassination, known to have been carried out by a conspiracy of Confederate sympathizers, was actually carried out by “anti-greenbackers”? Kennedy, too? Were the Elders of Zion involved? Freemasons? Tell us more, please.

          • nik

            There’ a simple principle, in security circles, if you want someone killed,
            remove their security and let things happen.
            In both cases, that was the situation.

          • OWilson

            I don’t know about Freemasons, but you had a communist, Oswald, with a Russian wife, and a Cuba connection, a local mafioso and sometime FBI informant, Jack Ruby, who silenced Oswald before he could be interrogated!

            Add the FBI, and CIA hatred and vendetta against the current sitting President, to whit:

            ““I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office — that there’s no way [Trump] gets elected — but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk,” FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok wrote in a cryptic text message to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer and his mistress.

            “It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok wrote in the text, dated Aug. 15, 2016.

            Andy is likely Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.”,

            Then we have this:

            “‘You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America… America will triumph over you,’ said CIA Director John Brennan”

            and you have more than enough potential conspiracy there to fill dozens of best selling books.

            Which it the Kennedy case, actually did! :)

            I’m not suggesting any particular conspiracy theory, but Kennedy was hated. He had political enemies at the J. Edgar Hoover FBI, and he was shot and killed! That is self evident!

            No one really knows what happened, because dead men tell no tales!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If you are talking about the US, bankers is a pretty good answer. I would include corporations and special interests as well. Because, yes, absolutely, he who controls the money (and buys the politicians) controls the country.

            I don’t know enough about the assassinations to comment, but the hypothesis is not unreasonable.

            But I don’t think that the UN works the same way. I am unaware of any mechanism for bankers, etc, to buy influence.

          • nik

            Bankers dont have to buy influence, they already own it.

          • nik

            ”Believe”
            Definition.
            ”accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.”
            Thats why those great fraudsters, priests, constantly badger you to ”believe!”

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            At last, something we agree on. Although I have not had much contact with priests (in the Anglican Church they are called ministers) I did give up believing in the real hoax – that there is a supernatural entity in control of the universe- when I was 11.

          • nik

            I was about that sort of mind, at the same age, but my final ”confirmation” ironically, or maybe suitably, occurred in a church, by a priest!
            At 13, I was in a church during a boy scout Easter parade, and as I sat listening to the priest drone on, I thought, this is the biggest load of cobblers I’ve ever listened too!
            However, at the final year exams, I still came third overall in the school, in RI, much to the shock of the teacher, who was a lay preacher.
            After the exam results were announced, he took me on one side, and said, ”This is just between you and me. Did you copy?” I didnt understand him, and he asked me again, so I asked, ”Copy what?” He then asked me if I’d copied the results from someone else. I said, ”no, why should I do that? [I had no concept of copying from someone else.]
            ”Well.” he said, ”you’ve done no work during the year.”
            To which I replied, ”All I have to is put down on paper, what you’ve been stuffing in my ear for the last year, I dont have to believe it!”
            Oh! he said, and walked away.
            At the beginning of the year he had asked us to write an essay as to why god had said such and such to Moses, or vice versa.
            I just wrote; ”I dont believe in God, so its a stupid question.”
            I got more red ink from the teacher in my book than anything I ever wrote!
            I have cousins in the USA who originated in the UK, but have lived in the bible belt since junior school, and they’ve swallowed the religion hook, line, and sinker. Daft sods.

          • yetanotherbob

            Primitive tropical islands don’t have good internet connections.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            He didn’t say it was a primitive island, but I rather agree with you that his tropical island paradise may just possibly be a figment of his imagination.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Some do. Possibly not broadband. But most of the world is now connected. (I’m sure you can prove me wrong)

  • nik

    In the article above, a link to an article in ”sciencemag. org” titled ”The mountains that froze the world” where it states that volcanic eruptions, ”…belched out more carbon dioxide (CO2) than at any time in Earth’s past, creating greenhouse-gas levels as great as 20 times higher than they are today.”

    However, the writer of this article, Tom Yulsman, has already agreed in the article that he is presently criticising me for my comments, that the CO2 levels shown in the graph there, repeated above, are robust, and can be relied upon. In that graph, the highest amount that the Earths CO2 reached, ever, was 17 times present. In addition, the Earths CO2 level at that time is shown at 4000 ppm, only ten times present. So the claim in science mag, of 20 times cannot be true, which then throws doubt upon the whole article.

    It may be, that in fact only the localised climate rose to those levels, in which case the statement is misleading, at least, but the whole article ignores the fact that the Earth had entered a ‘galactic’ ice age, which was the primary reason for the cooling, and it was due to the expected associated gravitational effects that the eruptions occurred.

    • frflyer

      from Skeptical Science

      “What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

      Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.”

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

      ————–

      • frflyer

        This topic is also covered in this one. – good article

        “Here’s what real science says about the role of CO2 as Earth’s preeminent climatic thermostat”

        http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/

      • nik

        If you look at the much maligned graph in the article above, you will see that cold period is illustrated.

        If you look a little more at the graph, you will also see that cold periods, repeat at approximately 150 million year intervals. These cold periods are not contested, as they are accompanied by major extinctions, and have been studied intensively.

        There is no known process by which the suns nuclear system can operate on a 150 m.y. cycle. Therefore reason for it must be external, or galactic.

        The sun orbits the centre of the galaxy, and periodically passes through the arms of the galaxy. The interstellar dust in the arms of the galaxy attenuates the suns radiation reaching the Earth, so it get colder. In addition gravitational effects may cause an increase in earthquakes, and volcanic action, which in turn increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

        When the solar system emerges from the arm of the galaxy, solar radiation reaching Earth returns to normal, and therefore, the climate follows. As the climate warms, the CO2 also rises, as discussed previously.

  • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

    This is a nice post, Tom.

    If I could, I’d like to address the issue of leading/lagging of temperature and CO2 a little more since this is a favorite skeptic argument and it can naturally cause questions for those wanting to know more.

    Skeptics usually consider the fact that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2 as necessary and sufficient evidence that the opposite could never occur. But there are two different physical processes responsible for each and each does not render the other moot. You’ve covered both of those process’ above: the physical process of a gas coming out of solution, and the absorption/emission of infrared radiation by GHGs.

    To me, the following analogy is instructive. Most analogies are not perfect, but I think this gets makes the point I am wishing to get across. When a current passes through a wire, a magnetic field is created. The field does not exist without the current. But it is also true that passing a magnet through a loop of wire will create a current. The current will not exist if the magnet is not there or stationary.

    In the former case, Ampere’s Law is derived and applicable. The latter case is an example of Faraday’s Law of Induction. Two different physical laws are derived to handle these different physical situations.

    Thus, physics does not tell us that just because a current creates a magnetic field that the opposite cannot also happen.

    • David Rice

      “Skeptics usually consider the fact that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2…”

      No, us skeptics do not make that argument: deniers do.

      • nik

        ”Denier” is a religious term, and is used to define ‘heretics’ and has no place in science. If it did, the the sun would still orbit the Earth, and the Earth would be at the centre of the universe.

        • OWilson

          The whole AGW hoax is predicated on some very unscientific mumbo jumbo like “climate change deniers”.

          I have yet to actually meet one!

          Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            So you’re basically accusing the author of this article of fraud, if he’s perpetuating a “hoax,” as you call the well-established scientific principle that human greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to rising average global temperatures. Exactly what evidence would you use to support such a radical assertion?

          • OWilson

            Hi Mikey!

            Tut, tut!

            Bye Mikey!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Ooooh, what a clever, witty, informed response! I have spent the past 6/7 years arguing that climate change is a real problem, but your erudition has convinced me that I was wrong! I am now a newly converted climate change denier – pleased to meet you.

            And if you take one word of this seriously, you are an even greater threat to the continuation of the human race than climate change is.

          • nik

            Try reading the rest of the posts here, before you make equally puerile comments, because you’ve taken one comment out of context.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I did read other posts, starting at the top and working downwards until I reached the exchange between you and Mr Wilson. There was plenty of context.

          • nik

            {Wrong comment. mine was to yours that followed ”Hi Mikey!” etc.}

            Neither OWilson, or myself are ”denying” climate change. Climate change, on Earth, has been continuous for the last 4.5 billion years.

            What we are contesting, is the present alleged cause, by the ”global warming lobby” ie. human produced CO2! Or whether the temperature increases claimed by various entities are real, (most are not, and are grossly exaggerated), and whether those increases can be caused by other means, than CO2, which they obviously can be.

            The original figure, of 120 ppm based on ice core drillings, has been shown to be inaccurate, and figures supplied elsewhere based on plant stomata, which are considered more accurate, (as used in the data link supplied by the author of this article), give a figure of 50 ppm, max, and possibly as low as 20 ppm.

            Climate change based on that amount is hardly credible, and as the whole of the ”global warming lobby” claims were based on the 120 ppm figure, their case collapses.

            As fossils are used for these estimates, an accurate figure cannot be reached, only an averaged estimate, whatever the source. I would suspect ”that it is very likely that” the 120 ppm was a maximum, chosen to support the GW lobby.
            (parenthesis as used in conclusion to many articles produced by scientists, regarding climate.) :-)

            In ALL the GW lobby claims, only human produced CO2 is considered, which is simply a false premise, and climate history supports that accusation fully.

            One equally possible cause, of several, is deforestation, either human or natural, of which the human form commenced at the around the same time as CO2 emissions, so both CO2 increase and deforestation occurred simultaneously. So the effects of both or either are possible causes of the relatively minor temperature increase, as in the early days, charcoal was used extensively, for many industrial processes, and as you must be aware, charcoal is made from trees.

            If deforestation were the cause or even part of the cause of temperature rise, then reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, will exacerbate the alleged problem, by weakening the already suffering trees further.

            The world is approaching a new Milankovitch ice age, and paradoxically, an ice age is usually preceded by a warming period, its the warming period, that produces more evaporation, and therefore more precipitation, in the form of rain, and snow, and combined with reduced solar radiation, precipitates the ice age. The snow reduces radiation reaching the soil, and each year, the permanent snow line advances. The process is asymptotic, so once commenced, can proceed rapidly.

            Analysis of deep sea and lake deposits from core drillings, covering the last million years, or approx ten ice ages, have shown that the change from inter ice age to full ice age conditions has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.

            Countries in both hemispheres, have recently recorder both the coldest temperatures, and the heaviest snowfalls, since records began, which is why,the ”Global Warming” term had to be abandoned, and the very ambiguous and cynical term, ”Climate Change,” adopted instead.

            So, do you really want to reduce the global temperature?

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There are ten myths that climate change deniers spout:

            Climate’s changed before
            It’s the sun
            It’s not bad
            There is no consensus
            It’s cooling
            Models are unreliable
            Temp record is unreliable
            Animals and plants can adapt
            It hasn’t warmed since 1998
            Antarctica is gaining ice

            Given your arguments above, I think it is pretty clear that you belong to that group.

          • nik

            LOL!
            Obviously, either you cannot read, or only remember the parts that suit your prejudices.

            Second para of my post;
            ”Neither OWilson, or myself are ”denying” climate change. Climate change, on Earth, has been continuous for the last 4.5 billion years.”

            So your list is entirely irrelevant.

            You’ll have to try to find a more intelligent and unprejudiced response, if you want to continue the discussion. Otherwise, its back to the tinfoil roll! :-)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You are quite definitely – by your own admission – denying human-caused climate change. Saying that the climate has always changed is – you will note – the number one argument put forward to explain why humans couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the sudden changes that have occurred.

            All you can do is spout irrelevant details about climate in the past – when there were no humans. Try as you might, you cannot demonstrate that human activity has not had an effect on the temperature. Nor can you come close to showing that increasing temperatures have nothing to do with the increasing severity of weather events.

          • nik

            You are confused, which is not surprising.
            First, I wrote, [above,] the possible results of a warming temperature, so your comment,;

            ”Nor can you come close to showing that increasing temperatures have nothing to do with the increasing severity of weather events.”

            Is false!

            Nor have I said,;

            ”….humans couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the sudden changes that have occurred.”

            In fact I have said the opposite!

            You really must learn to read, and understand what you read!

            Have another look at what I have written, it will be good practice for you, to that end.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If you have said the humans do have something to do with sudden changes in climate, yes, I missed it. What I didn’t miss was this:
            “What we are contesting, is the present alleged cause, by the ”global warming lobby” ie. human produced CO2! ”

            I understand very well what I have read, and that is you change your stance according to the arguments levied against you.

          • nik

            Nope!
            No change.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Oh these tedious trolls. Always turning the discussion into a repetitive argument about semantics and definitions and exactly what they said, didn’t say, intended to say, who said what.

            The article is about the role of CO2. on the climate and the people who cannot cope with the science. As demonstrated here in the comments.

          • nik

            Especially problematic, when they dont understand even the basics of physics.

          • With Respect

            By all means, if it is the basics of physics, I’m your huckleberry.

            What is it you don’t understand?

          • Jammy Dodger

            Yes, indeed. Especially those who think they know the basics but let themselves down with basic, elementary mistakes in their posts.

          • nik

            You had better advise them then

          • Jammy Dodger

            My advice is to stop derailing the comments and discuss the topic. Don’t get bogged down in semantics, trivia and distractions.

            So, if you need some other advice. What is it you don’t understand?

            With respect to With Respect.

          • yetanotherbob

            On the role of CO2 in climate, the real answer has to be YES, there is some connection. The question is how .much. That’s where all the real problems are.

            there is a lot of nonsense being spouted by both sides. Sadly, that always happens when science intersects politics

          • Jammy Dodger

            “That’s where all the real problems are.”

            Well, not really yetanotherbob. Climate scientists and the IPPC have estimated a range for climate sensitivity that has not changed much over the years and it has its error range and uncertainty stated. The “other side”, as you characterise them, just dispute it and wish it to be lower with no calculations, theory or evidence to back their claims.

            If only we could all just wish it away.

          • yetanotherbob

            IPCC has a very bad reputation on the correctness of it’s predictions and it’s interpretation of events. Don’t use them if you want to be believed by anyone who checks the history of your sources.

            “Climate Scientice” is a very broad field as well. I check the accuracy of the predictions made. It’s a question of needing the information. Most of them have an abysmal record on being correct. That’s not really a problem. It’s a new endevor, I expect errors.

            The real problems are with the journalists and the politicians who take the worst sorts of these predictions and run away with things without reality checking.

            Reality checking is what I want to see.

            Design of building systems is based on the expected environment that the building operates in. We typically use (in the USA) climate data published by the Federal Government. This gives the expected mean and extreme weather conditions for now and up to twenty years out. How hot the hottest day will be, how cold the coldest day will be, and so forth. The buildings support systems are then designed based on those values. Use the wrong values, and the building may get too hot. Alternately, pipes might freeze and rupture. In extreme cases, it can mean overloading the electrical system and starting fires that should have been avoided.

            For some here, this may seem trivial, but it is a real concern. When the structures get too hot, people die. It happens a couple of times every year in the US, and more so in Europe, where the climate has shifted enough to really impact the usage of old buildings that have not been or perhaps cannot be renovated properly.

            That’s why people like me check on the predictions of folks like NOAA and IPCC.

            Nobody I know uses IPCC for anything except supplying an outhouse.

            There’s science and there’s Science. The first is very useful. The second is a misplaced religion. Less valuable than most cults actually.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Well, not really yetanotherbob.

            The IPCC has been quite accurate in its reports. Bear in mind that the IPCC does not really make predictions – it is a review of the state of the science as known at that time. There are some thoughts that it tends to be over careful with its forecasts. This is partly attributed to the fact that everything has to be agreed by all countries so the statements tend to get blandified.

            I think you are wrong that “Climate Science” has an abysmal record too. As you say it is a developing science and I am sure you can cherry pick some predictions made by individuals that failed. That is how science tends to progress though. In broad terms and on the major indicators Climate Science has a very good record.

          • yetanotherbob

            IPCC reported a couple of years ago that ALL the Himalayan glaciers had melted. India gently pointed out that this was wrong. IPCC”s response was to issue a series of rebuttals but never to admit they blew it badly.

            Sorry, but that is just one example of why IPCC is not a reputable or reliable organization. They are first and foremost a political orginization. Science and especially accuracy score a distant third with them.

            The trend since the unfortunate “Climate-gate” (Tacking “gate” on after everything only shows the biases of the media.) fiasco of 2000 has been to move predictions our further into the future so that the predictor will have retired before they can be called to task on errors. This just makes the field even less useful or reliable, so it is unfortunate.

            No, I want the researchers to use their models to make predictions that are reasonably near-term, then to give analysis of what the errors were.

            What I fear is happening is that too many are taking a single parameter, or a limited grouping of parameters and then fitting them to the recent past and afterwards ignoring the tie-ins.

            As an Engineer, I can use standard curve fit libraries to relate literally any limited set of data to any other set of data. I could for instance, fit Yankee RBI’s (runs batted in) to global mean temperature records for each year, and the model would show an accurate prediction for that year and subsequent years, right up until the last year for data I had input. Then I could claim I had conclusively and scientifically “proven” the causal link between RBI’s and climate change. When it all falls apart is when I then use the latest RBI’s and give figures for next years climate. Since the fit is by now only a long string of calculations fitting my RBI data to produce a curve that matches the temperature records, it will produce some random number when I try to extend it without considerable massaging of the output.

            Exactly the same thing can be done with CO2 and temperature data or with literally any other set of data that is extensive enough. This is standard mathematics. The how-to is in a minor way a part of every Calculus course. That is why in Engineering, no computer model is considered an adequate substitute for real world testing. Only after a long period of testing can a computer model be relied upon when lives are on the line.

            And lives are really on the line here.

            You say that your hero’s are checking and correcting their errors.

            Good.

            But I don’t see that being reported. What I see is a lot of juvenile name calling and reliance on “Consensus” where consensus means the excluding of anyone who asks embarrassing questions or disputes the basic postulate of this social experiment masquerading as a physical science.

            The basic difference between real physical sciences and social sciences is that if you question the professor and then prove he is wrong in a physical science class, as long as you can actually show why he was wrong and then prove it in an actual measurable experiment, you pass the class. In a social science, only opinion, and only the professors opinion matters.

            Application of the scientific method will eventually establish the truth here, but I see very little of that coming from either side of the debate. That’s the main reason why I don’t consider “Climate Science” to be science.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “IPCC reported a couple of years ago that ALL the Himalayan glaciers had melted.”

            If they did say that you should be able to provide a valid and reputable reference. I do not think you will be able to. If you cannot provide one I think you should withdraw your statement that they are not a reliable or reputable organisation. Or come up with a proper example of what you mean.

            Of course I know what you are actually referring to but you have got it very wrong and lifted something from an unreliable and disreputable source. (So much for being someone “who checks the history of your sources”).

            The IPCC has a difficult job balancing the conflicting demands of many countries and is, as you say, a political organisation trying to present the science as it stands. But it does not do a bad job considering the complexity. The occasional mistake in such a large undertaking is to be expected.

            “You say that your hero’s are checking and correcting their errors.”

            Huh? Where did you get that idea from? More to the point, why do you say it?

          • Jammy Dodger

            No answer to that then yetanotherbob? Though you have posted many times since you cannot spare the time to explain yourself?

            You are trying to portray yourself as an individual who is all knowing and of such impeccable scientific purity so pure that you can crticise all the climate scientists for not having the insight and wisdom you have. And you can impugn the IPCC mightily because they have got it all so wrong. Talk about hubris.

            Yet when you malign the IPCC your best shot at justifying your disdain is shown to be completely wrong but you have absolutely nothing to say? Better to just play quiet and say nothing? That way you do not have to face up to the contradiction?

            If your best shot at justification of your bias flops so dismally perhaps you should examine your prejudice and try and remember where and why you formed your views? Why are you so biased against climate scientists and the IPCC? I suspect you have been hanging around anti-science sites.

            The depressing thing is you have been caught making an unfounded and unjustified accusation but it is unlikely you will examine the facts and reevaluate your opinion.

          • yetanotherbob

            Sorry, but I don’t have time to respond to endless quibbles. Yes, I said that I do not consider IPCC to be a reliable organization. They are much more political than scientific. You (or others defending them on this increasingly meaningless thread) have confirmed that, yet seem to be using it as “evidence” against me. Oh, well, I have a thick skin and can live with a lot of loud meaningless noise. What I actually said was that they are unreliable because their “headline” predictions have been wrong so many times over the past few decades.

            I won’t retract that, because it is true. The last time the Ross Ice Shelf calved off a large section (Ross does that every few years) they predicted that Antarctica was about to lose it’s ice sheet. They have said the same for Greenland. Satellite photographs show both land masses still have the majority of their ice covering.

            So, IPCC was wrong yet again.

            Oh, and for the record, I do believe that the Earth is warming, but it isn’t as serious as the religious Warmers would like. It also isn’t completely missing.

            I have said here that the problem I have with “Climate Science” is simply that their predictions are not accurate. That’s OK, as it is a new and therefore immature discipline. I do feel that they rely entirely too much on computer models that they don’t understand. Time will correct that, once they stop using “Consensus” and attacks on rivals and doubters in place of real evidence. Physics started out that way too. Just look up the wars between Newton and Leibnitz.

            For consensus as a guarantor of correctness, I remember Webber. The entire field of Geology united in declaring him an insane nut case, with his “Continental Drift” idocy. You may know enough science to be aware of how that turned out. The “Scientific Consensus” was totally wrong.

            It is evidence, not agreement that determines what is science and what is superstition.

            Meanwhile, “Climate Scientists” and IPCC with them continue to be inaccurate.

            Just today I saw one that the Gulf Stream is now collapsing. If it is, then we will need all the “Global Warming” we can get. Well, this isn’t the first time IPCC has predicted that.

            Fortunately, they’re almost certainly wrong.

          • Jammy Dodger

            It is not a quibble to point out that your criticism of the IPCC was completely wrong and wrongheaded. That you do not address that oversight in your reply is very telling. If you cannot show more care with the facts, the details and the truth make you a non credible commentator.

          • Jammy Dodger

            One of my replies appears to have gone missing. So I will repeat it.

            I do not think you getting your main criticism of the IPCC completely wrong is a “quibble”. It constitutes a complete dismissal and collapse of your position. If you do not address it that shows your criticism of the IPCC (and climate scientists) is just based on hearsay and misinformation.

            Perhaps you would like to try and answer why you got it so wrong?

          • RealOldOne2

            “Climate scientists and the IPCC have estimated a range for climate sensitivity hat has not changed much over the years”
            True, because the 1979 Charney report stated: “We estimate the most probable global warming for a doubling of CO2 to be near 3°C with a probable error of ±1.5°C.”
            Actually that is evidence that the CO2 hypothesis is fundamentally flawed, because as the decades have gone on, there becomes more and more empirical evidence that the real sensitivity is much much less than that. In the last 2 decades humans have added ~650 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, which is over 40% of all the human CO2 ever produced, and it hasn’t caused the temperature of the atmosphere to increase. Only a natural 2015-2016 El Nino has caused any warming, and that was the release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

          • cardigan

            Demonstrate how these are myths please. All of the above are provably true.

            Why do you deny self evident and observable facts?

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Some of these statements are true in a very limited way; others are just plain wrong.

            For example, the climate has changed before. Of course. But never before at the rate of change we have seen in the past 50 years.

            It’s the sun. Yes. Everything is the sun. But again, variations in solar activity take place on a different time scale. If we look only at incoming radiation from the sun, the earth should be cooling, but it is not.

            It is bad – very bad, but I suspect you will choose not to accept that.

            There is very definitely consensus in the scientific sense -all studies, all data, regardless of the source point to the same conclusion – human activity has caused the earth to warm.

            Yes, it should be cooling, but it’s not.

            The information derived from models changes with the input. That does not mean that they are unreliable. They are not expected to be perfect predictors of future climate conditions, but they give a reasonably accurate idea of what will happen if we continue with business as usual.

            Temperature measurements become more and more accurate every day using a vast network of thermometers and satellites. It is possible that we are off on estimates of temperatures thousands and millions of years ago. However, it is clear that the current trend is inexorably upward. In my 34 years in the US, I have seen our temperature zone shift from Zone 5 to Zone 5B. This may not sound like much, but it translates to a difference in the frost free season of nearly two months. That is huge. Good for me trying to grow tomatoes in upstate New York, disaster areas that previously relied on a severe winter to control bugs.

            Humans can probably adapt, but plants and most animals are having a hard time.

            It has most definitely warmed since 1998. The RATE of increase stayed relatively stable, but the actual temperature continued to rise.

            The Antarctic is gaining SEA ICE as are and more ice slips off the continental shelf. Overall there is a loss.

            I challenge you to prove otherwise.

          • OWilson

            Warming, some 12,000 years go gave a huge boost to human civilization.

            Today the slight warming is partly responsible for Anual World Record Agricultural Food Production to feed a very hungry world!

            I’m worried about the “climate goals” set by the United Nations

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Oh, poor dear. You’re worried.

            And so you damn well should be.

            If there is not considerably more than ‘tinkering” to reverse the effects of climate change the “civilized” world will disappear altogether.

          • OWilson

            I’m worried about what you delusional haters are doing to your country and the world :)

            Rioting, looting, burning cop cars, destroying government property, ransacking your neighborhood Mom and Pop stores.

            Masked and armed thugs, marching down your sreets shouting “What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want it? Now!”

            And of course, “Piggies in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”

            Not accepting the outcome of democratic elections!

            That’s why I choose to live simply, where I do, with poor, but helpful, supportive and very friendly local people!

            Have yourself a good life, ya hear?

            Lol!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Not nearly as worried as I am about those who spread discord for purely financial gain.

            Hate has nothing to do with defending the environment, and I challenge you to support your notion that any environmentalist has shouted we want dead cops, nor ransacked a Mom and Pop store. You are taking the worst occurrences in the US (I presume that is what you mean by “your country”) by the worst members of society and blaming them on an amorphous group of people who wish to limit the damage that humans are doing to the only planet we have.

            Frankly, you make me sick.

          • OWilson

            Yes, you are sick, but an insignificant, anonymous retired old poster, did not do that to you!

            Think about it for a moment!

            Then get help, before your hate endangers others!

          • crankedyank

            I agree. The would be tinkerers are the clear and present danger. We should not blithely try to directly effect artificial changes of global scope as there would be unintended consequences. A good article on just this is here:

            https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/page/5/?s=global+warming

          • yetanotherbob

            Nothing can be corrected without understanding the cause of the problem. Then, nothing can be controlled without reasonably accurate measurement of the relevant parameters. Measure the wrong parameters and you will have no control over the outcome.
            That’s basic engineering.
            My concern is that the track record indicates that the scientists who are doing all this, according to the press coverage don’t seem to know what is causing any of it.
            That may be because the press exaggerates things, it may be because coverage is incomplete. Scariest of all, it may be that the Experts have no idea why this is all happening.
            As an engineer, I have a bias. Fixing problems is what really matters.
            We may be fixing the wrong problem.

          • crankedyank

            I think the science on global warming is murky and this is being exploited to gin up alarm in a power game of several players. Trying to address the problem, of ill-defined causation as it is, with heroic feats of geo-engineering (misting, reflective particulates, etc.) will likely result in a cascading perturbation of climate stabilizing equilibria, which will trigger ever more radical interventions. A better strategy would be to develop economically attractive alternative energy sources and thereby remove anthropogenic changes in CO2 levels from the equation.

          • yetanotherbob

            It doesn’t need any global megaprojects.

            Remember the 1970’s when the problem was global cooling? That problem went away after the air pollution cleanups mandated fitting most coal burning sites with filters that took the fine dust out. It seems dust in high altitudes radiates away heat quite efficiently. To totally counter global warming, just turn off the static precipitators. you’ll soon lose the one and a half degree that is all Global Warming has amounted to in the last three decades in most studies.

            Of course, you will then have to deal with acid rain and slightly reduced sunlight intensity.

            All solutions create other problems.

            Another path to solutions would be to actually build the solar power satellites that are constantly being proposed, and use them to replace 400 or so terrawatts of electrical generation, then to shift over most transportation to electrical. To do that, some things, like railroads, would transition to actual electrical drives, others, like cars and aircraft would use synthetic fuels. The best are hexane (kerosine) and octane (gasoline). Those can be easily made by electrolyzing hydrogen out of water and then burning atmospheric CO2 in a lean hydrogen atmosphere. The water is then taken off and re-electrolyzed to start the process all over again. It’s all standard chemistry, and any Petroleum Engineer knows how to do it.

            Whatever path we wind up choosing, we will need ultimately to replace much of the carbon that was once in coal seams. That takes a lot of time. It’s a process called “terraforming”. What level of CO2 we might wish to finalize is an open question that is still being debated.

          • RealOldOne2

            “As an engineer …”
            It’s hard to fool a good engineer, because they demand empirical data upon which to base their understanding of a problem.

          • crankedyank

            How do you know that the past 50 years have seen an unprecedented in increase in temperature? Are you saying that never before in geological time has there been a similar rate of warming?

          • With Respect

            I can help you with that.

            Within the geological record, the closest rate of change of global temperature that can be derived from proxies to date is the Younger Dryas (YD) episode, though that was a cooling rather than warming event.

            YD was some 15 times slower so far as we can know from measurable proxies and reasonable inferences than the current fossil-waste-induced AGW episode.

            YD itself was almost 15 times faster than the usual rate of change between warm and cool Milankovitch plateaus.

            If you require sources, I recommend Google Scholar.

          • crankedyank

            Thanks. It’s still not clear to me what the significance of warming or cooling rate really is. Max and min temperatures of cycles would seem to be more determinative of the degree of global warming.

          • With Respect

            To clarify, within the (problematic) question of precedent, we can be fairly sure that a larger-than order of magnitude difference in rate is significant in the general case. In the particular case, the economic argument is the one that matters to me (though there are others): if a hypothetical landowner must give up my oceanfront property’s future value due the expectation that when the parties that might buy it are using it there will be new floods faster than they can economically deal with, then that person’s present value is diminished. In that case, rate matters, because warmer than now equals higher sea level than now, but if the sea level encroaches only a millimeter a year there is not much need to reevaluate a property compared to loss of two meters a decade.

            What is or isn’t ‘determinative’ isn’t always the question that hits a wallet. Should we care if we through neglect hurt the wallets of thousands or hundreds of thousands of oceanfront landowners worldwide? Those are some litigious people and parties with deep pockets and powerful lawyers; I’d say it is signficant.

          • crankedyank

            Whether or not a large difference in warming rate is significant would depend upon the significance of the average or normal warming rate, I think. If the normal rate is tiny, then an order of magnitude increase in rate might not correspond to a concomitant increase in significance. My point is that these considerations don’t seem to be entirely straightforward. As for the economic impact, I never thought about it that way and it is an interesting question with legal and political implications. I would not want to see anyone’s wallet unjustly hurt. Historically, changes on a grand or global scale have generally impacted wallets, and those affected are doubt we can do much better at any time in the foreseeable future but if we can, I hope any remedial

          • With Respect

            No, no. We’re not comparing to normal or average warming rate, but to the next most extreme ever measured rate of change in evidence.

            Of course these considerations aren’t entirely straightforward. They require the effort to read through perhaps five to seven paragraphs of information and apply logic, then test that knowledge to the limits of rigor. That could take two to three hours.

            Thank you for considering the economic argument, which to a fiscal conservative is where the rubber meets the road. This is not as difficult as the question of whether the rate of warming is unprecedented: any normal Capitalist wants the Market to fulfill its function with minimal interference from government and minimal corruption. All we need for that to be fixed is for landowners to charge a fossil waste disposal fee on fossil CO2 dumpers at so high a rate as the Law of Supply and Demand will sustain.

            Who has interest in lands and waters and does not pursue collection of such fees is slothful and hurts his own interests and the interests of all their fellow landlords. Who fails to pay such a fee, whether notified it is owing or not, is merely stealing.

          • crankedyank

            I’ll read the article with an eye peeled for the paragraphs you mention. Even if the rate is an order of magnitude greater than than the last inferred max warming rate, rather than the average rate on an up-cycle, the significance of rate is unclear to me for the same reason it would be when comparing against the average rate. A higher warming rate over the same or greater period would obviously mean more warming and in that case be significant. Rate of warming is a path variable but does not by itself describe an end state and this is the source of my uncertainty. I would not want to form an opinion until I am somewhat familiar with the data but am willing to tentatively accept the analysis of those reputable parties who are.

            I am unclear as to how your carbon tax would work. Say I have a some beachfront property. How could I possibly levy a tax against anyone else for burning carbon? What kinds of land would be considered as subject to a use tax? I honestly do not want to be a taxing authority, with the problem of enforcement and all that entails. I am, however, interested in lands and waters, being a nature lover and interested in pursuing a self-sufficient life style on my own land.

          • With Respect

            Oh. This article?

            I’m not sure this article is the right place to learn about rate of climate change, especially since it doesn’t mention the subject once.

            You might want to start with Fairbanks, Richard G., A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation. Nature, 1989/12/07/online.

            That will give you a start on how we know about the speed of global warming, though there have been three decades of new work since then amounting to thousands of peer-reviewed studies on this topic within climatology. A good textbook or comprehensive literature review will condense all the conclusions to five to seven paragraphs.

            As to why rate is so important, especially order of magnitude change of rate, imagine the accelerator pedal on your car: going from 10 mph to 100 mph over the course of a few minutes is an order of magnitude increase, and that’s quite significant (while going from 1 mph to 10 mph in the same few minutes is pretty negligible overall); however, going from accelerating by 10 miles per second per second to 100 miles per second per second increase in speed for a significant period or from 1 mile per second per second to 10 miles per second per second, while the two are different are both going to leave the prior increases in the dust.

          • crankedyank

            Thanks.

          • With Respect

            I have no carbon tax. A carbon tax is a real thing, and I’m not afraid of the t-word; carbon taxes by their nature distort markets less, are implicitly fairer in that there are always alternatives to using carbon, and for all that are imprecise and open to poor design, for one we don’t care about carbon economically, but about fossil.

            What I have is Capitalism. Fossil waste disposal is the product. Fossil waste dumping is the act of taking that product from landlords and those with an interest in waters, through the mechanisms of biosequestration and weathering to return fossil to mineral form.

            Your beachfront property isn’t encumbered especially more by the fossil waste dumping, but as a result of both the dumpers and the dumpees failing to do the right thing under Capitalism. All you, as their victim, have is a tort for damages due their neglect.

            If you go after the people who hurt you in court, the courts do not tax them, but find fault and assess damages, empowering the state to collect from wrongdoers to turn over amounts the courts decide will make you whole, on the strength of your arguments. That’s a pretty sad, inefficient litigation-based action.

            Capitalism is more efficient, and leads to better outcomes throughout the economy, stimulating job growth and improving the bottom line for producers.

          • crankedyank

            Capitalism, in its ideal sense, implies a free market regulated by the law of supply and demand. I think you would advocate a fossil fuel use rights market, correct? If I am not getting your meaning, please explain.

          • With Respect

            Capitalism only exists in the ideal sense; we’re never going to achieve fully the conditions of ‘Pure Capitalism’ where every buyer and seller has perfect information, where there are barriers neither to entry nor exit from the Market, where the number of buyers and sellers approach infinity, etc. What we can do is try to achieve the goals of Capitalism by the means of the Market so far as possible to make exchanges honestly express the democracy of individual choices of buyers and sellers, to relieve misery and enhance the utility of scarce resources most efficiently.

            While a fossil waste disposal market gives much the same effect as a fossil fuel use rights market, that’s not granular enough really. Fossil resources can make countless goods that are never dumped into the air: plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, metallurgy feedstocks, construction materials, industrial chemicals and on and on. When fossil is used for those purposes, so long as fugitive process emissions and waste incineration don’t lead to fossil emissions to the air, there ought be no fee.

            In effect, we need to find the points of sale that differentiate those uses, and have the sellers at those points collect fossil waste disposal fees just like sellers in any storefront charge a markup on the goods they sell so they can pay rent to their landlord. That’s not an analogy, but a literal truth. Who holds interest in the lands and waters of the nation — private or public — ought be collecting a fee for use of fruits of their lands, or we know what Tragedy comes from any Commons treatment of what scarcity of the land ought be husbanded to pass on to future generations. Maybe my language gets a bit flowery on this, but I’m working from the first principles of a document published in 1776.

          • crankedyank

            I agree with most of what you said, especially regarding the waste of resources that burning hydrocarbons entails, as an additional disadvantage. I wonder about how a product that some do not want can be sold to those who don’t desire it without a potentially intrusive legislative mandate. Would all pollution-disposing geographical assets be folded into a pool and would this not disable a wing of the free market by precluding competition in producing the disposal service? As well, the production does not require human skill and labor so it is not a traditional trade good or service. If we think of land assets as factories producing a good and service, should there not be
            requirements that they be maintained at a minimum standard before charges for said service are levied? Perhaps the market you envision would be fraught with problems arising from its degree of artificiality, as this would be greater than one for more natural markets through which traditional products are traded. There is strong analogy to traditional markets, which seems to get stretched and should not be taken too far, IMO.

            As for the language, I think it’s fine since the project would be laudable if conducted with sufficient philosophical finesse.

          • With Respect

            Legislation is the minority of how the world works. For every regulation, law, fine, bylaw, rule, guideline of government, there are tens of millions of transactions in the world working by habit, tradition, mutual consent, consensus and conscience perfectly well. Getting all bunched up about what is or isn’t proper for government, when the problem is a broken Market mechanism, isn’t productive without fixing the Market mechanism. Sure, getting government out of picking winners and losers, getting corruption out of government, are important and never moreso than now; but, people need to start paying for fossil waste disposal on the Market regardless of regulation, and landlords need to start being rewarded by the Market for keeping their lands and waters in good order.

            Act directly, without government. Form, or join, a fossil waste disposal buyers club, if government won’t act, to influence sellers to pay club members a fossil waste disposal fee in exchange for brand preference by club members.

            As for pollution: this isn’t about pollution. This is about a specific resource with a specific Market: fossil waste disposal. Disposal of all those other pollutants? Sure, there are problems and issues there, and some of the solutions for this work for that, but bandwagon jumping and confusion only slows work toward specific solutions to specific issues.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Yes, that is what I am saying. Or rather, that is what the scientific record indicates.

            With Respect has given a good response below. I can just add that, in spite of scientists of all persuasions having looked really hard, they have not found anything comparable to the recent rapid rise in temperatures.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            A quick check on woodfortrees dot org interactive, using hadcrut4 global, for the period 1968 to 2018 (50 years), using the linear regression analysis least-squares as an averaging tool shows the temperature anomaly starting at -0.17554 and ending at 0.667936, rising 0.843476 in 50 years, or 0.17°C per decade. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c9636b0ff01f080328b219c01845dc0f5188651ee9fea5d185dc0c1ec3dbeaf0.jpg The 8.2k event (so named, because it happened 8,200 years ago … like on the BCE scale) had a warming shown as 4°C over 120 years … 0.33°C/decade. And no, this was felt even in Antarctica, it was not a localized event … though it was stronger in the Northern Hemisphere, the Southern Hemisphere did not hold still.

            Prior to that, even the IPCC documents ”On the other hand, very rapid warming at the start of the Bölling-Alleröd period, or at the end of the Younger Dryas may have occurred at rates as large as 10°C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere.”

            2°C per decade. Even if this was not felt, at all, in the Southern Hemisphere, that would still be 1°C per decade for the entire globe.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            And that shows…..?

            Nothing.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝scientists … having looked really hard, they have not found anything comparable to the recent rapid rise in temperatures … the past 50 years have seen an unprecedented rate of in increase in temperature❞

            Oh, yeah, … ‘cept that other, natural, warming events have exceeded the recent; and that proxies aren’t comparable, especially in rate, to the modern instrumental era, especially in temporal errors. Alarmists ignore those facts. Scientists document them.
            Ljungqvist 2010: ”A major problem with many non-tree ring proxy records used in the reconstruction is their temporal uncertainty. For example, the marine sediments from the Bermuda Rise (Keigwin 1996) have an estimated dating uncertainty of ±160 years and the lake sediments from Lake Tsuolbmajavri (Korholaet al. 2000) of ±169 years. The dating uncertaintyof proxy records very likely results in “flattening out” the values from the same climate event overseveral hundred years and thus in fact acts as a low-pass filter that makes us unable to capture the truemagnitude of the cold and warm periods in the re-construction …”
            Loehle 2000: ”… the existence of dating error in the series means that peaks and troughs are damped compared to annual data and are likely even damped compared to the true history…” (4)
            Mangini, Jul 2005: “As expected, the multi-proxy stack has smaller amplitude, of about 0.9 °C, than our curve from [Spannagel Cave in the Alps], between the minimum in the LIA, and the MWP events. The smaller amplitude is obvious, since Moberg’s reconstruction, resulting from a stack of several different archives, with independent age control, looses amplitude as a consequence of the uncertainty in the ages of the single curves. (6)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            You don’t “get it”, do you?

            O course scientists document facts – all of them. Then other scientists look at the documentation. Some look at a small number of studies. Others do meta studies, looking at huge numbers of other studies. And pretty close to all of them have come to the same conclusion – when you look at all the data, the only possible explanation for rising temperatures is human activity.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            yes, lots do arrive at that conclusion. Show me evidence. Hard, observational evidence … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/93b093a2f46b53e1f3cfc61b62faee5971988a8e0fa08759ab477f0393ee753c.jpg

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Well, re-reading a paper that I had cited for other reasons, this paper by Judith Lean, I found a real nugget. She answered my question. I’ve been looking for observational evidence; her paragraph, rather succinctly, says that the only evidence is that from the computer models. There is no physical, observational evidence.

            Lean 2018: ”The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC (2007), charged with the detection and attribution of climate change for its Government stakeholders, stated that ❝Most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid‐20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases❞. The basis for asserting a discernible human influence on climate is statistical comparisons of observed temperature with physical model simulations of the changes expected from anthropogenic and natural influences (Hegerl & Zwiers, 2011; Stott et al., 2010).”

            That’s it … quest, over. There is no observational evidence.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I get it now. You want someone to attach micro-thermometers to molecules of carbon dioxide so that you can actually OBSERVE a change in temperature. Great idea!

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Well, we can do that, but in bulk. It is called “brightness temperature” and is observed with a microwave sensor. That’s how the satellites measure atmospheric temperature. What is reported, though is Oxygen brightness temperature, not CO2.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Why? You’ll have to explain to me why the satellites measure oxygen brightness and not CO2, if we can do that.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            O2 ≈ 20% of the atmosphere, while CO2 is 0.04% …a better signal-to-noise ratio.
            O2 is di-atomic, while CO2 is tri-atomic. I’m guessing, here … the reason may be that the “temperature” of CO2 can hide some energy, in a latent form … after all, it is a GHG. O2 lacks that looseness, that ability that many molecules have (those with more than two atoms) to spin and shake their molecular bonds. Greenhouse gases, in spectral analysis, have many lines of absorption (and radiation), and molecular collisions make these lines wider than they would be in a rarefied state (like held in a glass tube, at low pressure, with no other molecules). This “pressure broadening” is … I’m guessing again … not so present in O2’s lines, at the point of the microwave spectrum where the orbiting instrument is “looking”. Probably, that specific spot, where an O2 spectral line is found, is also where other molecules’ spectral lines are far away. Trying to separate closely-spaced spectral lines from different molecules is difficult, so, one would look for a line in an uncrowded space of spectrum.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Yes, you probably are guessing.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            The observational evidence is not at all about the temperature of the CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is at thermal equilibrium with its adjacent O2 and N2 molecules.

            The link between increasing CO2, and planetary temperature, seems to be obvious when looking at simple terms, such as Tyndall’s mesurements of gases, viewed through glass tubes capped with NaCl windows. These isolated and simple studies consistently show the interferences that CO2 presents in the infrared band … easily verified.

            The link between simple laboratory experiments (Like Tyndall) and spectroscopic measurements, which show, observationally, that CO2 absorbs “heat radiation” … and whole-global temperatures, is missing. There isn’t a flaw in the observations of CO2 and “heat radiation” … the gap encompasses the missing ling between localized effects, and planetary effects. Plass wrote, in 1956, in one paper, three times, phrases different ways … cautioning us, that his calculations shows a greenhouse effect increase in temperature, from adding more CO2 … if nothing else changes. Ramanathan & Collins wrote a paper, about real, physical observations, in which they show that, as sunshine heats Earf, a greenhouse effect does occur, causes local heating, which causes more evaporation and for the heated air masses to rise up, which, in turn, causes condensation and the formation of clouds … and the clouds reflect sunshine, which puts an end to the process. It is a planetary thermostat … imperfect, but enough negative feedback to keep the planet remarkably stable. Earf has maintained a stable temperature ±½% for thousands of years.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Blah, blah. I am more than averagely literate. I understand every individual word, but I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Perhaps that is just because you like talking without actually saying anything.

            If you answered my question, I missed it.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝You want someone to attach micro-thermometers to molecules of carbon dioxide… why the satellites measure oxygen brightness and not CO2,❞

            There is nothing interesting in the temperature of individual CO2 molecules. O2 brightness is a measure of atmospheric temperature.

            Just because CO2 is a GHG does nor mean that more CO2, causes planetary warming. Ramanathan & Collins 1991 showed, with real observations — no modelling — that (1) sunshine warms Earf, (2) Greenhouse gases intensify this warming, (3) the intensified warming causes more clouds (4) the clouds stop the sunshine that started the warming in the first place. End of points, reinforcement info follows.

            Ramanathan & Collins 1991: ”… the greenhouse effect increases with surface temperature … In response to this ‘super greenhouse effect’, highly reflective cirrus clouds are produced which act like a thermostat shielding the ocean from solar radiation.”

            “The warmer ocean, thus, produces clouds, at higher altitudes. These clouds … have a larger greenhouse effect. … The sources [of energy] for these large-scale motions are the latent heat released by convection, the cirrus long-wave cloud forcing, and the spatial gradients in SST. …This continues, until the cirrus clouds, which accumulate during this process, reflect enough sunlight to arrest further warming. Thus, the [cirrus-cloud] anvils act like a thermostat.”

            Ramanathan, Vi, and Wu Collins 1991. “Thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 El Nino.” Nature
            http://ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr54.pdf

            MORE observational work by Lebsock 2010, Lloyd 2012 has supported this hypothesis.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            No? As far as I know the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere have remained pretty stable. So what is there to study?

            Levels of CO2have changed. Inquiring minds want to know why and what the effect of that change might be.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            A very snide remark, involving denial of the science revealed by Lean 2018. Succinctly, when the IPCC was asked to defend how CO2 produces climate change, they said, “The basis for asserting a discernible human influence on climate is statistical comparisons of observed temperature with physical model simulations…” No observational evidence was presented. Nothing … NOTHING but computer models.
            Would you care to discuss the flaws in the computer models???

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I do not enjoy posting snide remarks, although I do not deny that I do.

            I do not enjoy being sarcastic. I do not enjoy making fun of grammatical irregularities.

            I do so because it is often the only way to draw attention to really stupid posts.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Well, how do you interpret Lean’s statement?
            “The basis for asserting a discernible human influence on climate is statistical comparisons of observed temperature with physical model simulations…”
            What does that mean, to you?

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Not much

          • Damn Nitpicker

            “Anyone can make comments like this. Only a few actually contribute to meaningful discussions.”

          • Derpitudinous_Neologism

            …and yet now we have observational evidence.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “observed temperature” is not observational evidence then?

            Right. Got it.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Observed temperature is but a symptom. Melting ice, raising sea level, ocean-heat content, are all related to the first, temperature. Warming is, for certain, concrete evidence of … well, warming. It does not implicate a cause of the warming.
            Shepherd, T, 2014: ”… multiple global indicators of change including surface temperature, upper-ocean heat content, sea level, Arctic sea-ice extent, glaciers, Northern Hemisphere snow cover, large-scale precipitation patterns… and temperature extremes (Figure 1a,b). All these global indicators are physically linked in a direct way to the first on the list, surface temperature,….”
            Trenberth, Fasullo, & Balmaseda 2014: ”❝Warming❞ really means heating and extra energy, and hence it can be manifested in many ways. Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation. Melting Arctic sea ice is another.”
            von Schuckmann 2016: ”…global temperature rise, increased [ocean heat content], sea level rise, and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle (Fig. 2b). These are all symptoms of [Earth’s energy imbalance].” .

          • Jammy Dodger

            Temperature is just a symptom? We don’t observe it, measure it and use it as evidence? Riiighhht. Got it again.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            It is the definition used by K von Schuckmann 2016: ”…global temperature rise, increased [ocean heat content], sea level rise, and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle (Fig. 2b). These are all symptoms of [Earth’s energy imbalance].”

            Temperature is a measure of warming. It is the one and only point of evidence, and it is used to fortify the argument of AGW.
            Trenberth, Fasullo, & Balmaseda 2014: ”❝Warming❞ really means heating and extra energy, and hence it can be manifested in many ways. Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation. Melting Arctic sea ice is another.”
            Earf has warmed a bit. However, evidence of warming says nothing about the cause of the warming. There is no observational evidence that Mannkind’s continuing of CO2 emissions will cause … or, had caused … any warming at all. That is just conjecture, fortified by computer models. No evidence, just the fantasy imaginings of computer models.
            Lean 2018: ”The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC (2007), charged with the detection and attribution of climate change for its Government stakeholders, stated that ❝Most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid‐20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases❞. The basis for asserting a discernible human influence on climate is statistical comparisons of observed temperature with physical model simulations of the changes expected from anthropogenic and natural influences (Hegerl & Zwiers, 2011; Stott et al., 2010).”
            That’s it … the entire basis for saying that AGW is the cause, is statistical inference from model simulations. Oh, and the warming.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “That’s it … quest, over. ”

            Classic fake scepticism.
            “I have found the answer I want. To the limited question I posed. No need to question any more or look any further”.

            Sigh.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝But never before at the rate of change we have seen in the past 50 years.❞

            You failed to mention what parameter you’re speaking of. Usually, alarmists speak of temperature rise rate, or the atmospheric CO2 rise rate.
            Both are flawed concepts, as the modern instrumentation period cannot be compared to the non-instrumentation period, because … well, there were no instruments, then. You have to switch to proxy representations of temperature. Even if the proxy item could be considered as absolutely flawless in its ability to record temperature, the ability we have of determining the temporal resolution … what year it was, for example … is really poor. The temporal resolution of the instrumentation period is measured in minutes, perhaps a few hours. The ice core records have a temporal error amounting to dozens and dozens of years, even plus or minus a hundred years. The imprecise dating of the sample, introduces a skew of the (time, temperature) data point. Subsequent averaging of (time, temperature) data points (with dating errors) causes the obliteration of short-term temperature excursions, even though the peaks of the excursions might have been accurately recorded with individual proxies. This causes a low-frequency-pass (high-frequency-attenuation) “smearing” of the temperature reconstruction.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I am not your average alarmist.

            I speak of the appalling damage that humans have done to the natural world.

          • yetanotherbob

            I can’t speak for “OWilson” or for “Nik”, but I can respond to a great many of your points.

            “Climate’s changed before”

            Yes, it has. the most extreme example was between approximately 1.5 Billion Years Ago (BYA) to about 0.75 BYA, or 750 Million years ago. during that time, the entire earth froze over right down to the tropical seas at least six times. It also had interlude of perhaps 20 million years where the temperature climbed to roughly 40 C on at least five occasions. Just look up “snowball earth”. This is accepted geology. fifteen years ago it was controversial. Not today.
            Just a thousand years ago there was a warm period called the Medieval Warm Period when the temperatures in Europe and elsewhere climbed to the point where there were Viking colonies in Greenland. They lived by raising rye and cabbage and by grazing goats and cattle. They lived on the western coast of Greenland where it was warmer then, just as it is now. There were two towns there at the time. In 1350, the people had all vanished. That was when a ship from Denmark came for trade. This was after a fifteen year gap when the climate had turned quite cold. That ushered in a period that lasted until at least 1850, perhaps to as late as the mid 1900’s. It’s still being debated.
            The poster you are concerned about just said that climate changes. It actually does.
            What is important though, as short term climate is really just an averaging of the day to day weather, is what the trends are. Long term the trend is currently unclear. Short term, climate follows somewhat the 22 year cycle of the sun. In the early 1970’s that was a cooling trend, which caused many early climate students and scientists to forecast a coming Ice Age. The trend in the 180’s and 1990’s was warming which caused the second generation of “Climate Scientists” to forecast a potentially disastrous warming.
            These two episodes, both of which I read about in scientific publications left the field with egg on it’s collective face. The disasters forecast for both “Global Cooling” and “Global Warming” simply didn’t happen.
            That may be the reason for Mr. Owilson and Mr. tik to be “doubters”. Once burned, twice shy.

            The answers to all your other points are all a yes. However, that doesn’t mean that the scientists are totally wrong either. This is after all a new science. It isn’t really accurate enough yet for reliable predictions. Perhaps in a few years or a few decades it will be. It is also possible that it will be all viewed fifty years from now the same way the science of Phrenology is viewed now.

            Personally, I am hoping it does get rigorous. For that to happen though, researchers need to actually accept errors and correct them.

            In the coverage by the press, that isn’t happening. Name calling and denigration isn’t correcting anything. There has unquestionably been at least some warming in the past thirty years. However, the predictions given have all been wrong. I’ve been watching. Once accurate predictions can be given, it will be incredibly valuable.

            Nonsense like sea level rising twenty feet in New York while dropping twenty feet in Boston don’t help matters. Don’t these people know anything about hydrostatic equilibrium? There are similar problems about the claims of sea level rise as well. I see numbers thrown around while never seeing anything about the measurements uncertanty. This means the numbers can be viewed as meaningless. At the extreme end if this, I’ve seen some fools who claim that sea level has already risen by up to a meter! A meter’s rise in sea level would inundate more than half of the state of Florida. The last time I saw a satellite photograph, Florida was still there, so no Meters rise in sea lever. Also, Mr. Gore’s famous movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which gave a time of 2010 for all of it’s predictions was wrong for ten out of ten. Mr. Gore based this on “Eminent Climate Scientists”. That’s actually a serious black eye for the nascent science. You don’t need friends like this.

            One further problem is that everything happening is being blamed on one culprit, Carbon. I wish the world was really that simple.

            That’s speaking as an Engineer. I have to use the results of Science to make real testable and important decisions.

            I wish Climate Science was REAL. It isn’t yet.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            What is there to misunderstand? He is not correct, and neither are you.

          • yetanotherbob

            I see you are using your right to be totally wrong.

            What I pointed out was that your critique of Mssrs nik and OWilson was mistaken. I wasn’t trying to say that either of them were wrong. You were wrong.

            That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t give other reasons that might be right however.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Blah, blah, blah. Don’t you realize that just saying someone is wrong does not prove anything. I don’t have time now, but I am happy to go through your assertions about how the climate has changed before, and provide real evidence that you are talking ****. Well, maybe one or two of our points are more or less factual, but they do not apply to the present.

          • yetanotherbob

            I see errors on both sides of this thread. You and OWilson are not really that different. You both have what are essentially emotional attachments with a selection of facts and “facts”. Both sides are convinced that they are in the right.

            Unfortunately, it takes the application of mathematics and comparison with real world data to actually correct anything.

            This forum doesn’t lend itself to that, so we are left with a war of opinion that often degrades into attacks on the people who are perceived as representing the “Evil Side”.

            Many of my comments here are rather on the long side, as I like to give actual reasons, not just sound bite responses. Most posters here are content to respond with their own sound bite responses. That is something that you appear to resent, even as you do the same thing yourself.

            You are not unique in that regard.

            Ultimately, I don’t believe that forums such as this will really settle anything.

            CO2 most likely makes itself only a minor player in overall warming, but it is as the Author

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Oh, that’s another, highly leveraged phrase.
            This time, it’s different!
            Toss out all the paleohistory, this time it is different.
            We’re warming at a rate not seen for ten thousand years!
            Yeah, but we have had a rate of warming, bigger than the present warm period, just a little past 10,000 years ago. That’s why the alarmists stop at 10,000.
            CO2 hasn’t been this high for 800,000 years!
            Yeah, but CO2 has never been this LOW, as it has in the past 1M year, compared to the last 450,000,000 years https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f92b39eef128f6d40eeaa1154801522f0a2225a8985a14016b2cddc7d6030c52.jpg

          • Jammy Dodger

            For a start the Marcott graph goes back over 11000 years and the Shakun graph goes back 20000 years or so. The reason they only go back that far is because that is the data they have. Nothing to do with there being a warmer period at just after 10000 years ago. If you can just point out where it was warmer >10000 years ago.

            So, what you are saying does not make a lot of sense.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e17ad5851101a19306ce6c845e357fad89425ba6c9f13c6df510d9a60086d6d.jpg

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝…Marcott graph goes back over 11000 … Shakun graph goes back 20000 years or so. …that is the data they have. … If you can just point out where it was warmer >10000 years ago.❞

            You’re injecting plots of temperature, into discussions about the rate of change of temperature.

            Warmer? MIS5, MIS3. for example.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Why not? I am just pointing out that the data for >10000 years is freely accessible despite your “alarmist” jibe.

            You are taking temperature records that only cover part of the globe and trying to extrapolate them to global temperature. That is not a valid approach.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            What is “Global temperature” but a collection of regional temperatures, averaged? You cannot have any spot on the globe, NOT affect global temperature.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Er, exactly. The key word there is “averaged”.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            The discussion you butted into was about rate, not about temperature, but, even that is “averaged” … It was noted but he IPCC about a rate of change of 2°C per decade, affecting a large portion of the Northern Hemisphere. Even if the Southern Hemisphere stood still (in terms of temperature change, which it did not, BTW), this event would still significantly nudge the average for the whole planet. The science is not clear as to what proportion constitutes “a large portion” … let’s figure on ⅓. That would mean, when including the Southern Hemisphere with a zero change, and the non-affected regions of the Northern Hemisphere, also standing still, that would dilute, by averaging, the 2°C/decade down to 0.33 °C/decade, more than twice that of the last 50 years of “unprecedented” warming (0.17 °C/decade). That’s why the alarmists cry is about the most rapid rate of change of global temperature, not seen for more than 10,000 years!!! Just a little bit further back in time, are these events, more than 10,000 years back, but less than 20,000 years back, that are significantly larger. Naturally. Recall, though, these events were felt in the Southern Hemisphere, and all over the Norther Hemisphere, but the documented rate of change of 2°C per decade (maintained for about 50 years!) was Greenland … there’s just no way that did NOT affect the rest of the Northen Hemsiperhe … it is just that we don’t have quantification of that rate.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “… this event would still significantly nudge the average for the whole planet.”

            Er, why? You make these assertions with no suggestion of a mechanism.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            …(face palm)! The IPCC acknowledged that the rate-of-change, in this warming event, reached about 2℃ per decade, sustained for about 50 years, and it affected a significant portion of the Northern Hemisphere. Without quantification from the IPCC, I assigned that “significant portion” to be ⅓ of the Northern Hemisphere … which, obviously, 1⁄6 of the entire planet … well, any planet that is limited to two hemispheres, of course.
            The global average is affected by each and every point on the face of the planet. You cannot have one region undergo a severe transient, and not have the global average left unaffected. It is simple math.
            While I allowed for other regions, such as the entire Southern Hemisphere, and 2⁄3rds of the Northern Hemisphere, to “hold still” (in temperature) while the purported ⅓ of the Northern Hemisphere underwent a massive 2℃ per decade transient … simple mathematics shows the global average temperature rate of change would be (⅓)÷2=1⁄6th … meaning, the rate-of-change (call it “R”) of the globe, when just 1⁄6th participates, and 5⁄6ths does not, would be the rate-of-change of that 1⁄6 (call it “r” or 2℃ per decade)
            r×1⁄6 = R or 2×1⁄6 = 2⁄6 = ⅓ = 0.33℃ per decade
            Furthermore, while I cannot say what the rate of change for the other regions of the Northern Hemisphere will be, they cannot be zero. Winds and currents distribute heat, at the very least, throughout the individual hemispheres, over the span of 50 years!

          • Jammy Dodger

            Facepalm? No, that is not how facepalm works. Not even a virtual one. You are supposed to end the conversation after a facepalm, not rabbit on for several minutes.

          • frflyer

            It took 11,000 years to warm by about 5C at the end of the last ice age, peaking about 9,000 years ago, at temps similar to today.
            So that’s an average of about 2,200 years for each 1C of warming.

            We have warmed the planet by just about 1C in 137 years – 16 times faster

          • frflyer

            How we have done that

            WE are increasing atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature has done in At Least the last 450,000 years and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years or more,

            Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 80ppm since 1960. (56 years)

            How does that compare with naturally occurring changes over the past 450,000 years?

            Well from ice core data:

            450,000 years ago, it was at ~200ppm and it took ~50,000 years to go to ~ 280ppm. (80ppm increase)

            It was at ~190ppm 350,000 years ago and it took 25,000 years to go up to 300ppm. (110ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 260,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~300ppm. (120ppm increase)

            It was at ~200ppm 220,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~260ppm. (60ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 140,000 years ago and it took 15,000 years to go up to ~290ppm. (90ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 25,000 years ago and it took 24,800 years to go up to ~280ppm. (100ppm increase)
            ————————————-
            But if you are a denier, you somehow can’t fathom how human emissions of CO2 are warming the planet.

            ———

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Like the “paleo”diet, what happened 10,000 years ago has vey little relevance to what is happening now. One might just as well say that Granny used a chamber pot so modern toilets are bad. (I happen to think they are but that is another story). Or you could say that Iron Age technology was the best, so let’s forget about what we have now. (Again, except for my little MAcBook, I rather think that Iron Age technology was about as much as we needed).

          • Damn Nitpicker

            The relevance of paleohistory is quite applicable, because the planet has natural cycles far longer than our modern instrumental age; far longer than our written “history” … what is “unprecedented” in our experience is myopic, even moot in the light of paleohistory … even if we restrict ourselves to recent paleohisotry. For example, much is made of methane clathrates, methane hydrates, because they are entombed in ice … the alarmists’ lack of understanding, or total ignorance of paleohistory, brings unnecessary attention to this ice-tomb, melting.
            A simple check on the age of this methane clathrate, shows it to be older than documented warm periods, such as MIS3, and MIS5. So, when the Earf was warmer (a lot warmer than now) for a million years or more, this methane clathrate stayed frozen. It is quite likely to stay frozen now, seeing as back then it was much MUCH warmer, for a million years or more, and the clathrates did not erupt. Ignorance, probably deliberate, of the alarmist crowd, allows them to use methane clathrates, and their misperceived “impending doom” to scare the public into submission.

            Froese 2008: ”… We report the presence of relict ground ice in subarctic Canada that is greater than 700,000 years old, with the implication that ground ice in this area has survived past interglaciations that were warmer and of longer duration than the present interglaciation.”

            “The relict ice wedge overlain by the Gold Run tephra [accuratly dated volcanic ash] represents the oldest ice known in North America … includes several glacial- interglacial cycles, including marine isotope stages 5e and 11, both considered to be longer and warmer than the present interglaciation (6).

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Yes, the planet has natural cycles. The point is that they DO take longer than our written history. They don’t happen in 50 years.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ENSO toggles between El Niño and La Niña about every 3 to 5 years. The Pacific Centennial Oscillation (Sloan Coats 2015) takes … well, a lot longer. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fecd03e19240d7de3a8eb6b022e6f8018dd11a46e381d098997332656031a8e2.jpg

            Here’s an example of sea-surface temperature changes, occurring cyclically, on about that 50 year period you mention.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da833b0d05fd8f787f1a020bf1fdc290c7642e598a62d78c4ee8fa460d1174a9.jpg

            The AMOC (Atlantic Meriodional Overturning Circulation) subducts water, and keeps it hidden at tremendous depths for 600 years, perhaps even twice that..

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I don”t dispute any of that, but what does it prove?

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝Yes, the planet has natural cycles. The point is that they DO take longer than our written history. They don’t happen in 50 years.❞

            It proves you wrong. I illustrate a 50 year cycle, and the ENSO is much shorter, and the PCO is much longer.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I’m so sorry! I missed the part where you illustrated a 50 year cycle of global warming.

            Sure, the ENSO is much shorter, but it is also transient and variable. Not a major contributor to the overall trend of global warming.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Please justify your exposed opinion about the ENSO not being a major contributor to the overall trend of global warming. …with proper bibliographic citations
            Author et al. year published “Title of evidence paper” Journal’s name
            … or a sentence or two, as a quotation, prefaced by the author’s name.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            My “exposed position”. Now what would that be, I wonder?

            I do not need to justify the prevailing view that the ENSO is not a not a major contributor to the overall trend of global warming. You need to show that it is not.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Please justify your espoused position regarding ENSO. We’re all not going to take what you say as gospel. If you just wish to opine, well, you’re done.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            My espoused position is that ENSO or El Niño can cause significant weather variations, but does not have an impact on long-term climate trends.

            I am not alone in this view.

          • Jammy Dodger

            He appears to be proposing that ENSO is a forcing on the climate temperature. Where would that energy come from? Yes, he does need to show a mechanism of how that could happen. And why it has changed.

          • frflyer

            ENSO cycle is energy being moved around within the system.

            Changes in Earth’s energy balance is what causes global warming, not El Nino cycles.

            More energy from the Sun (not happening)
            More energy from the Sun being retained on Earth (Bingo)

            El Nino shows no trend, while there is a strong warming trend.

            https://skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

            —————-

            Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

            https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

          • RealOldOne2

            “More energy from the Sun (not happening)”
            Wrong. More energy from the Sun is entering the earth’s climate system and reaching the surface of the earth, as confirmed in the following peer reviewed science:

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

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

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

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

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

          • Jammy Dodger

            Have you heard of the physics of Conservation of Energy Nitpicker? Oh no, I remember now – is it you who does not have a grasp of basic physics or someone else?

            The question you need to answer is where would the energy come from for ENSO to be a contributor to the trend of global warming?

          • frflyer

            from Skeptical Science

            “Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles”

            “A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming – except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.”
            ..
            “Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires “external” forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.”

            “A natural cycle that fits all these fingerprints is nearly unfathomable. However, that’s not all the cycle would have to explain. It would also have to tell us why anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not having an effect. Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet.”

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

          • frflyer

            Observed fingerprints of enhanced greenhouse effect warming, just as the science predicted.

            *polar amplification
            *nights warming more than days
            *winters warming more than summers
            *warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere

            Those fingerprints are all things that the science predicted and that are now being observed
            If the Sun was causing the warming, days would warm faster than nights. Summers would warm faster than winters. The tropics would warm more than the poles. And both layers of the atmosphere would be warming.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            “Polar amplification” seems to have been renamed “Arctic amplification” … Antarctica hasn’t been cooperating.
            Stenni 2016: ” … (1) Temperatures over the Antarctic continent show an overall cooling trend during the period from 0 to 1900CE, which appears strongest in West Antarctica, and (2) no continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century.”
            Turner 2016: ”… a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming [on the Antarctic Peninsula] since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, , with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. …”

            So, where is all the POLAR amplification? …but, IS there “Arctic amplification”??

            van Wijngaarden 2015: ”The temperature change experienced by the Arctic stations during the last two centuries closely tracks that found for the European stations.”

            Arctic and European data very closely follow each other. The average temperature difference between the two curves is 0.0 °C. It is particularly striking that the decadal fluctuations evident in the two curves are closely synchronized.”

            The Arctic has warmed at the same rate as Europe over the past two centuries. Heretofore, it has been supposed that any global warming would be amplified in the Arctic.”

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝ nights warming more than days… winters warming more than summers… ❞

            The exact signature of the Urban Heat Island Effect, (UHI).

            ❝ warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere ❞

            Well, warming is the basic problem. There’s plenty of evidence that it is warmer, out there.
            Mitchell 1989: ”An important point to note is that the surface and troposphere are strongly coupled: if the troposphere warms, the surface must warm also and vice versa.”

            So, tropospheric warming is expected, with surface warming. But, this stratospheric cooling?
            Santer 2013: ”Multidecadal tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric cooling are the main features of this fingerprint.” But, as far as “cooling of the stratosphere” is concerned…

            Ferraro, Collins & Lambert 2015: ”Ozone depletion is responsible for most of the cooling since the 1970s.” Apparently, not CO2. Therefore, the purported “human signature” effect of stratospheric cooling is not from Mannkind’s CO2. Not at all. Clearly stated, ”… future large increases in CO2 concentrations could produce a substantial cooling effect.”

            Ramaswamy 2006: ”The global lower stratosphere—the region of the atmosphere from ~12 to 22 km above the surface—has cooled substantially over the past two decades (1–5). The difference in temperature between 2000 and 1979 has been ascribed mainly to ozone depletion and [not so mainly, ] increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases (4, 6–10).”
            Atmospheric CO2 has continued its seemingly inexorable climb, unabated … so why has the stratospheric cooling … abated, slowed, or even stopped?
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/21f36ec7527b13f58cb8b23d5827201c1a882cd91659b8f8d58b357932975d98.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/04b242651582f20abc7055d5de689ab5254a621e1bbd32ef21cb9cd66121097b.jpg

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Wow, what a warped sense of ‘knowledge’ you have. Earf is not that simple. As pointed out in an earlier post, Polar amplification is a bust; Antarctica is cooling, much of Europe is warming at the same rate as the Arctic. Sure, the physics says “polar amplification” … the real world, not so much. The Urban Heat island effect causes nights more than days, winters more than summers.
            But, the stratosphere differential is caused more by changes in ozone, than GHG. Little known and even less understood, are the variations of the sun in the shorter wavelengths, the extreme ultraviolet, soft and hard X-rays, and gamma rays. This extreme-short radiation is dissipated mostly in the upper atmosphere, At certain wavelengths, ozone is created, at other wavelengths, ozone is destroyed. None of these short-wavelengths are tallied in the TSI measurement.

            So, your SKS “fingerprints of Mannkind” are smudges. Certainly, Mannkind has increased the atmospheric content of CO2, but, you’ll get no ‘conviction’ based upon those smudged ‘fingerprints’.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Here’s the deal. I won’t send you to WattsUpwith that, and you don’t attempt to send me to SkS. If there is science to express, do so in the format of actual quotations from papers, or, if it is your own words, include a citation in the form of
            Author et al. year published “Title of evidence paper” Journal’s name

            “Forcing” is a mental crutch … it is a way of apportioning the net flux into “feedback” and “forcing” … artificial constructs. About 340W/㎡ hits the planet; about 100W/㎡ gets reflected, and about 240W/㎡ gets absorbed and re-radiated; about 240W/㎡ escapes. Those are the real fluxes (approximately … there is contention that ½W/㎡ is retained and not radiated).

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝ “A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming – except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.” ❞

            This is a logical fallacy, the appeal to ignorance. Richard Alley said it much more honestly. 2009: Richard Alley, 08:52 ”…if you put it [anthropogenic CO2] in models, it is sufficient to explain what happened …so far, we can’t find anything else that is… We don’t have, sort of, pound on the table, this [anthropogenic CO2] is nailed, we’re done on this one, yet …”

            Argumentum ad Ignoranti, “we can’t find anything else”. Adding CO2 to the models, generally makes the models’ trace of temperature, more like the historical observations, but, the models don’t really show “warming” coming from “heat trapping” at all. The models actually show warming, but, it comes from slightly more absorbed sunlight, not from infrared ‘heat trapping’. The concept of y’alls “global warming” from ‘heat trapping’ is infrared emissions from the surface that get absorbed, resulting in lower escaping infrared to space. The models actually show an increase in escaping infrared, but the warming comes from more absorbed solar radiation (ASR).

            Alley, in his 2009 video, powerpoint: “• Search for additional answers is ongoing, but so far, CO2 is the only hypothesis that succeeds in explaining events.”

            At 23:44 “…once again, there’s a warmth here, a warmth that is attributed to CO2, we can’t figure out how else to get it…” Not exactly convinced, here, is he?

            ”If you put high CO2 in the models, you sort of match what happened, except the world seems little bit too warm at the Poles. If you leave the CO2 out of the models, you don’t get very close.”

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝”A natural cycle that fits all these fingerprints is nearly unfathomable.“❞

            That’s a logical fallacy … Argument from Incredulity. So, where are we? Tropospheric warming … well, that’s what we have.
            Stratospheric cooling … Mostly caused by ozone problems, not CO2 … and besides, Stratospheric cooling stopped.
            Polar amplification is a bust … Antarctica is cooling, and much of Europe is warming just as fast as the Arctic … Nights warming faster than days … and winters warming faster than summers … the Urban Heat Island effect causes both of those. So, why does CO2 not work, when we have all this basic physics? Well, the answer is, complicated physics. ”To illustrate what this complexity means for the current “simple physics” paradigm, consider a similar “simple physics” problem in heat transfer.
            Suppose we take a block of aluminum six feet long and put one end of it into a bucket of hot water. We attach a thermometer to the other end, keep the water hot, and watch what happens. Fairly soon, the temperature at the other end of the block starts to rise. It’s a one-dimensional problem, ruled by simple physics.”

            ”To verify our results, we try it again, but this time with a block of iron. Once again the temperature soon rises at the other end, just a bit more slowly than the aluminum. … This is clearly simple physics in each case. As a final test, I look around for something else that is six feet long to use in the investigation. Finding nothing, I have an inspiration. I sit down, put my feet in the hot water, put the thermometer in my mouth and wait for the temperature of my head to start rising. After all, heat transmission is simple physics, isn’t it? So I just sit with my feet in the hot water and wait for the temperature of my head to rise.” ”And wait.” ”And wait …”

            ”The moral of the story is that in dealing with complex systems such as the climate or the human body, the simplistic application of one-dimensional analyses or the adoption of a simple paradigm based on simple physics often gives results that have no resemblance to real world outcomes.”

            Eschenbach, Willis 2010. “The thunderstorm thermostat hypothesis: How clouds and thunderstorms control the Earth’s temperature.” Energy & Environment

          • Jammy Dodger

            He is just posting stuff at random to try and pretend there really is a debate. Just distraction and smoke and mirrors. Or is he copying and pasting stuff to look informed?

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I know. He’s a moron, but he’s a dangerous moron. A little like our president.

          • frflyer

            “In the early 1970’s that was a cooling trend, which caused many early climate students and scientists to forecast a coming Ice Age.”

            That is False
            It was a minority hypothesis, popularized by a Newsweek article.

            Meanwhile, 6 times as many research papers were focused on anthropogenic global warming, during the same time frame.

            And it was Not about the Sun. It was about the cooling effect of sulfur dioxide aerosols, emitted when fossil fuels are burned. They reflect sunlight back into space.

            from Skeptical Science
            “In reality, a survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 showed that fewer than 10% papers predicted global cooling, while significantly more papers (62%) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008”

            Perhaps the most famous such paper was Rasool and Schneider (1971): (cooling paper)

            “their global cooling projection was based on a quadrupling of atmospheric aerosol concentration (This wasn’t an entirely unrealistic scenario at the time).”

            (pollution controls subsequently greatly reduced human emissions of sulfur dioxide aerosols, because they cause acid rain and smog)

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1896

          • frflyer

            “However, the predictions given have all been wrong.”

            Completely False.

            Climate models have been surprisingly accurate, if you don’t cherry pick the worst case scenario projection from the Range of Projections they make. That cherry picking is how deniers make their false claims.
            —-
            you said

            “1.5 Billion Years Ago (BYA) to about 0.75 BYA, or 750 Million years ago. during that time, the entire earth froze over”

            Actually The Ordovician spans 41.2 million years from the end of the Cambrian Period 485.4 million years ago (Mya) to the start of the Silurian Period 443.8 Mya.

            And it does not mean what you think it means. It was a completely different world.
            Continents were not where they now are.
            The Sun was weaker.

            from Skeptical Science

            ” “What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2 levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.”

            “Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn’t occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.”

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


            from Wikipedia

            At the beginning of the period, around 485.4 million years ago, the climate was very hot due to high concentration of CO2 (4200 ppm) in the atmosphere, which gave a strong greenhouse effect. By contrast, today the concentration is just above 400 ppm. Marine water temperatures are assumed to have averaged 45 °C (113 °F), which restricted the diversification of complex multi-cellular organisms. But over time, the climate became cooler, and around 460 million years ago, the ocean temperatures became comparable to those of present-day equatorial waters.[20]

          • frflyer

            you said “This is after all a new science.”

            No it is not.

            “Two Centuries of Climate Science: Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930” Part 1 of 3
            by John Mason

            excerpt
            “…towards the end of the 19th Century by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales. Arrhenius figured out that an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in a certain amount of warming. In addition, it was already known via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, that warmer air can hold more water vapour: the amount is about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. And that additional water vapour would in turn cause further warming – this being a positive feedback, in which carbon dioxide acts as a direct regulator of temperature, and is then joined in that role by more water vapour as temperatures increase.”

            [from comment by Chris G]
            “It strikes me as supreme hubris when I come across those who doubt that more CO2 will lead to more energy retention; it’s as though they think they know something that 200 years of hashing out the details of how this works has not already discovered. It’s not impossible, but you’d better bring the goods, and no one I’ve ever come across has.”

            {read at Skeptical Science}

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-1.html


            Climate scientists do NOT say there has been a meter of sea level rise. They say 8 inches in since 1900.


            16 of the 17 warmest years since 1880 happened in the last 17 years. You actually believe the absurd idea that warming stopped after 1998??

            Every year since 2001 has been warmer than any year in the 20th century, with the one exception of 1998 – with its very strong El Nino to help the warming.

          • frflyer

            You might also want to read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart.
            you can read it online- free.
            —–
            Arrhenius was researching whether human emissions of CO2, from burning fossil fuels could warm the planet – over 100 years ago!!

            And his estimate for climate sensitivity (actually his second estimate) , – (how much warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere) – was very close to today’s estimates of about 3 C. If I remember right, it was about 2.5C
            —-
            ” Mr. Gore’s famous movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which gave a time of 2010 for all of it’s predictions”

            That is also FALSE
            ——–
            you said
            “Nonsense like sea level rising twenty feet in New York while dropping twenty feet in Boston don’t help matters. Don’t these people know anything about hydrostatic equilibrium?

            Rising twenty feet in New York and dropping 40 feet in Boston?????????????

            That is Absurdly False. No climate scientist Ever said anything like that. And sea level is not the same everywhere. That my friend is what is called a Fact.
            —-
            I am not an engineer, just a very well informed layman, and I know that you do not know diddly squat about the subject..

            In fact since what you believe is false, you know less than nothing

            u

          • RealOldOne2
          • Damn Nitpicker

            What could be a better way to shut down discussion? Just post a “list” of the ten biggest reasons why “Climate Change” is nothing to worry about … and declare them to be debunked. Then the zombie believers can cut and paste, elsewhere.

            Antarctica is gaining ice, and has been cooling off for the entire time of the alarmism over “Global Warmring” … so much so, that the concept of “Polar Amplification” had to be changed to “Arctic Amplification” … What will they change it to, when they figure out that lots of Europe has been warming at the same rate as the Arctic (meaning, there is no Arctic Amplification, unless the Arctic includes sections of Europe).

            Ah, but the worst item is the “Models are unreliable” myth. The models are far worse than “unreliable” … and the scientists document why.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Huh? What are you trying to say?

          • Mike Richardson

            He’s trying to troll everybody, from all sides. Best to just ignore him.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            If ignoring problems made them go away, I would. But he is such a creep/pest/danger to humanity that I feel the need to continue challenging his garbage.

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s certainly your prerogative, Elizabeth, but I ‘d consider this one a mildly annoying pest at worst. The fact that he initially picked arguments with nik, then yetanotherbob, you, and me, indicates he’s less of an ideologue, and more of an attention seeking compulsive contrarian. The real ideologues are no longer with us, and I doubt this one has their staying power when he’s denied attention. But if you feel compelled to counter his every argument, I wish you the best of luck.

          • RealOldOne2

            “There are ten myths that climate change deniers spout:…”
            They aren’t myths, they are reaities.

            “Climate’s changed before” – Fact, not myth.

            “It’s the sun”– Fact, because the increase in solar forcing at the surface during the late 20th century warming was ~10 times greater than the alleged CO2 forcing.

            “It’s not bad” – Fact, shown by the positive benefits of global greening & almost doubling of food crop yields, and no net negative effects.

            “There is no consensus” – Consensus is meaningless in science. Empirical data determines whether a hypothesis is true or not.

            “It’s cooling”– Fact, it has been cooling since the Holocene Optimum several thousand years ago. The present natural warming is just a temporary period during that cooling.

            “Models are unreliable” – Fact, because 95% of them predict too much warming and they can’t project global temperature at even the 2% confidence level.

            “Temp record is unreliable” – Fact, because prior to the UAH satellite data, the land based data set changed stations over time, had bogus adjustments, and was not globally representative.

            “Animals and plants can adapt” – Fact, proven by the entire history of the planet.

            “It hasn’t warmed since 1998” – Was a fact until the natural warming of the 2015-2016 El Nino, which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

            “Antarctica is gaining ice” – Fact

            “Ice Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003-2008) show mass gains from snow gains exceeding discharge losses by 82 ± 25Gt a⁻¹, reducing global sea level rise by 0.23 mm a⁻¹. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data 1992-2001 give a similar gain of 112 61Gt a⁻¹.” – Zwally(2015) ‘Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses’

            It’s quite clear that you are just repeating climate alarmist myths.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Nice try. Should we go through these one by one?

            Yes, the climate has changed before, but never as rapidly as in the past two hundred years. Previous changes have been on a geologic time scale, and no one has been able to explain how previous changes are at work today.

            Likewise, no one has been able to explain in what way the sun has changed in the last 200 years. You may remember there was a time when people “believed” that the sun revolved around the earth.

            What has been shown is that in some areas (notably those with plenty of water) plants have produced more leaves, leading to a greening effect. That is, it looks greener. There has not been a noticeably increase in the number of plants, and absolutely no evidence that crop yields have almost doubled.

            Read up a little on what consensus means. This comes from a recent post I read, probably on another site: Consensus is when everyone has been heard and no “concerns” remain. Everything you post as proof of something or another has been heard – and rejected.

            Technically you are right. We should be in a long-term cooling phase, but that is not happening.

            Models become increasingly reliable as the measurement grid becomes more dense. Again look it up. Models are compared against the past to predict how accurate they will be in the future. Long term predictions are more accurate than near term. And sometimes – thank god – the models turn out to be wrong because people have taken steps to make sure they are wrong.

            You will need to be a bit more specific about “bogus adjustments” and not globally representative. I have no idea what you are talking about.

            Animals and plants DO adapt. But they do so over time. A really long time.

            The so-called hiatus has been shown to be false over and over again. The only thing that is remotely true is the the RATE of warming stalled. But an even, or possibly slightly declining rate, still mens that the temperatures are higher at the end than they were at the beginning.

            It is not a “fact” that Antarctica is gaining ice. Some studies have shown an increase in sea ice, others have shown a decrease. Some have shown an increase in land ice, some have shown the opposite. The prevailing view is that is it losing ice: https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

          • RealOldOne2

            Not even a nice try, but a total bust. Once again you’ve totally failed to refute any of the science that I’ve posted which shows that global warming is still natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

            “but never as rapidly as in the past two hundred years”
            False. There have been many previous warmings with higher rates of warming and higher magnitude of warming than the most recent natural warming of the last century. Here they are:

            – 250 yrs BP 106yr natural warming of >1.5C/century
            – 400 yrs BP 103yr natural warming of >1.5C/century
            – 1600 yrs BP 119yr natural warming of >1.25C/century
            – 2585 yrs BP 84yr natural warming of 2.0C/century
            – 2760 yrs BP 90yr natural warming of 2.2C/century
            – 2980 yrs BP 133yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 3511 yrs BP 89yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 4880 yrs BP 94yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 6385 yrs BP 98yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 8226 yrs BP 91yr natural warming of 3.2C/century
            – 10.3K yrs BP 97yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 74.7K yrs BP 167yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 78.4K yrs BP 160yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 80.2K yrs BP 153yr natural warming of 1.8C/century
            – 82.4K yrs BP 139yr natural warming of 1.7C/century
            – 90.1K yrs BP 155yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 102K yrs BP 65yr natural warming of 1.4C/century
            – 127K yrs BP 102yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 129K yrs BP 162yr natural warming was 1.9C/century
            Sources: Mulvaney(2012) and this report

            “and no one has been able to explain how previous changes are at work today”
            False. I explained it, and as the old saying goes “It’s the Sun stupid”, more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface, just like the empirical data from peer reviewed science shows.

            “no one has been able to explain in what way the sun has changed in the past 200 years”
            False. Solar activity/TSI has increased over the past 4 centuries since the LIA: http://www.climate4you.com/images/SolarIrradianceReconstructedSince1610%20LeanUntil2000%20From2001dataFromPMOD.gif

            “plants have produced more leaves … it looks greener”
            It IS greener, as the satellites have shown, and peer reviewed science says that 70% of the greening is due to the increased CO2, fertilization effect:

            “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Says – “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. … Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. … Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.” – NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

            “And absolutely no evidence that crop yields have almost doubled”
            False. Here’s the empirical data of the change in crop yields over the last half of the 20th century: Maize(corn):Up 139%
            Wheat: Up 134%
            Rice: Up 104%
            Barley: Up 83%
            Rye/Oats: Up 69%
            Millet/Sorghum: Up 57%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/219.gif

            Oil palm fruits: Up 290%
            Rapeseed: Up 164%
            Cottonseed: Up 104%
            Soybeans: Up 100%
            Lindseed: Up 77%
            Sunflower seed: Up 60%
            Olives: Up 60%
            Groundnuts: Up 48%
            Sesame seed: Up 20%
            Coconuts: Down 6%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/229.gif

            Drybeans: Up 44%
            Drypeas: Up 126%
            Dry broadbeans: Up 87%
            Chickpeas: Up 30%
            Lentils: Up 46%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/239.gif

            Potatoes: Up 42%
            Sweet potatoes: Up 83%
            Cassava: Up 181%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/249.gif

            Sugarcane: Up 37%
            Sugarbeets: Up 52%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/259.gif

            Cabbages: Up 57%
            Greenbeans: Up 38%
            Greenpeas: Up 75%
            Onions: Up 73%
            Tomatoes: Up 106%
            Melons: Up 47%
            Watermelons: Up 132%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/269.gif

            Peaches: Down 10%
            Citrus fruit: Up 30%
            Apples: Down 3%
            Pineapples: Up 83%
            Pears: Up 7%
            Bananas + Plantains: Up 24%
            Grapes: Up 76%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/279.gif

            Coffee: Up 114%
            Cocoa beans: Up 233%
            Tea: Up 236%
            http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/img/chartroom/289.gif

            More CO2 = GOOD!
            More warming = GOOD!
            Cold kills.

            “Consensus is when everyone has been heard and no “concerns” remain.”
            Thanks for confirming that there is NO consensus, because the concerns of these 31,000+ degreed people’s concerns remain and the empirical data shows that their concerns have been confirmed that:

            “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” – http://www.petitionproject.org/

            “Everything you post as proof of something or other has been heard – and rejected.”
            False. None of the science that I have posted has been refuted and shown to be wrong. You are telling another whopper.

            “Technically you are right.”
            That’s all that counts. Thanks for admitting it.

            “Models become increasingly reliable”
            False. As time has gone on, the model projections have gone further and further from what actual temperature has done, confirming that the models can not project future global temperatures, just as vonStorch(2013) states: “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.”

            “Long term predictions are more accurate than near term.”
            False. As time goes on, the model projections have deviated further and further from what the real world temperatures have done. And climate alarmists claim that there is increased confidence and increased likelihood the models are correct. That’s pure denial of reality and pseudoscience: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdc0b3fda4542710fd076bf4d4c13c25bed9b25c6c458277a0d325c1a28c9229.png

            “you will need to be a bit more specific about “bogus adjustments”

            Here you go: The land-based datasets have backwards adjustments for UHI.
            For example take Providence, Rhode Island. Official temperature station data goes back to the 1800s. There has been significant UHI over the last 120 years. In 2010 NASA documented a UHI effect of 12.2C (22F), http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html .

            The “adjustment” for 1900 cooled the past by over4°F.

            The “raw” USHCN annual mean temp for 1900 was 52.7°F. The “adjusted” USHCN annual mean temp for 1900 was 48.4°F.

            So they “adjusted” the annual mean temperature 4.3°F. The Tmean raw for 1900-2013 shows a trend of 1.7°F/century.

            The Tmean adjusted for 1900-2013 shows a trend of 4.4°F/century. This is typical of the fraudulent “adjustments” that have been made which have essentially rendered the land-based temperature record unfit for scientific use.

            The Providence data source is: https://web.archive.org/web/20170517121712/http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_monthly.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=376698&_DEBUG=0_DEBUG=0#write_somevars_clim_mon_yr

            So do we find a 12°C(22°F) adjustment for that known UHI bias and error in the historical Providence, RI land based datasets? No, we don’t, we find a backwards adjustment of 4.3°F. So the data ‘adjusters’ actually make an Urban Cooling Effect adjustment. UCI, pure rubbish pseudoscience.

            To further compound this, there have been multiple Providence station moves, each of introduces excessive temperature trend increase. Zhang(2014) ‘Effect of data homogenization on estimate of temperature trend:…’ , https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-013-0894-0/fulltext.html , explains how these moves “lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature” when the sites are moved from urbanized areas to surrounding suburbs. The suburban area is cooler than the urbanized area, and when the sites are “homogenized”, a warming bias is introduced as shown in Fig.6 from the paper: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c0a089796eced1cd39dfaca3223b7935f72893609f6631169247564c13b3907a.png

            “The so-called hiatus has been shown to be false over and over again”
            False. The global warming pause/hiatus was accepted science and admitted in peer reviewed papers until the pause lengthened so long that it became embarrassing and evidence that the CO2 alarmism was false pseudoscience. That’s when the climate alarmists’ narrative changed and they began further adjusting the data to fit their failed CO2 hypothesis. When the real world data shows that a a hypothesis is wrong, real science adjusts the hypothesis to be in line with the empirical data. Your climate alarmist religion adjusts the data to fit the failed hypothesis. That is pseudoscience.

            Here are just a handful of the many, many peer reviewed papers that acknowledge the pause/hiatus of global warming was real. It only ended with the natural warming resulting from the 2015-2016 El Nino which was the release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.
            • “Issues related to the pause of global warming in the last decade are reviewed.” – Wang(2010), ‘Does the Global Warming Pause in the last decade: 1999-2008?
            • “Factors involved in the recent pause in the rise of global mean temperatures …” – Trenberth(2014), ‘Seasonal aspects in the recent pause in surface warming’
            • “A pause in global warming since 2000 – a global warming “hiatus” – has opened up new questions about natural and human driven (anthropogenic) effects on global mean trends in surface temperature.” – Clement(2014) ‘The Tropical Pacific Ocean – Back in the Drivers Seat?’
            • “Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000-2010 period.” – Guemas(2013)
            • “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. vonStorch(2013) 2012-2015 adds 3 more years to make 18.
            • “The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has not risen over the past 15 years … Here we first show that many climate models overestimate the influence of El Nino – Southern Oscillation on GMST, thereby shedding doubt on their ability to capture the tropical Pacific contribution to the HIATUS … Yet the observed global warming is still overestimated not only over the recent 1998-2012 HIATUS period but also over former decades, thereby suggesting that the model may be too sensitive to the prescribed radiative forcing.” – Douville et al., (2015).
            • “Despite ongoing increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the Earth’s global average surface air temperature has remained more or less stable since 2001.” – England(2014) ‘Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus’
            • “After a rise of 0.5°C in the 25 years starting in the mid-1970s, the change in Earth’s global mean surface temperature has been close to zero since the turn of the century (Fig.1). This hiatus in global warming has occurred …” – Held(2013) ‘The cause of the pause’
            • “during the current hiatus period, the ST shows a strong fluctuation on the warming rate, with a large acceleration (0.0085°C year^-1 to 0.017°C year^-1) during 1992–2001 and a sharp deceleration (0.017°C year^-1 to 0.003°C year^-1) from 2002 onwards.” – Macias(2014)
            • “Despite the continued increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century¹,², challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming.” – Kosaka(2013) ‘Recent global warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific cooling’
            • “Global mean surface temperatures have not risen much over the past 15 years despite continuing greenhouse gas emissions.” – Curry(2014) ‘Climate science: Uncertain temperature trend’
            • “Surface global warming has stalled since around 2000 despite increasing atmospheric CO2. ” – Kosaka(2014) ‘Increasing wind sinks heat’
            • “The recent slowdown (or ‘pause’) in global surface temperature rise is a hot topic for climate scientists and the wider public.” – Hawkins(2014) ‘Pause for thought’
            • “Climate models projected stronger warming over the past 15 years than has been seen in observations. … Any divergence between real world climate phenomena and prior expectations poses interesting science questions. The apparent slow-down of warming since the record El Nino event of 1997/1998 is no exception.” – Schmidt(2014) ‘Reconciling warming trends’
            • “Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ~3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2, 3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded ⁴, ⁵, ⁶, ⁷, ⁸. It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming.” – Cazenave(2014) ‘The rate of sea-level rise’

            That’s irrefutable evidence that the pause/hiatus was real.

            “It is not a “fact” that Antarctica is gaining ice”
            Your denial of reality and swallowing the propaganda from a climate alarmist blog doesn’t change the fact from peer reviewed science:

            “Ice Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003-2008) show mass gains from snow gains exceeding discharge losses by 82 ± 25Gt a⁻¹, reducing global sea level rise by 0.23 mm a⁻¹. European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) data 1992-2001 give a similar gain of 112 61Gt a⁻¹.” – Zwally(2015) ‘Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses’

            So once again, you totally fail to refute any of the science which proves you wrong.

          • With Respect

            Wow. What a long diatribe to wade through.

            The fastest detected rate of change of climate prior to the Industrial Revolution, when humans began fossil waste dumping in a significant way, was some 15-200 times slower than the current change we see due human activity.

            That’s like the difference between a predator drone or a bullet and the speed limit in a school zone.

            One point you get so clearly wrong at the start of your post that the rest is moot.

            You are dumping fossil wastes without regard for consequence or cost. The Market has a way to deal with that: you pay for what you take from others. Fossil waste disposal is a service your neighbors’ lands and waters furnish you. When you start paying a Market rate for that service, then you can extol your pet theories.

          • nik

            ”The fastest detected rate of change ….etc.”
            You’re full of ……….well you know!

          • With Respect

            More mere ad hominem; a deadbeat will distance himself from his debts with any absurdity.

            Your neighbors’ lands and waters dispose of the fossil wastes you dump. You’re using up what isn’t yours. You should be paying your own way, not stealing from your neighbors.

          • OWilson

            I live simply on a third world tropical island, have no heat, have no vehicle, walk to everything, and eat only locally grown produce!

            My carbon footprint is zero.

            As a young man one of my hobbies was planting trees!

            And you, and Al Gore, Prince Charles, the Pope, Heinz-Kerry, the Hollywood crowd?

            Lol!

            Why does Bernie Sanders and his 22 State Attorneys want to “bring me to justice” if he is elected?

            My carbon footprint is zero.

            And, by the way, I have still to meet a “climate denier” if you ever find anybody who denies there is a climate, get back to us, ya hear? :)

            Then you could explain why I am a danger to “the continuation of humanity”

            That sound more like fascism and communism than environmentalism!

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Congratulations and felicitations on your lifestyle. I think I would enjoy something similar (with my laptop and internet access of course).

            With regard to Bernie Sanders wanting to bring YOU to justice, I think you are exaggerating your own importance just a tad. As for the other “you”, I am flattered (I suppose) to be included with Al Gore and the Hollywood crowd, but it is a preposterous assumption on your part.

            As for “deniers”, it is very clever to omit the word “change” so that you can rightly claim to have never met a climate denier. But that is not what you said before, and it is not what I said either.

            Why are you a danger to the continuation of humanity? Because you are actively promoting the idea that climate change is a hoax, thereby giving those who believe you the excuse to do nothing to reduce their environmental impact.

          • OWilson

            “With regard to Bernie Sanders wanting to bring YOU to justice, I think you are exaggerating your own importance just a tad”.

            Then:

            “I am a danger to the continuation of humanity? ”

            Twisted logic of a global warmer.

            You do not pass the Turing Test!

            Bye! :)

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            No twisted logic at all. Let me put both statements a bit more bluntly.

            I am quite certain that Bernie Sanders has never heard of OWilson (at least not the one living on a tropical island; he may well be familiar with the great biologist EO Wilson) and thus has zero interest in you.

            But you are a danger to the rest of us – not just humans, but the millions of other species on this planet that face extinction if global warming continues unabated. Humans are adaptable enough to probably survive, but it will be in greatly reduced numbers and at a completely different level of civilization.

            You are a danger because you take great pleasure in spreading misinformation and undermining serious efforts to prevent apocalyptic changes in life on earth.

          • With Respect

            Your Tu Quoque logical fallacies and obvious fibs notwithstanding, you are surely not in the clear morally.

            You have that island of yours, and all the oceans around it, that dispose of fossil carbon wastes, converting CO2e in the air back to mineral form by biosequestration and weathering, and yet you do not charge a fossil waste disposal fee, do not call on trespassers on your lands and waters to pay you a Market rate for what they take from you.

            However you zero your carbon footprint, you are flaunting your ownership responsibilities, your duty to collect pay from tenants for the fruits of your lands.

            Collect what you’re owed.

          • OWilson

            Fibs?

            You are wrong again! I will not have you folks insisting I do not live where I live,or live the lifestyle I have chosen, in my retirement!

            That is delusion, taken to a bizzare level, but all in a days work for you true believers! :)

            I do NOT “have that island, of yours, and all the oceans around it”.

            I share a small piece of this planet with likeminded folk!

            (Who don’t deny I actually live there! Lol)

            You’re done here, too!

            Adios!

          • With Respect

            Dude, you claimed to live on an island; now you claim to live in a cult commune compound? Make up your mind what lie you’re going to tell.

            I don’t care who has said what that hurts your feelings. I don’t care whether you say things for pay or merely ape those who say those things for pay. You’re just another specimen of deadbeat conduct, and the Deadbeat Hypothesis predicts your hostility and absurdities. The more you post, the more you show what a deadbeat is.

            And as you’ve posted enough, adios indeed, thanks to Disqus’ Block User feature.

          • OWilson

            Now I live in a cult commune?

            Wow!

            I take back my adioses!

            Please continue!

            What else is your great shaman in the sky telling you?

            This is finally getting interesting!

            Lol!

          • Kurt S

            Do you breath? Are you using an electronic device to transmit your opinion? Do you eat? Are you one of over 7 billion people on this planet? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then your carbon footprint is not zero. I would concede that you are lower than most.

            As for “climate denier”, you may not have personally met one, but you have definitely seen/heard them.

          • Mike Richardson

            It’s about the level of response I expected. He really doesn’t like it when you point out that his generalized insults and attacks on the integrity of climate researchers and journalists is in fact impugning the author of this article (and moderator of this blog). Obviously, he doesn’t want to admit this, since that might bring him into direct conflict with someone who might hold him accountable for those accusations. He’s quite prolific with hyperbolic rhetoric and ad hominem attacks, but not very proficient with facts to dispute the substance of these articles.

          • OWilson

            Just silly logic that has no place in an adult discussion!

            Figures you would defend it!

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Yes, you’ve amply demonstrated that you believe logic is silly, and has no place in your discussion. 😉

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Be nice.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            What you don’t get is that I am being nice. I am being nice to the vast majority of my fellow human beings, to the animals of this world, and to the natural world at large.

            Push me further and I will be very un-nice. Just ask Peter Olins. He has not said a word since I told him exactly what I thought of him. You could be next.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            What you think of me, is irrelevant. You post alarmist nonsense, and it should not go without correction.

          • https://www.facebook.com/A-Better-Way-1621863571424331/ Elizabeth Whitehouse

            I would certainly expect to be corrected if I post nonsense. Hasn’t happened yet.

          • frflyer

            What evidence? The massive body of evidence going back to 1859. The huge number of peer reviewed research papers,

            In the one year+ from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, –
            there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
            Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW – [That’s just over 1/100 of 1%]
            —–

            Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
            24 of them reject AGW.
            Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW – [That’s 1/10 of 1%]
            —–

            Cook et al looked at 12,280 papers published, of which 4,011 papers addressed the cause.

            * 3,933 papers endorsed AGW.
            * 78 rejected AGW – 1.9%

            98% of the authors of those 4,011 papers said they and their papers agree with AGW

            ———-

          • frflyer

            This Evidence that we have increased atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature ever did in the last 450,000 years,and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years or more.

            Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 80ppm since 1960. (56 years)

            How does that compare with naturally occurring changes over the past 450,000 years?

            from ice core data:

            450,000 years ago, it was at ~200ppm and it took ~50,000 years to go to ~ 280ppm. (80ppm increase)

            It was at ~190ppm 350,000 years ago and it took 25,000 years to go up to 300ppm. (110ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 260,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~300ppm. (120ppm increase)

            It was at ~200ppm 220,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~260ppm. (60ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 140,000 years ago and it took 15,000 years to go up to ~290ppm. (90ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 25,000 years ago and it took 24,800 years to go up to ~280ppm. (100ppm increase)
            ————————————-
            But if you are a denier, you somehow can’t fathom how human emissions of CO2 are warming the planet.

            ———

          • frflyer

            For the previous 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 was between 170ppm -300ppm.

            In 1880 it was 280ppm.
            In 137 years, WE have increased it to over 400ppm. – a 42% increase

            From my comment above, you can see that it took 20,000 years for nature to increase CO2 by 120ppm
            or 25,000 years increase it by 110ppm
            or 24,800 years to increase it by 100ppm

          • Damn Nitpicker

            That 800k year period, however, represents the absolute lowest atmospheric CO2 concentration of the planet, going back 450,000,000 years. At around 150 ppmv, all C3 pathway photosynthetic plants, die. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f92b39eef128f6d40eeaa1154801522f0a2225a8985a14016b2cddc7d6030c52.jpg

          • frflyer

            And it was a world almost nothing l like the ones humans thrive and evolved in. Pangea didn’t even break up until 175 million years ago.
            It was much hotter when dinosaurs walked the earth and it was also much hotter 55 million years ago at the PETM. The Sun was weaker all those millions of years ago, several percent weaker. Whereas the purported grand solar minimum projections that deniers go on about are a fraction of one percent.

            What is relevant is that humans are forcing the end of the wonderful Holocene, with its relatively stable climate, that allowed us to create agriculture and civilization.

          • RealOldOne2

            “For the previous 800,000 years, atmospheric CO2 was between 170ppm-300ppm”
            Peer reviewed science, Beck(2007) ‘180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods’, http://www.klimarealistene.com/web-content/09.03.08%20Klima,%20CO2%20analyseartikkel%20100-2000,%20EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf , documents hundreds of direct CO2 atmospheric higher than today’s values taken from 180 peer reviewed papers written between 1812 and 1961.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            The modern instrumental period, Keeling curve included, cannot be compared to an assemblage of indirect measurements, such as ice cores and proxies. The temporal errors in the modern instrumentation record can be measured in minutes; at most, a few hours. Ice core records increase in temporal error with depth, being off by a hundred years or so, not very far down. Many proxy records have a dating error, considerably larger. Even if the proxy was an absolutely true inerrant representation, the dating error would act as a “low-pass” filter, obscuring higher frequency deviations.

            The ice core records are a unique proxy, because of the continuous restriction on free exchange of air in the firn, with the well-mixed atmosphere, which acts to “average” the CO2 to a massive extent, thought to be “locked in” at a depth considered to be sufficient to encase the sample in a “bubble” of ice. No other proxy for atmospheric CO2 yields such a smooth, unperturbed line, as the ice cores do. This lack of replication, scientifically, is a sure sign of something wrong.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            150 years of incorrect conclusions brought to the forefront as if they were uncontested. Recognize the errors of your worshipped gods, Tyndall and Arrhenius. Svante did not know about the water vapour’s far infrared radiation … neither did John Tyndall. See, John used rock salt to cap his brass tubes, when he observed that CO2 was opaque to some bands of infrared radiation. He knew not to use glass, because Silicon dioxide glass is widely opaque to infrared. At least, rock salt has some penetration into the IR (but not enough). Arrhenius used data from Langley’s prism, which was made from rock salt. Rock salt is opaque from 20㎛ past 100㎛. Neither Tyndall nor Langley nor Arrhenius could “see” or “measure” wavelengths longer than 20㎛. However, the cooling of the middle and upper troposphere is primarily from the water vapour rotational band (15㎛-100㎛ far-infrared). [Liou 1981 An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, 4.8, pg 109] … This is important, flighty, … about half of the infrared radiation that successfully escapes into space from water vapour, is in this long wavelength band. That means Arrhenius blundered, in his attempts to “subtract” water vapour’s effects from the combined atmosphere “greenhouse effect” … which means, he got a grossly wrong answer for the effects of CO2. Around 46% of water vapour’s radiation is in this band of longer wavelengths … Those scientists missed that. Even Plass, in 1956, laments the missing, far-infrared data:

            Plass 1956: ”An accurate analysis of the effect of H,O on atmospheric radiation has not been made as yet because of the complexity of this spectrum and the difficulty of making experimental measurements beyond 20 microns. Considerable further work needs to be done on the effect of H2O. ”

            Without detailed knowledge of the measure of water vapour in the far infrared, nobody could determine any balance or imbalance of the planet energy budget.

          • Jammy Dodger

            There is such a thing called progress. That is how science and ideas develop and get improved and refined. The idea that there were 150 years worth of uncontested incorrect conclusions is just nonsense. First they were not incorrect, (though not as accurate as now). Secondly they were contested.

            Just because the instrumentation of the time was not as accurate or as comprehensive as today does not invalidate the work. Arrhenius did not “blunder”. He worked with what he had and it has been improved on and refined since. The theory and the mechanism are what is important. Not that he did not match the accuracy and sophistication of today’s technology and understanding.

            It is not they “could” not make an estimate of the planet’s energy budget. It just means they could not make as accurate an estimate as we can now with that detail now available.

            As you appear to have a rather incomplete knowledge of the history I recommend this article to you. It lays out the progression and advancement of the study of CO2 very well.

            https://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm

          • Damn Nitpicker

            When one comes up with the “correct” answer, but that answer cannot be supported by the data, the process was flawed. Arrhenius blundered; but he could not have known. Way back in 1938, Callendar observed that clouds compensate for warmth, keeping the earth in a reasonable balance… “On the earth the supply of water vapour is unlimited over the greater part of the surface, and the actual mean temperature results from a balance reached between the solar “constant” and the properties of water and air. Thus a change of water vapour, sky radiation and temperature is corrected by a change of cloudiness and atmospheric circulation, the former increasing the reflection loss and thus reducing the effective sun heat.”

            Callendar, Guy Stewart 1938. “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society

            Lamansky, like the rest of the scientific consensus at the time, figured that sunlight was mostly in the infrared, and that the atmosphere severely absorbed the infrared. It was commonplace knowledge that the sun would appear bluish, even lavender, if we could peek beyond the atmosphere. Becquerel, 1842, also got that wrong. Cauchy’s dispersion formula turned out to be wrong.

            Langley wrote, 1890, The Temperature of the Moon Memoir of the National Academy of Sciences but Langley 1890 had errors. Langley corrected the errors by publishing Langley & Abbot 1900, Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution, but Arrhenius published his work
            Arrhenius 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Jounal of Science
            during the interim.
            Langley & Abbot 1900, Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution
            about half of the heat that the planet sends to space, occurs in the far-infrared, from water vapour radiation, in the wavelengths 15μm to 100μm. This was missed. How you credit these early scientists, with missing half of the radiation to space, but coming up with the “correct” answer, is just silly.

          • Jammy Dodger

            No, “blundered” is the wrong word to use. That implies stupidity or incompetence. Arrhenius was working perfectly intelligently and competently with the state of knowledge at the time. You use the word “blundered” because you are trying to discredit his work.
            ################################

            #### Strawman alert ###

            Please show me where I credit these early scientists with coming up with the correct answer. Arrhenius estimate of climate sensitivity was too high. You would know that if you read the article I pointed you to.

            Typical contrarian to try and shift the discussion to something they have made up. You are all so transparent and predictable.

          • frflyer

            Arrhenius recalculated later on and came up with about 2.5C or 2.6C. Not too high

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝…well-established scientific principle that human greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to rising average global temperatures.❞

            What a mouthful. However, it isn’t ‘well established” (although it is widely believed that it is…)
            …There is no observational evidence linking Mannkind’s burning of fossil fuels, and planetary warming. None. There are lots of big computer models that generate the appearance of “evidence” … but this is imaginary, existing only in the output of the models. Look a little deeper, and you’ll find large flaws in those models.

          • Mike Richardson

            Wrong, as the article above, and over a century of scientific knowledge of carbon dioxide’s properties has shown. Please discuss the “flaws” in this science, if you’re so certain otherwise.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            CO2’s “properties” are a “push” in the warming direction. Ramanathan 1981: ”Increasing CO2, while fixing all the other climatic parameters and variables, will cause a radiative heating of the surface-troposphere system.”

            …the trouble is, however, “fixing” all the other variables and parameters in place. Things change.

            Plass 1956: ”The most recent calculations of the infra-red flux in the region of the 15 micron CO2 band show that the average surface temperature of the earth increases 3.6° C if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is doubled, and decreases 3.8°C if the CO2 amount is halved, provided that no other factors change which influence the radiation balance.”

            Plass 1956 didn’t warn us, just once. He told us, three different ways, three different phrases … Did you listen? “It is assumed that nothing else changes that affects the radiation balance when the CO2 amount varies.”

            ” It is also assumed here that no other factors change at the same time which can influence the radiation balance.”

          • frflyer

            There are about a half dozen peer reviewed attribution studies showing that the net effect of ALL natural climate forcings and feedbacks, as well as effects of solar and ENSO cycles, since 1960, would have Cooled the Planet, if not for human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

            Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) is one such study.

            Lean and Rind (2008)
            “None of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the 100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends produce by all three natural influences are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature trend reported by IPCC [2007].”

            According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years”

            {Skeptical Science}

          • Damn Nitpicker

            As I was perusing the paper, Lean & Rind 2008: Influences on Surface Temperatures, I noticed the authors started off with a grand summary. In it, they mentioned, ”An exhaustive model- based study concludes that increasing anthropogenic gas concentrations (GHGs and tropospheric aerosols) produced 0.3–0.5 K per century warming over the 1906–1996 period, and are the dominant cause of global surface warming after 1976 [Allen et al., 2006].”
            If some empirical, observational evidence, of this anthropogenic warming, existed prior to their publication in 2008, don’t you think that this review, would have mentioned it? …but, all they mentioned in this review, was this exhaustive model-based study by Allen 2006.
            Lean, Judith L., and David H. Rind 2008. “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.” Geophysical Research Letters

          • frflyer

            from Skeptical Science

            “When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).”

            “From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat”

            “The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements.”

          • frflyer

            “The human fingerprint in global warming”

            “In science, there’s only one thing better than empirical measurements made in the real world – and that is multiple independent measurements all pointing to the same result. There are many lines of empirical evidence that all detect the human fingerprint in global warming:”

            “Satellites measure infrared radiation as it escapes out to space. A comparison between satellite data from 1970 to 1996 found that less energy is escaping to space at the wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy (Harries 2001). Thus the paper found “direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. This result has been confirmed by more recent data from several different satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).”

            “Another human fingerprint can be found by looking at temperature trends in the different layers of the atmosphere. Climate models predict that more carbon dioxide should cause warming in the troposphere but cooling in the stratosphere. This is because the increased “blanketing” effect in the troposphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the stratosphere. ….
            What we observe from both satellites and weather balloons is a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere, consistent with carbon dioxide warming:”

            “If an increased greenhouse effect was causing warming, we would expect nights to warm faster than days. This is because the greenhouse effect operates day and night. Conversely, if global warming was caused by the sun, we would expect the warming trend to be greatest in daytime temperatures. What we observe is a decrease in cold nights greater than the decrease in cold days, and an increase in warm nights greater than the increase in warm days (Alexander 2006). This is consistent with greenhouse warming.”

            https://skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

          • frflyer

            “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

            Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

            The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

            Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.”

            https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

          • frflyer

            “Overall, Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) find that ENSO has the largest impact on short-term temperature variations, followed by volcanic activity, with solar irradiance a distant third. However, the contributions of each factor to the 32-year temperature trends were very similar (Table 2, Figure 2). …..These factors contributed to very slight cooling of global temperatures over the past 32 years”

            https://skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html

          • RealOldOne2

            “and solar irradiance a distant third”
            That’s only considering the change in TSI at ToA before it enters the earth’s climate atmosphere/ocean/land system. What is important to global temperature is how much of that solar radiation reaches the earth’s surface. This has been known in peer reviewed science for decades:

            “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

            And the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. This is documented in the following peer reviewed science:

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

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

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

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

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

            The alleged increase in CO2 forcing during that time period was only ~0.5W/m². Clear emirical evidence that the late 20th century was overwhelmingly natural, not caused by human CO2.

          • frflyer


            I went to Skeptical Science and asked for clarification on the issues you brought up about CO2 increase mostly being natural, and clouds changes increasing solar energy.

            Here are the responses

            comment by Eclectic:

            “The natural organic Carbon Cycle at the surface has been in mildly-fluctuating equilibrium for millions of years. Fossil CO2 (as represented by the approximately “4%” ) is a cumulative addition to the surface Carbon Cycle. Hence the AGW.

            The friend appears to be suggesting that the solar radiation incidence increased significantly and/or the Earth’s cloud layer has become significantly less reflective, during the 20th Century.
            Both such suggestions are unsupported by the evidence.”
            ——————————-

            Comment by MA Rodger

            ” the egregious CO2 cycle nonsense in Harde (2017) has been rebutted at RealClimate and in the literature by Köhler et al (2017). The paper itself still sits for unsuspecting fools to feed from courtesy of the heatland of fiction-creation the Heartland Institute which pretty-much says it all.

            It is good to see that the papers provided give a similar answer (although they may not be considering similar periods). Yet they certainly do not provide some AGW-busting finding. Without setting out the findings of all five papers, consider here just the first – Hatzianastassiou et al (2005). This paper models surface short-wave radiation with reanalysis and concludes:-

            “Significant increasing trends in DSR and net DSR fluxes were found, equal to 4.1 and 3.7 Wm−2, respectively, over the 1984–2000 period , … indicating an increasing surface solar radiative heating. This surface SW radiative heating is primarily attributed to clouds, especially low-level, and secondarily to other parameters such as total precipitable water. The surface solar heating occurs mainly in the period starting from the early 1990s, in contrast to decreasing trend in DSR through the late 1980s.” (DSR = SW downward surface radiation)

            Thus the finding is that DSR was increased through a certain period through a reduced level of cloudiness. The paper does not address wider implications of that change in cloudiness, for instance the impact of that loss of cloud on LW radiation transfers. Hatzianastassiou et al. are surely happy that this conforms with other papers as they make no mention of any controversy (although their estimate for surface albedo is different enough to be worth a mention). In any of these five papers, if their findings were AGW-busting stuff, would they not be saying so?

            The changes in energy flux quoted by these papers are large but the actual values for global warming are measured at the top of the atmosphere and such large levels of warming are not present. The more-reliable measure of Ocean Heat Content supports such measurements, levels that are those to be expected from AGW.

            All the denialist is doing is picking a large change within the climate system and arbitrarily attributing it to his preferred non-AGW fantasy.”

            —————-
            comment by Eclectic

            “MA Rodger @29 , in their paper, I think Hatzianastassiou et al are treating their albedo figure of 12.9% as applying to the planetary surface itself [for ultraviolet/visible/near-IR] rather than the more usual [~30%] astronomical albedo which of course derives from surface + atmosphere/clouds (and is heavily weighted toward visible light). That ~13% figure fits in well with the observed figures of reflected/absorbed SW radiation at the land/ocean surface.”

          • frflyer


            “How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?”

            https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

          • frflyer

            The comments I posted can be found here. Why don’t you go there and debate?

            https://skepticalscience.com/Murry-Salby-CO2-rise-natural.htm#comments

          • RealOldOne2
          • frflyer

            Unbelievable.
            And here I thought I might have encountered and actual skeptic. You call Skeptical Science propaganda and have the gall to refer me to the most Bogus climate blog on the internet.

            I call it WTFUWW

          • RealOldOne2

            “Unbelievable”
            Yes, it’s unbelievable that you deny all the peer reviewed empirical science which I have presented when you can’t refute it, just like you deny and can’t refute the documented evidence I provided of the dishonesty on the Septical Science website.

          • RealOldOne2

            First of all, I point out that you refuted none of what I posted. And I see that it’s really pointless to discuss climate with you, since you obviously don’t have a working understanding of it because you have to go running to a climate alaarmist site to get your information, which is really just false propaganda for climate alarmism. You have made probably more comments here than anyone else, and it turns out you don’t even understand climate science at all.

            “I went to Skeptical Science…”
            There’s your problem. You will never get honest science from a dishonest propaganda website for climate alarmism. The “About Skeptical Science” webpage admitted: “I’m not a climatatologist or a scientist but a self-employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.” – http://web.archive.org/web/20071213172906/www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

            Numerous documented examples of the dishonest practices of editing peoples comments, deleting peoples comments and then dishonestly pretending that the commenter couldn’t make any valid arguments and other abuses are documented with links in my comment here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/two_co2_climate_change_myths/#comment-3826480708

            Now on to expose the false claims that you got from SkS commenters.
            1st false statement by Eclectic: “The natural organic Carbon Cycle at the surface has been in mildly fluctuating equilibrium for millions of years”. Totally false, as over millions of years the natural level of CO2 has varied from a few hundred ppm to 7,000ppm.

            2nd false statement by Eclectic: “Fossil CO2 (as represented by the approximately “4%”) is a cumulative addition to the surface Carbon Cycle.” Totally false, because the natural CO2 sinks can not discriminate between natural and human FF CO2 and only sequester the natural CO2, leaving the excess consisting only of human FF CO2. There is no physical process by which that can happen. What really happens is that there is 96% natural and 4% human CO2 in the well mixed atmosphere. 98% of that mixture is sequestered each year, leaving a residual made up of 96% natural and 4% human CO2, to which the next year’s 96% natural and 4% human CO2 is added, which still makes the mixture 96% natural and 4% human, then 98% of that is sequestered away leaving a residual that is still 96% natural and 4% human, and on and on and on, and as far as you go, the atmosphere is made up of 96% natural and 4% human CO2.

            MA Rodgers 1st false claim is that Kohler(2017) refuted Harde(2017). It did not because it was fatally flawed with its assumption that atmospheric CO2 would be constant without a human pertubation. Harde(2017) has not been retracted. It stands unrefuted inspite of flawdd attack pieces like Kohler(2017). Rodgers is counting on scientifically illiterate people swallowing his whopper false claims.

            MA Rodgers next writes a lot of words, NONE of which refute the empirical data which shows that there was 2.7W/m to 6.8W/m more “energy in” to the climate system during the late 20th century.

            MA Rodgers 2nd false claim is that “but the actual values for global warming are measured at the top of the atmosphere”. That is patently false, as what matters is how much solar radiation enters the atmosphere and is transferred to the surface. THAT is the only thing that transfers heat/thermal energy to surface & into the oceans.
            The absurdity of Rodgers’ claim is seen by a simple example. Assume the TSI at ToA is constant for two decades. During the first decade assume that the earth’s albedo is 37%. Then during the second decade assume the albedo changes to 0%. According to Rodgers it wouldn’t impact the global mean temperature because the TSI at ToA was unchanged. That’s ludicrous. The ludicrousness is also seen if the albedo would have changed to 100% so that no net solar radiation would have reached the surface. Again, according to Rodgers, the global temperature wouldn’t have changed because the TSI at ToA didn’t change.

            Then Rodgers goes on to make an OWN GOAL when he brings up Ocean Heat Content. He claims that OHC is a more reliable measure and says that the increases in OHC “are those to be expected by AGW”. That is totally false because the only physical mechanism which can transfer heat/thermal energy into the oceans is solar radiation. And since the climate alarmist admit that 93% of global warming is observed in the increase in OHC, they are admitting that global warming is natural, not human-caused, because there is no physical mechanism by which CO2 in the cold atmosphere can transfer heat/thermal energy into the warmer surface of the ocean.

            Then Rodgers discredits himself with his lie: “All the denialist is doing is picking a large change within the climate system and arbitrarily attributing it to his preferred non-AGW fantasy.”
            First I’m denying nothing. I just posted peer reviewed empirical science which Rodgers knows proves his climate alarmism wrong, and since he can’t refute it, he dishonestly calls me a “denialist” attempting to tar me as equivalent to a Holocaust denier.
            Secondly Rodgers lies by claiming that I have “arbitrarily attributed it to his preferred non-AGW fantasy”. Nothing arbitrary about it and it’s no fantasy. It’s reality and has been accepted peer reviewed science for decades that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is the primary factor in determining the mean global temperature, because solar radiation is the only “energy in” to the climate system. Here’s peer reviewed science from 4 decades ago with supports what I am saying:

            “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

            The we get to the last comment by Eclectic which is total handwaving which dodges the main point of the 5 cited papers that the albedo at ToA decreased, allowing more solar radiation to enter the climate system and reach the surface.
            Eclectic’s point that the 12% surface albedo isn’t much different is totally irrelevant, because it doesn’t change the fact that more solar radiation was absorbed by the surface (land and oceans).

            So bottom line, is just as expected from a climate alarmist propaganda website, you got ZERO science to refute anything I posted.
            I’ve just exposed why you can’t get any valid science from SkS. All you get is lies and pseudoscience.

          • Al Rodger

            RealOldOne2,
            I feel you go beyond the bounds of respectability, even here deep in a Disqus thread. For an unreconstructed AGW denialist, you throw your words around as liberally as your citations. Yet your account is not in any way representative of what you describe. That makes you an untrustworthy source of anything.

            You insist CO2 has not been in rough natural equilibrium for millions of years. Yet the last time atmopheric CO2 topped 400ppm (as it has done within just the last three years) was probably 14 million years ago (with an outside chance of it recurring briefly 3 million years ago). And within 40 years that could be 500ppm and a 25million year record falling. You however talk of ” the natural level of CO2 has varied from a few hundred ppm to 7,000ppm” with no time-scale. Of course, such a variation can be seen to have happened in a matter of seconds, having occurred once over millions of billions of second. Your response to the world is saying “High CO2? That’s alright. CO2 has been much-much-much higher, right here on Earth (before animals existed).”

            You defend the egregious nonsense of Harde (2017) by saying it has not been “retracted”. That is true. Harde has not admitted that the nonsense-first-class he presented was an abomination. The actual state of play is that Wilde’s attempt to respond to Köhler et al (2017) was refused as it was as nonsensical as his original offerings. And the journal has now reviewed its procedures to prevent such an abomination happening again. That, RealOldOne2, is what you shamelessly defend with all your 4%anthro/96%nat blather.

            You then accuse me of a “false claim” (a second one apparently) and back this up by ignoring all Top-of-the-Atmosphere measurement bar incoming solar radiation. Are you crazy suggesting this is my meaining? Think of the implications of what you set out. How could anyone accept AGW if the only factor in play was TOA TSI? You are crazy!!
            And why would the reliability of OHC measurement have any connection with the drivers of OHC? Oh, I forget. I read the words of a total moron. “…there is no physical mechanism by which CO2 in the cold atmosphere can transfer heat/thermal energy into the warmer surface of the ocean.there is no physical mechanism by which CO2 in the cold atmosphere can transfer heat/thermal energy into the warmer surface of the ocean.” You’re a complete muppet. You’re a SkyDragonSlayer!!!
            And because you are of such a noble species, I therefore must be lying to contradict you.

            Yet you insist you are a mere messenger who sets out peer-reviewed literature, like Wilde (2017) perhaps, or even Budyko (1969), who by-the-way was talking ice ages and not AGW. Mind, if you believe “What is important to global temperature is how much of that solar radiation reaches the earth’s surface.” and if you insist “This has been known in peer reviewed science for decades.”, do you have something more recent that a 1969 reference? (Interestingly Budyko is usually mentioned as modelling a climate with an excessively high climate sensitivity, something which denialists argue as being tiny-tiny-tiny. That’s probably why they tend not to be so stupid as to cite Budyko. But for you RealOldOne2, Budyko is a bit of a favourite.)

            And thus you stumble out of the bottom of an interchange on an SkS thread far-far away declaring it “pseudoscience”, brave words, except I forget, RealOldOne2, from what you say you are surely too incomprehending to understand such bravery.
            Of course, one problem we “warmists” (as you call those of us who actually undestand the science) do have when engaging deluded souls in discussion of AGW is in gaining an understanding of what particular perversion of reality such denialists as yourself are signed up to. Am I correct? Are you actually one of these SkyDragonSlayers who fails to grasp the Laws of Thermodynamics?

          • RealOldOne2

            “I feel that you go beyond the bounds of respectability, even here in a Disqus thread”
            I’m sorry you feel that posting cites and quotes from peer reviewed empirical science and explaining people’s fallacious arguments is beyond the bounds of respectability. I suspect the real issue is that the science that I have presented is contrary to your deeply held climate beliefs and it disturbs you that deep down you know that your beliefs are not supportable by empirical science. My keen powers of observation cause me to conclude that you are the MA Rodger from SkS ;-), which explains your angry, irrational and incoherent rant against my calm and reasoned comments that shows that climate change is still natural just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

            “For an unreconstructed denialist…”
            Your baseless name calling weakens your case before you even begin. I haven’t denied anything that is supported by empirical science. But you are obviously denying the peer reviewed science which I have presented which shows that the late 20th century warming was caused primarily by natural climate forcing, because the only “energy in” to the climate system increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m², which was ~10 times greater than the increase in CO2 forcing during that same time frame. Why do you deny that when the only “energy in” to the climate system increases significantly, it is clear evidence for the cause of warming? That’s not rational. It’s a denial of reality. So it appears that you were projecting on your “denialist” accusation.

            “Yet the last time atmospheric CO2 topped 400ppm … was probably 14 million years ago”
            Peer reviewed science reveals that is a false claim. Beck(2007), http://disq.us/url?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klimarealistene.com%2Fweb-content%2F09.03.08%2520Klima%2C%2520CO2%2520analyseartikkel%2520100-2000%2C%2520EE%252018-2_Beck.pdf%3AcJbySYwUH9A_KBFKrccHYZOzT6E&cuid=2183089 , documents hundreds of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements greater than 400ppm, taken from 180 published technical papers written between 1812 and 1961. And he documents the cherry picking of Callendar which rejected any high CO2 measurements which didn’t fit their CO2 narrative. This cherry-picking is documented in Fig.1 from Fonsellius(1956): https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05ddd31685ebd76cf05a2acb5c6854dcaa7cf286a072e7389ea84f52baad78fb.png

            Your RealClimate article on Harde(2017) was just snipe and gripe and refuted no science from Harde’s paper. About what you would expect from a PR website created to promote your climate alarmism.

            “but the important thing is that they are losing the PR battle. That’s what the site is about. By the way, did Gavin come up with the name? … Mike”[Mann] … “Got the email about realclimate from Gavin… Phil Jones” – climategate email #1485

            And your histrionics doesn’t change the fact that you made a ridiculous claim: “The changes in these energy fluxes are large but the actual values for global warming are measured at the top of atmosphere and such large levels of warming are not present”. Your clear intention was to dismiss the increase in solar radiation at the surface by claiming that the TSI at TOA was not large. No amount of handwaving on your part can change that.

            “You are crazy. … I read the words of a total moron. … You’re a complete Muppet.”
            Al, throwing a name calling tantrum like that is beyond the bounds of respectability. Please try to be rational, even though you are angry that I have posted empirical science which exposes that your deeply held religious climate beliefs are false. I made a scientifically correct statement that solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the ocean. That is supported by Columbia University:

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

            Get that? The only ocean-atmosphere heat exchange process that adds heat to the ocean is solar radiation. Why deny reality. It only destroys your credibility, which is already in shambles.

            “You’re a Sky Dragon Slayer!!”
            Hahaha. No Al, I’m not. I just understand the 2nd Law of thermodynamics which says the heat/thermal energy is only transferred from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects. And since the atmosphere is colder(global mean) than the surface of the earth and ocean, heat/thermal energy is only transferred in one direction, from the surface to the atmosphere. This is supported by peer reviewed science which is written specifically from the perspective of the Second Law and the Climate System: https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3163/2606/original.jpg

            “Budyko (1969) who by-the-way was talking ice ages and not AGW.”
            Strawman. I never said it was talking about AGW. Budyko(1969) was not limited to glaciations, as it stated: “Thus it seems probable that present changes of the Earth’s temperature are determined mainly the atmospheric transparency variations”. Your attempt to dismiss Budyko fail.

            “Do you have something more recent that[sic] a 1969 reference?”

            Really? You need a cite to confirm the fact that the amount of SW solar radiation entering the climate system, most of which arrives at the surface, is the most important factor in determining global temperature? Al, solar radiation is the only “energy-in” to the climate system, just as the previously cited Ozawa(2003) paper showed in its Fig.5(a). That’s the only reference you need, even though there are countless others.

            And thus you stumble out the bottom of an interchange on an SkS thread far-far away

            Hey thanks for the link. It’s good to know that no one at SkS was able to refute any of the peer reviewed science that I have posted! And thanks for confirming that with your comment which refuted none of the peer reviewed science that I have posted which empirically shows that the late 20th century warming is still natural, just as it has been throughout the history of the planet.

            It’s really quite simple. When the only “energy-in” to the climate system increases significantly, it patently obvious that is the primary cause of warming. So simple that even a 7 year old child can understand it with this analogy:

            You have a pan of warm water on the electric stove with the burner turned on the “low” heat setting, and you’ve measured the electric current going to the burner and measured the temperature of the water when it stops increasing. The electricity is the only “energy in” to the pan of water.
            Now you turn the burner up to “medium” and measure increased current flowing through the burner, and observe that the temperature of the water increases. Even the 7 year old child understands the cause of the increased temperature of the water is the increased flow of current which is the only “energy-in” to the system.

            You are denying that the increase in temperature came from the increase in “energy in” to the water, and you are claiming that the temperature increase came from the ‘backradiation’ from the additional water vapor that you can see rising from the water. Quite ridiculous denial of reality.

            Cheers!

          • Jammy Dodger

            Knock me down with a feather. A full blown climate change denier. I didn’t see that coming. #sarcasm

          • RealOldOne2

            “A full blown climate change denier.”
            No, just a climate realist.
            I don’t deny climate change.
            I just base my understanding of the climate system on real world empirical data, not on flawed, faulty, falsified, failed climate models, 95% of which predict too much warming, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , and which can’t project global temperature at even the 2% confidence level, “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013).

          • Al Rodger

            RealOldOne2,
            1.Feelings. Given you are blessed with self-assessed ”keen powers of observation,“ within what part of innocently ”posting cites and quotes from peer reviewed empirical science and explaining people’s fallacious arguments“ do you fit your accusing folk of ”dishonest propaganda” and ”lies”?
            2. Baseless name-calling. You here try to append my ‘calling-a-spad-a-spad’ honesty (would you rather I dishonestly presented myself as a chummy seeker after understanding) with an evident error in your analysis. I reported the rise in surface SW absorption and there is no reason to deny such findings. So what is it that I am ”obviously denying “? You get yout knickers in a twist, chum. Sort yourself out!!
            3. Baseless name-calling. Oh my god!!! You choose to cite the late E-G Beck and his crackpot 2007 CO2 analysis? You really do yourself no credit citing such codswallop. Or are you not aware how daft it is? Here is a RealClimate post that explains although given you are a serious crazy, you probably approve of RealClimate less than you do SkS. (Oh, I see you do rather dislike the RealClimate post on the other total-crazy you’re signed up to – Harde 2017 and dismiss the site as “a PR website.” And did you mention Climategate without 9-11?)
            4. Surface SW absorption. You want to make a big song-&-dance about global dimming. Consider properly the idea you are trying to create. Surface SW absorption has been running at 2.7 to 6.8Wm^-2. So that’s since 1980? 38 years? So we are looking for, what, 3,000Zj. Is it in the oceans? I don’t think so. They have found less than a tenth of that level of warming. Losing 90% of OHC would be a tad unscientific. Is it in the rocks? I don’t think so. Rock is worse at hiding heat than water so it cannot be there. So where is it? Goodness, children! It’s not still on the naughty step with RealOldOne2 is it?
            My point was a simple one. The energy balance of the climate system shows no net global heat flux of the magnitude you are suggestion. The TOA data is better constrained and certainly can have no such net value. You are thus not describing net values but cherry-picking gross values. Simples! Yet you seem to have problems grasping this simple reality.
            5. Religious belief & shambles. You paint me as angry and having an invisible friend. Yet I am laughing and am entirely open to any rational argument you can put together. (I stress the word ‘any’ but do note the requirement that it be rational.‘) When you tell me ”the only physical mechanism which can transfer heat/thermal energy into the oceans is solar radiation” this can be considered in one of two ways. (1) The only thing of consequence that is warming the oceans is “the sun’s radiation” but this is rather sweeping and I assume it is not your intended meaning. (2) The energy entering the oceans comes from the sun directly in the form of solar radiation being absotbed by the water. That is untrue but appears to be your meaning. What a shambles you appear to create? By listing heat fluxes from a CU webpage you seem to be continuing with (2). Is this (2) what you intend to mean?
            6. SkyDragonSlayers It is an odd way to cite a reference, a marked-up image from Ozawa et al (2003). Your apparent reverence for peer-review is over-the-top. Crap can still be published with peer-review, even overtly so if it is deemed ‘interesting crap’. But what you set out with Ozawa et al (2003) dodges the SkyDragonSlayer test. So a simple question. The value for upward LW radiation from the surface is given as f-long(0)=40Wm^-2. Is this (a) the amount of LW emitted by the surface or is it (b) the net value with 400Wm^-2 emitted upward and balanced by 360Wm^-2 of back-radiation from the atmosphere to the surface?
            7. Budyko (1969). It would help your reputation if you completed the Budyko quote. And whatever the paper says, it is often quoted as setting out an over-sensitive climate model. (I haven’t myself ever checked.) But this is not trashing the paper. It dates back to the 60s. It was poineering. Give the whole paper a read – something might just register to show how wrong you are about it.
            And your final jibber is wholly uninteresting SkyDragonSlayer guff.

            So do you have anything more interesting to reply? Or will you descend into expansive waffle?

          • RealOldOne2

            So you couldn’t refute any of the science I posted. Got it.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Just asserting he did not refute any of your posted science does not make it so. He disputed it with reasons and references. You have to offer something to claim he could not refute it. Hand waving just does not count.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Just asserting he did not refute any of your posted science does not make it so.”
            Really Jammy? That wasn’t obvious to you? All he did was ignore and deny what I posted with handwaving dismissal. Really quite pathetic. But for your benefit, I’ll go through Al Rodger’s points one by one.

            1. Nothing of substance or science there.

            2. He admitted i was correct about the increased solar radiation.

            3. He just referred to a PR blog which used the same CO2 data that was shown to be cherry-picked in the 1956 paper that I posted the graphic from which showed Callendar excluded high CO2 measurements that didn’t fit his CO2 hypothesis. That’s not science. Then Al couldn’t help but throw in a baseless insult “given you are a serious crazy”. Totally false. I’m a serious scientist who bases my understanding on empirical evidence, as my comments reveal.

            4. He created a dishonest strawman argument that revealed he didn’t even read the quotes from the papers that I cited. None of them claimed 38 years of those increased SW levels. They were over different periods of years during the late 20th century warming. He refuted none of my argument.

            5. Al just handwaved to deny the scientific fact that solar radiation is the only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the ocean. Notice that he failed to offer any other physical mechanism that transferred heat into the oceans. Notice that he ignored the Columbia Univ. Lecture that I quoted from which confirmed my statement on ocean warming was true. In his handwaving he stated and dismissed two things that are in fact true:
            (1) “The only thing of consequence that is warming the oceans is “the sun’s radiation“.” He dismissed that by saying it is rather sweeping, which it is, but it’s true.
            (2) “The energy entering the oceans comes from the sun directly in the form of solar radiation being absorbed by the water. That is also true and exactly what I meant. NOAA confirms that sun is what transfers heat into the oceans in a webpage on “Layers of the ocean”:

            “This surface layer is called the sunlight zone and extends from the surface to 200 meters (660 feet). … With the light comes heating from the sun.” – https://web.archive.org/web/20160406010308/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/ocean/layers_ocean.html

            Note that this NOAA reference says nothing about ‘backradiation from the cold atmosphere transferring any heat into the ocean, which is the claim of climate alarmists. Science tells us that backradiation can’t transfer heat into the ocean because first, the atmosphere is colder than the ocean, and heat/thermal energy is only transferred from higher temperature objects to lower temperature objects. Second, energy absorption into water is governed by wavelength. The 15μm wavelength of CO2 ‘backradiation’ essentially can’t penetrate the surface of the ocean. This graph from peer reviewed science shows that that wavelength is only absorbed in the top ~3 millionths of a meter, which is ~1/10th the thickness of a human hair: https://omlc.org/spectra/water/gif/wieliczka89.gif
            Solar radiation from the 5500C sun penetrates up to 200m as NOAA stated. Then you must consider that that uppermost few microns of the ocean skin is always colder than the water just below it, so heat can’t conduct downward. That is shown in this graphic from Donlon(2001) ‘The character of skin and subsurface sea surface temperature’: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jmaurer/sst/SST_depths.png

            6. Al uses a fallacious red herring “Sky Dragon Slayer” argument. As I told Al, I’m not a Sky Dragon Slayer and I don’t deny the ghe, but Al Is too wedded to his red herring for him to accept reality, so he continues that fallacious argument. He does some silly handwaving about the Ozawa(2003). I fully cited the paper so he could have just read the entire paper from GoogleScholar if he wished, but that didn’t suit his obfuscation. The one-directional 40 Wm⁻² radiative transfer is clearly the thermal energy transferred (net radiation) from the surface to the atmosphere. The diagram shows that there is no thermal energy transfer from the cold atmosphere to the surface. A paper written specifically from the perspective of the Second Law of Thermodynamics certainly wouldn’t make the egregious error of showing a thermal energy transfer from the colder atmosphere to the warmer surface.

            Al Rodger exposed that he is nothing more than a promoter of climate alarmism who has denied any and all empirical science that shows his climate beliefs are wrong.

            7. Al refutes nothing from Budyko(1969). He just says that it is 40 years old, which is meaningless, because the fact that it states that the mean temperature of the earth can explained by the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface is true. And because he can’t refute that basic science fact, he handwaves with an empty criticism that I didn’t quote enough of the paper. I have had the paper for years and have read the whole thing. His criticism is false because nothing in the paper changes the above fact. He further handwaves with a claim about Budyko’s sensitivity numbers, which is irrelevant because the fact that solar radiation reaching the surface is the factor that explains earth’s mean temperature is a qualitative statement, not a quantitative statement. Again Al is just handwaving.

            He concludes with the false claim “your final jibber is wholly uninteresting Sky Dragon stuff”. Nothing “Sky Dragon” at all in giving him a simple analogy that a 7 year old can understand that when the only “energy-in” to a system increases significantly, it is clear empirical evidence of what causes warming. Al unwittingly exposed his poor level of understanding science.

            So there you have it. All Al Rodger did was handwave with meaningless obfuscation. As an He confirms that frflyer’s resorting to SkS was a futile effort because the posters there are full of bluster, but devoid of substance. Al posted no substantive science to refute any of the peer reviewed science that I presented which empirically showed that the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased significantly during the late 20th century warming. The science I posted destroys the false claim of the climate alarmists that there is no other explanation for the late 20th century warming other than human CO2. There certainly is, the only “energy-in” entering the climate system, solar radiation, increased significantly, ~10 times more than the increase in alleged CO2 forcing.

          • Jammy Dodger

            LOL
            tl;dr

            Just repeated discredited ideas. Seen it all before.

            If you wish hard enough the magic climate fairy will come and put it all right for you.

          • RealOldOne2

            So you weren’t serious, you were just trolling.
            Got it.
            Oh, I better explain it for you too.

            “tl;dr”
            You complained that I didn’t explain why Al Rodger’s comment didn’t refute the science that I had presented, I had just asserted it, so I explained it for you.
            But when I did that, you said it was too long; so you didn’t read it.

            “Just repeated discredited ideas. Seen it all before.”
            So you DID read it, otherwise you couldn’t say that it was just “discredited ideas” and you had “Seen it all before”.

            But you are being untruthful that it is just discredited ideas. It was the explanation you asked for with even more science showing why Al Rodgers was wrong.

            Just asserting it was just discredited ideas doesn’t make it so.
            Go ahead, and point by point explain how it was just discredited ideas and refute the science I presented.

            “If you wish hard enough the magic climate fairy will come and put it all right for you.”
            No need to wish for anything. Already posted peer reviewed empirical science from the real world that shows it is real.

            Actually it is you climate alarmists who need to believe in magic.
            For instance, you need to believe your magic climate fairy will come and create some magical non-existent physical mechanism for those cold CO2 molecules which are below the temperature of ice cubes (255K mean radiative temperature) to transfer 4x10²² Joules of heat into the warmer ocean.

            For instance, you need to believe your magic climate fairy will come and create some magical physical mechanism for the oceans and the land biosphere to discriminate between those ~4% of CO2 molecules which are humans from the ~96% of CO2 molecules which are natural and selectively absorb only natural molecules. Otherwise the accumulation of CO2 molecules can’t be all human like you claim, they will be 96% natural and 4% human.

            Dr. Richard Lindzen, Prof. of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at MIT says:

            “Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this [energy] budget. … In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which itself consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable[CO2]? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic.” – http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/

            In that article, Prof Lindzen debunks some of the climate alarmist propaganda memes such as the “97% consensus”, and he explains why many of the climate alarmists’ claims are exaggerated and unnecessarily alarmist.

            So I am not alone. I am in good company with my understanding that climate change is mostly natural, and CO2 is not the magic molecule that is the ‘thermostat that controls global temperature’. There are tens of thousands of other scientists who agree with me: http://www.petitionproject.org/
            The real world data has shown our understanding is correct, and yours is wrong.

            Eminent scientists recognize that your climate alarmism isn’t science, it’s belief, religion:

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

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

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

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

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

          • Jammy Dodger

            It is not so much I was trolling as just dismissing what you were saying as I have seen it many times and I actually cast enough of an eye over it to know you were talking (at least some) rubbish.

            However you still did not take on board the actual serious point I made. You just think I need to read your verboseness all over again. No thank you. It appears you cannot answer a short point in a couple of sensible sentences which is why it deserves tl;dr.

            Let me explain it to you as, despite you thinking you are explaining to me, it is you who is far behind the curve.

            In a scientific discussion it is normal to make points and counterpoints. You cannot move on until you have settled the disagreements to everyone’s satisfaction. He had made points and you had not answered them, but you had the arrogance to claim he had not refuted “your science” though you raised no counterpoints. It was just assertion and handwaving.

          • RealOldOne2

            You are talking in circles, have the whole thing reversed, and have avoided any discussion of science. Let me set you straight on what the order of events has been.

            I started this specific discussion by presenting to frflyer peer reviewed science which empirically showed that the “energy-in” to the climate system, solar radiation reaching the surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. That was in this comment: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2018/03/12/what-science-says-about-role-of-co2-in-climate-change/#comment-3847716790
            This totally flummoxed frflyer so he went running to SkS where he got some nonsensical non-answers.
            I exposed those non-answers point by point.

            Then one of the SkS commenters, Al Rodgers, jumped into the discussion and yet again totally avoided the subject of increased solar radiation at the surface. He did a lot of handwaving with distractions and red herrings like Sky Dragon Slayers. Even though he never addressed the subject of the discussion, I refuted his distractions point by point. He then ignored that and made his 10 point screed that again avoided the science showing more solar radiation reaching the surface.

            Then you jumped in and claimed I just asserted he didn’t address the science that I had presented, so I again went point by point and exposed why Al Rodger didn’t address the science that I presented.

            Then when I gave you that detailed point by point comment you played your silly tl;dr reply.

            “He had made points and you had not answered them.”
            Please stop lying like that. As the record shows and as I have explained, it was frflyer and Al Rodgers who have never answered the point I raised about the peer reviewed science showing that during the late 20th century warming the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m², which was ~10 times more than the increase in CO2 forcing.

            So if you want to continue this discussion, please stop playing games, talking in circles, and misrepresenting what has happened and address the original subject of this discussion; the peer reviewed science in my original comment. So you don’t have to go back, I’ll repeat it here:

            “It follows from the analysis of observation data that the secular variation in the mean temperature of the Earth can be explained by the variation of shortwave radiation arriving at the surface of the Earth.” – Budyko(1969) ‘The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth’

            And the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface increased by 2.7W/m² to 6.8W/m² during the late 20th century warming. This is documented in the following peer reviewed science:

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

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

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

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

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

            The alleged increase in CO2 forcing during that time period was only ~0.5W/m². Clear empirical evidence that the late 20th century was overwhelmingly natural, not caused by human CO2.

          • Jammy Dodger

            tl;dr

          • frflyer

            Lean and Rind is one of several studies with the same conclusions. Of course, you believe climate models are not valid tools, which is nonsense.

            Knutti and Huber is another such study

            “Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% by unforced internal variability.

            Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90–116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (−10 to 13%) due to natural forcing…. The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as paleoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times.”
            ——-
            To test whether recent warming might just be down to a random swing in Earth’s unstable climate — another theory favoured by sceptics — Knutti and Huber conducted a series of control runs of different climate models without including the effects of the energy-budget parameters. But even if climate variability were three times greater than that estimated by state-of-the-art models, it is extremely unlikely to have produced a warming trend as pronounced as that observed in the real world, they found.

            https://thinkprogress.org/its-extremely-likely-that-at-least-74-of-observed-warming-since-1950-was-manmade-it-s-highly-likely-76d9f873ba87/

          • RealOldOne2

            “you believe that climate models are not valid tools, which is nonsense.”

            Climate models are not empirical data. They merely output what is programmed into them, and we know that what is programmed into them is wrong because 95% of them predict too much warming, and because they can’t project global temperature at even the 2% confidence level, “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level” – vonStorch(2013).

            Knutti and Hueber is climate model based:

            “based on a massive ensemble of simulations with a medium-complexity climate model we demonstrate…” – Huber & Knutti(2011) ‘Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance’

            And the only solar the use is at ToA, and do not include the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface, which invalidates that study as attempting to attribute warming to CO2 versus solar radiation.

            There are no peer reviewed papers that empirically show that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like climate alarmists claim.

          • frflyer

            “Later in the documentary he meets with climate scientist Hans von Storch, astrophysicist Piers Corbyn and physicist Freeman Dyson. Those in the loop will immediately recognize that this is not at all a fair representation of the scientific debate, but rather provides a very skewed vision thereof by emphasizing outlier views that are demonstrably false.”

            https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/a-critical-look-at-the-uncertainty-has-settled-documentary-by-marijn-poels/

          • RealOldOne2

            “outlier views that are demonstrably false”
            That’s exactly what your CO2-causes-global-warming view is: demonstrably false.

            From 1940 to the 1970s, humans added 350 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere, twice as much as had been added prior to 1940, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increased, yet global temperatures decreased by as much as they had increased since 1900. This is according to data from the U.S. National Center of Atmospheric Research: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/728a17a4037f75de3103ea497398531f4440d4ece5ca002996fa8934f4f6f8db.png

            When you add twice as much human CO2 to the atmosphere in 3 decades than had been added in the entirety of human history before that and the global temperature goes down by as much as it had increased over the previous 4 decades, that is irrefutable real world empirical data showing that CO2 does NOT cause global warming.

            Why do you believe in a falsified CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 hypothesis when there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence which empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 was the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like your climate alarmism religion says?

            It’s just not rational.

          • frflyer

            That is because industrialization, for and after WWII, also greatly increased emissions of sulfur aerosols that cool the planet. When we put pollution controls on everything, those emissions were greatly reduced. This made the greenhouse gas warming stand out, which is why the warming increased after about 1975.

            Those aerosols have a short resident time in the atmosphere of a few years. The CO2 from back then is still in the atmosphere and will be for hundreds of years.

            In fact, daily minimum temperatures rose during mid century cooling, even while daily maximum temps decreased.

            “Solar activity increased during that period, and of course greenhouse gases were also already on the rise – in fact already in the 1930s Callendar attributed warming to rising CO2 in the air. The “hump” during WW2 (which includes the subsequent cooling) is only in the SST data and not the land temperatures, so for that I suspect there is still some uncorrected issues in the SST data sets. It is well-known that methods of SST data collection changed during this time.” – stefan at Real Climate

          • frflyer

            It should also be noted that human CO2 emissions increased after 1960. There’s been an 80ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 since then.
            It took 80 years, up till then, for CO2 to increase by 40ppm.
            ———————————–

            “To the question: were sulfate aerosols really that much higher during the 20th century than before the industrial revolution? The answer is: definitely yes. To the question: did sulfate emissions really level off, even decline, around 1975? The answer is: definitely yes.”

            Anthropogenic Global Cooling

            https://tamino.wordpress.com/?s=mid+20th+century+cooling

          • RealOldOne2

            Irrelevant because human aerosols are washed out in a few days and don’t impact global temperatures:

            “Aerosols undergo physical and chemical transformations in the atmosphere, especially within clouds, and are removed largely by precipitation. Consequently aerosols in the lower troposphere typically have residence times of a few days.”- IPCC, SAR, WG1, p.20

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry, but that BS failed excuse doesn’t fly. Even the IPCC admits that aersols from humans in the lower troposphere are washed out in a few days with rain, and don’t impact global climate:

            “Aerosols undergo physical and chemical transformations in the atmosphere, especially within clouds, and are removed largely by precipitation. Consequently aerosols in the lower troposphere typically have residence times of a few days.”- IPCC, SAR, WG1, p.20

            In the 1940s-1970s they were too insignificant to have global impact. The only aerosols that can cause a global impact are volcanic aerosols that reach the stratosphere and are there for a year or two, and they only cause a small cooling, not the several tenths of a degree C that happened in the 1940-1970s, while the amount of human CO2 added to he atmosphere TRIPLED. Clear refutation of your CO2 causes global warming hypothesis.
            Your argument totally fails.

            “The CO2 in the atmosphere from back then is still in the atmosphere and will be for hundreds of years.”
            No, you are just repeating the false propaganda of your climate cult religion that was made up out of whole cloth by the IPCC as they denied the peer reviewed science and made up their 100-200 year claim. Here is the peer reviewed science that they ignored: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/535dde926a5253740bf5591ed1f7cfc8ca9fc98a22dc64e948247fb3084369a2.png

            “In fact, daily minimum temperatures rose during mid century cooling, even while daily maximum temps decreased.”

            Your evidence-free claim is noted, and dismissed for lack of any empirical evidence.

            “in fact already in the 1930s Callendar attributed warming to rising CO2 in the air.”
            Callendar was also making an evidence-free claim, confirmed by his own 1938 paper. In that paper he admitted that few scientists at that time held that human CO2 could have “any influence” on our climate and weather.

            “Few of those familiar with the natural heat exchanges of the atmosphere, which go into makings of our climate and weather, would be prepared to admit that activities of man could have any influence on phenomena of so vast a scale. … It is well known that the gas carbon dioxide has certain strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the spectrum, and when this fact was discovered some 70 years ago it soon led to speculation on the effect which changes in the amount of the gas in the air could have on the temperature of the earth’s surface. In view of the much larger quantities and absorbing power of atmospheric water vapour it was concluded that the effect of carbon dioxide was probably negligible.” – Callendar(1938) ‘The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature’

            Since rates of human carbon dioxide release in the atmosphere were constantly increasing, Callendar expected that global temperature would increase during the next 20 years and would show that the CO2 hypothesis to be correct:

            “The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” – ibid

            In the next 30 years after Callendar’s paper, humans added more CO2 to the atmosphere than ever before. But the empirical data of temperatures over the next 30 years after Callendar’s 1938 paper showed that global temperature decreased by ~0.7C over the next 30 years: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402 .

            So we see that the Arrhenius/Chamberlain /Callendar CO2 hypothesis failed the real world test, because global temperatures decreased over the next 30 years after Calander’s prediction, even though humans added over 2 times the total amount of human CO2 between 1938-1968 than had been added before 1938.

            During that period of global cooling we come to 1951, where the world’s leading climatologists and meteorologists documented the then-current state-of-the-art climate science in the American Meteorological Society’s 1951 Compendium on Meteorology.

            “The purpose of the Compendium of Meteorology is to take stock of the present position of meteorology, to summarize an appraise the knowledge which untiring research has been able to wrest from nature during past years, and to indicate the avenues of further studies and research which need to be explored in order to extend the frontiers of our knowledge.” – American Meteorology Society’s 1951 Compendium on Meteorology, Preface, p.v

            It was in this state of climate science report that the world’s leading climate scientists and meteorologists stated that the CO2 hypothesis was never widely held and had been abandoned:

            “Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor. In the past hundred years burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further. – American Meteorology Society’s 1951 Compendium on Meteorology, p.1016

            You have swallowed the fake revisionist history that he peddlers of your CAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism religion have fed you.

          • frflyer

            “the IPCC admits that aersols from humans in the lower troposphere are washed out in a few days with rain”

            No argument there, but the part about not impacting the climate is Bullshit.

            maybe if you read the article at Open Mind, by Tamino, you would learn something. Trust me, He is Far smarter than you, or I. A world class statistician, who works on climate science.

            The aerosols impact climate if they are constantly emitted.

          • RealOldOne2

            “but the part about not impacting the climate is Bullshit.”
            Wrong. The bull$hit is your evidence-free claim, which is a fake excuse, just like doomday cults make when their predictions of doom fail to happen as predicted.

            “Open Mind, by Tamino”
            Sorry, but Grant Foster who runs that Closed Mind blog is just a dishonest propagandist blogger for your climate alarmist cult religion. I debunked one of his articles on his blog and he deleted my factual comments and censored any comments that exposed that he is wrong.

            Poor frflyer, you have been duped into believing the scam/hoax/fraud/lie of CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2.
            Why do you believe in your CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate cult religion when there isn’t a single peer reviewed paper in existence that empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 were the primary cause of the late 20th century warming or any other climate change?

          • frflyer

            “Climate models are not empirical data. They merely output what is programmed into them, and we know that what is programmed into them is wrong because 95% of them predict too much warming”

            Patently FALSE
            The models do NOT show too much warming, except when deniers cherry pick their projection for worst case emissions scenarios and ignore the other one or two scenarios used in the models. In fact the projections are spot on when looked at honestly

          • RealOldOne2

            “Patently FALSE The models do NOT show too much warming, except when deniers cherry pick their projections for worst case emissions scenarios an ignore the other one or two scenarios used in the models.”
            Patently FALSE. A scientist who is not a denier, but a believer in your CAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism wrote a paper which confirmed that 98% of the latest CMIP5 climate models predict too much warming.

            “we find that the continued warming stagnation of fifteen years, 1998-2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level … for the 15-year trend interval corresponding to the latest observation period 1998-2012, only 2% of the 62 CMIP5 and less than 1% of the 189 CMIP3 trend computations are as low as or lower than the observed trend.” – vonStorch(2013) ‘Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?’

            “In fact the projections are spot on when looked at honestly”

            Patently FALSE. That warmist scientist confirmed that 61 of the 62 CMIP climate models predicted too much warming.

            And that warmist scientist’s paper confirmed that Dr. Roy Spencer’s graph, http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png , was correct. And there was no cherry-picking by Roy Spencer, because he evaluated 90 CMIP5 models, ~50% more than vonStorch did!

            You are just denying reality, evidently because of your ideological blindness and/or your inflexible belief in your climate alarmism belief system/religion.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth❞

            infrared radiation returning to earth, DLR, varies directly with atmospheric temperature. Temperature went up.

            Cho 2008: ”It has been shown that the downward longwave irradiance (DLR) is significantly correlated with three variables: air temperature, specific humidity, and cloudiness.”

            Dong 2006: ”Cloud fraction is the dominant modulator for determining insolation on the surface, nevertheless cloud-base height (temperature) is more important for downwelling LW flux.” TEMPERATURE.

            Feldman 2015: ”Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both [Southern Great Plains] and [North Slope of Alaska] are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2.” Temperature and humidity.

            Philipona 2004: ”Longwave downward radiation is expected to increase with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, but also with the increase in temperature and cloud amount.” Temperature and cloud amount.

            Dong 2006 found a decrease…
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c796d90207b76ad9441b796f5c71190bf4d3b3621792dda16b2561dc4ed0feaa.jpg

            Cho 2008 found a decrease in DLR, in Antarctica, were there is supposed to be “polar amplification” of this DLR.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c4fb21f0c36ba26d4a14678e9061463f520c969f1cb4b51990d9cb8973b6839.jpg

            Feldman 2015: “Over the …observation period (2000–2010), … both [Southern Great Plains and North Slope of Alaska] are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2.”

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝”The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements…❞

            Satellites cannot detect, let alone measure, the supposed “enhancement” … the change, in the GHE.
            Schwartz 2008: ”Comparison with the natural greenhouse effect of about 300 W/m^2 … shows that this enhancement [greenhouse gas forcing] is well less than 1%.”

            Wielicki 2013: ”Climate change, however, consists of very small changes in distributions of geophysical variables … Typical decadal changes are much less than 1% and clearly are small perturbations.”

            Ollila 2014: “The changes are so small that they can be analyzed only by computational methods.”

            Wick, Gary 2016: ”These climate change signals … are far below any expected observational accuracy globally or in polar regions. … .”

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝ When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. ❞

            That’s the trouble with an SKS-educated person … what you learned, here, is true, but, not only rare, exceedingly rare. “When a greenhouse gas absorbs infrared radiation”, in the lower troposphere, odds are better, that energy is taken away by a collision with a neighbouring N2 or O2 molecule, and not by that individual molecule re-radiating. So, that ‘heats the atmosphere’, which, in turn, (mostly) cannot radiate at all, because it its a two-atom gas, N2 or O2. Even if it was a CO2 or H2O, odds are a collision would happen before an emission. These gases react, not to ‘reradiate infrared radiation in all directions’ but, behave as a heated gas in a gravity-laden environment … they tend to rise. Warm air rises. 99.999% (or more) of the time, in the lower troposphere, energy is transferred from one molecule to another, by collision, and not by absorption or emission of a photon. So, the interaction is mostly, of a warmed gas, little to do with radiation. Warm air rises, and this entrains water vapour. As it rises, other parcels of air move laterally to take its place. The tropospheric lapse rate, about -6½°C per km of altitude. So, as this parcel of air rises, it cools. As water vapour cools, it condenses to liquid water. Liquid takes up less space, so this lowers the pressure (more than a drier parcel of air would), and this draws in more parcels of air, laterally as well as vertically. The heat that was held in the vapour state of water … called ‘latent’ heat, is released, heating the parcel … not only sustaining the ascension forces, but rating the temperature to a higher value than drier parcels at the same altitude. This heat was ‘hidden’ at lower altitudes, but becomes ‘sensible” heat. At this altitude, the majority of the mass of the atmosphere, is lower than this ascended parcel of air. Above this parcel, is rarefied, open space, with only an occasional atmospheric molecule. Collisions between them are less frequent, so the proportion of radiating events is elevated, relative to collision events, At this point, very little water vapour is above the parcel of air, and very little of any gas molecule is above it, and only 0.04% of those are CO2, so the radiation from the GHG in that parcel, when emitted upwards, are much less likely to be absorbed.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Reinhart 2013: ” After an absorption event, the CO2 molecule is in an excited state with an estimated lifetime, τrad = (uj / ∆uj)2 / ν ≈ 6 µs for the 15 ㎛ lines. This corresponds to the spontaneous radiative decay rate, Rrad = 1.7×105 s-1. Collisions with the dominant gases of the atmosphere lead to a non-radiative decay. At sea level and T = 288 K, the collision rate of all gas molecules is approximately the inverse of the mean free time between collision. Its value is 7 x 10^9/s. The present CO2 concentration amounts to cco2 = 400 ppm. This leads to a non-radiative collision rate with the CO2 Rnon = 28 x 10^5/s. The chances of radiative emission in this situation is given by Rrad / (Rrad + Rnon ) ≈ 0.06. In the troposphere, where most of the absorption takes place, most of the absorbed energy, by the CO2, heats the dominant atmospheric gases. This is, however, no longer the case in the stratosphere and even higher levels, where the collision rate is dramatically decreased.”

            NASA: Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor.”

            “So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere – poorly represented in computer models of global warming – that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.”

            http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

          • Damn Nitpicker

            frflyer, I want you to think for yourself. Please stop typing what Sks has written. Read the real science papers, take notes, quote the paper (not Sks) and provide citations. I won’t send you to what sup, please stop prattling on with sks text.

          • Jammy Dodger

            You can’t cope with SKS text because it is all backed up by properly peer reviewed science. Look at the references.

            Not cherry picked stuff quoted out of context like you.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Feel free to read the papers I quote. SKS is all backed up by selective choice of papers. You’ll not see many of the papers that I quote from, on Sks. That means, when real science has a disagreement, or a correction, sks just lets that slide. Then again, I wouldn’t expect you to find and read those papers … so, read the references you find at Sks, and quote the reference paper … not the sks text, please. Assemble your own thoughts, and support them with quotations from the papers.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Please, expound on what you think is ‘out of context’ so it can be clarified.

          • frflyer

            What Jammy Dodger said

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Lean & Rind 2008, and the “none of the natural processes…” has several monstrously large flaws. The biggest, is that it is discussing the flawed computer models …these are known knowns, thorny problems that continue into CMIP6. But the second, is that not all the natural processes have been considered. These are known unknowns. Oh, and then, there are the unknown, unknowns.

            Richard Alley said it more bluntly. Every time I post my notes, about that, it gets immediately flagged, and never appears again. I must have some illegal text in there, somewhere.

          • RealOldOne2

            “There are about a half dozen peer reviewed attribution studies showing that the net effect of ALL natural climate forcings …”
            All of those are fatally flawed because they were based on GCM climate models which are unable to accurately represent natural climate change, so they can’t be used to attribute warming to human versus natural causes. Plus they only look at the amount of TSI at ToA, not the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Trenberth, Fasullo, & Balmaseda 2014: ”All estimates (OHC and TOA) show that over the past decade, the energy imbalance ranges between about 0.5 and 1 W/㎡.”

            The concept of “Global Warming” is the supposed imbalance of Earf heat gain, and heat loss, measured in Watts per square metre of the Earf surface. In no particular order:

            L’Ecuyer 2015 0.45 W/㎡, Trenberth and pals, 2009: 0.9 W/㎡; Stephens 2012: 0.6W/㎡; Lyman 2010: 0.64 ± 0.11 W/㎡; Hansen 2011: 0.8 ± 0.2 W/㎡; Loeb 2012: 0.5 ± 0.43 W/㎡; Allan 2014: 0.34 ± 0.67 W/㎡ from 1985 to 1999 and 0.62 ± 0.43 W/㎡ from 2000 to 2012; Dieng: 0.75 ± 0.52 W/㎡; Levitus 2009: 0.57 W/㎡; Llovel 2014: 0.67 ± 0.43 W/㎡; Wild 2017: 0.60 W/㎡; Johnson 2012 0.48 W/㎡; Church 2011 ~0.4 W/㎡ …von Schuckmann and Le Traon, 2011: 0.55 ± 0.1 W/㎡, so, about ½ Watt per square metre.

            Schwartz 2008: ”Comparison with the natural greenhouse effect of about 300 W/m^2 … shows that this enhancement [greenhouse gas forcing] is well less than 1%.”

            Wielicki 2013: Climate change, however, consists of very small changes in distributions of geophysical variables … Typical decadal changes are much less than 1% and clearly are small perturbations.”

            Ollila 2014: “The changes are so small that they can be analyzed only by computational methods.”

            Wick, Gary 2016: ”These climate change signals … are far below any expected observational accuracy globally or in polar regions. … .”

            All these high-level climate scientists are telling you that these ‘Climate Change’ signals are really small… far below observational accuracy, can only be analyzed by computational methods, consisting of very small changes, much less than 1% … These folks are telling you that, in the twenty-first century. What “century of scientific knowledge” do you have, that these above-mentioned, high-level climate scientists have missed?

          • frflyer

            Very close to 1C surface warming in 137 years is substantial and very fast warming. There is no denying that.

            Oceans heat content steadily increasing, with temps increasing as deep as 2,000 meters.

            Season changing, shorter winters

            Arctic rapidly losing sea ice and land ice on Greenland

            Agricultural growing zones shifting north in northern hemisphere

            Sea level rising

            And you are saying the Earth’s energy balance change is not enough?

          • Damn Nitpicker

            All of the above, fast warming, OHC, shorter winters, ice loss, agricultural zones moving poleward, rising sea level … These are all just different manifestations of one single fact … It’s a bit warmer. These are not independent, separate facts … they are just one.
            Trenberth, Fasullo, & Balmaseda 2014: ”Rising surface temperatures are just one manifestation. Melting Arctic sea ice is another.”
            Shepherd, T, 2014: ”…surface temperature, upper-ocean heat content, sea level, Arctic sea-ice extent, glaciers, Northern Hemisphere snow cover, large-scale precipitation patterns (especially as reflected in ocean salinity), and temperature extremes (Figure 1a,b). All these global indicators are physically linked in a direct way to the first on the list, surface temperature, …”
            von Schuckmann 2016: ”…global temperature rise, increased [ocean heat content], sea level rise, and the acceleration of the hydrological cycle (Fig. 2b). These are all symptoms of [Earth’s energy imbalance].”
            … this, theorized, energy imbalance has been quantified as about ½W/㎡. Beyond small, that is tiny. Relative to the average sunshine striking Earf … (½÷340)=0.001471 ≈0.15%
            No, what I’m saying is that the imbalance is tiny. Too small for any direct measurement.

          • frflyer

            FALSE
            CO2 from fossil fuels has a different Carbon isotope than CO2 from other sources

            sources of carbon:
            land 120 Gt
            ocean 90 Gt
            human 7 Gt

            sinks for carbon:
            land 122 Gt
            ocean 92 Gt
            human 0 Gt
            net change: 3 Gt source – And it’s all human!

          • RealOldOne2

            “CO2 from fossil fuels has a different Carbon isotope than CO2 from other sources.”
            False. Figure 1 in this ‘Plant Physiology’ journal article, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC406107/pdf/plntphys00464-0001.pdf , shows that the δ¹³ C isotope ratio is exactly the same for coal, marine petroleum and land plants.

            “And it’s all human!”
            Peer reviewed science says that only 15% of the increased CO2 since the Industrial era is human, and 85% is natural:

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

          • frflyer

            So by natural factors, CO2 stayed between 170ppm – 300ppm for at least the previous 800,000 years, but somehow nature magically increases CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, to what is now 33% higher than in any of that previous time, at over 400ppm.

            Here’s someone who thinks like me.

            Tom Curtis at 12:40 PM on 5 April, 2012
            tompinlb @1:

            “1) CO2 concentrations over the holocene show little variation prior to the industrial era showing that the net natural CO2 flux is close to zero. Even the small 0.003 ppmv flux over the 7000 years prior to the industrial revolution is probably due to land use changes, partly from the desertification of the Sahara, but primarily due to human agriculture, particularly the cultivation of rice. The supposition that natural fluxes should increase 150 fold (conservatively estimated) by strange coincidence at exactly the time when humans started burning fossil fuels at a rate approximately double that which is required to explain the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere strains credulity, both in requiring human emissions to magically not effect atmospheric concentrations, and by requiring the vastly larger natural emissions from an undiscoverable source to magically coincide with the curiously ineffective human emissions.”

          • RealOldOne2

            Repeating your false claim and finding someone else that believes it doesn’t refute Harde(2017).

            “but somehow nature magically increases CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution … both in requiring human emissions to magically not effect[sic] atmospheric concentrations, and by requiring the vastly larger natural emissions from an undiscoverable source to magically coincide with the curiously ineffective human emissions.”
            You and Curtis reveal your lack of science knowledge here. First, no one saying that human emissions don’t affect atmospheric CO2, as Harde(2017) shows. It’s just that all of the increase in CO2 is not due to humans, because nature can’t magically discriminate and only sequester natural CO2. There’s nothing magical about this, nor is there any “undiscoverable source” involved. Peer reviewed science shows it is natural laws such as Henry’s law that causes oceans to net outgas CO2 into the atmosphere when the oceans have warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age, which is coincident with the Industrial era.

            “As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean is then affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag” – Humlum(2011)

            Peer reviewed science acknowledges that over 90% of global warming is observed in the increase in ocean heat content (OHC).

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

            The only physical mechanism that can transfer any significant amount of heat into the oceans on a global average basis is solar radiation. So again, nothing magical at all, just natural physical processes at work.

            And the Humlum paper shows that this natural physical process of ocean outgassing happens because the increase in CO2 lags temperature increase. This shows that the temperature change is the cause and the CO2 increase/decrease is the effect because a cause must happen before the effect.

            “Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millenium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets: 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface temperature data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. …

            A main control on atmospheric CO2 appears to be the ocean surface temperature, and remains a possibility that a significant part of the overall increase of atmospheric CO2 since at least 1958 (start of Mauna Loa observations) simply relflects the gradual warming of the oceans as a result of the prolonged period of high solar activity since 1920 (Solanki et al., 2004). Based on the GISP2 ice core proxy record from Greenland it has previously been pointed out that the present period of warming since 1850 to a high degree may be explained by a natural c. 1100 yr periodic temperature variation (Humlum et al., 2011). …

            As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag. …

            Conclusions
            There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower tropospheric temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.
            (1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.
            (2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
            (3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9.5-10 months behind changes in global surface air temperature.
            (4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.
            (5) Changes in ocean temperature appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.
            (6) CO2 released from anthropogene sources apparently has little influence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.
            (7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.
            (8) Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.” – Humlum et al., (2013), ‘The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature’

            Your whole argument fails.

          • frflyer

            1.
            Our emissions of CO2 have increased partial pressure, resulting in more ocean uptake of CO2 and curtailing ocean outgassing of CO2

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v365/n6442/abs/365119a0.html

            2.
            The increase in CO2 coincides with beginning of industrial revolution.

            http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

            3.
            Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;

            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/hl-full.htm

            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u

            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#atmospheric

            4.
            Declining C14 ratio indicate CO2 growth is not from recent biological source or ocean outgassing, and that the source is very old

            http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/volltexte/2006/6862/pdf/LevinRAD2000.pdf

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GC000264/full

            5.
            Declining C13 ratio shows a biological source, not volcanic

            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001GC000264/full

            6.
            Declining atmospheric O2 shows combustion, so not volcanic source

            http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm

            7.
            CO2 growth coincides almost perfectly with human emissions totals

            http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_seas_adj_fossil_fuel_trend.html

            8.
            Human emissions are about 100 times that of volcanoes, both and land and in the oceans

            http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

            9. Deforestation caused changes in biomass too small be a factor of 10

            http://web.archive.org/web/20120419234033/http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/hl-full.htm

            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/10/hl-full.htm#LandUseChange

            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget

            10.
            Changes in CO2 due to temperature rise are too small by a factor of 10, so not ocean outgassing

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yrco2.svg

          • frflyer

            BTW, I do think for myself. You just don’t like my sources. I weigh what I read, use critical thinking, not just accepting everything I read

            As for Skeptical Science, here is what peer review journal magazine Nature has to say.

            “some websites are instructive either as examples to follow or in highlighting key arguments…Skeptical Science reflects the views of an international group of technically minded individuals who look critically at climate-change scepticism”

          • RealOldOne2

            “reflects the views of an international group of technically minded individuals who look critically at climate change scepticism”
            Hahahaha Yeah, cartoonists and scrawleres!
            I exposed the false claims that your septical science sources told. It’s rubbish propaganda, made to dupe scientifically illiterate people. Hmmm.

          • RealOldOne2

            I addressed and refuted every point that you made. All you’ve done is ignore all the science that I have presented which shows you are wrong. You failed to refute or even address any of the peer reviewed science that I posted which empirically shows that the late 20th century warming was natural, just like every other climate warming throughout the history of the planet. All you’re doing is mindlessly posting your false climate alarmist talking points. That’s what ideologically blinded, cultists do, refuse to address the science that shows they are wrong, because they don’t care what the science says, they have decided to believe what they believe regardless of the fact that science shows they are wrong.

            And your new comment of false climate alarmist talking points still doesn’t refute the peer reviewed science that I posted. Once again I will point-by-point expose the flaws in your arguments.

            1. Irrelevant because the increase in OHC caused by solar radiation has caused net outgassing, thus increasing CO2. And the empirical science shows that the temperature changes happens first and the CO2 responds later. Since the cause must happen before the effect, this shows that it’s the temperature warming that is causing the CO2 increase. Humlum(2011) from my previous comment & https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b567a1366f5275a87214374ea62561e19a82dc649f9b56f54717befcb5b5bc3c.png

            That alone shoots down your whole false CO2 is the driver of warming meme.

            2. Irrelevant because of point 1 and the fact that the warming since the LIA has been the cause.

            3. Irrelevant because CO2 sinks can not discriminate between natural and FF CO2, so as I explained the ratio stays ~4% human and 96% natural because the CO2 is well mixed and the ‘residual’ that is not absorbed is 4% human and 96% natural, and when mixed with the next years’ 4% human and 96% natural, it’s still 96% natural and 4% human. And on and on and on indefinitely.

            4. Irrelevant because the declining ¹⁴C is due to the natural decay from the “bomb spike” as shown in the last figure from this Oak Ridge National Labs report: http://1.usa.gov/SGFleW

            5. Irrelevant because the δ¹³ ratio is not unique to fossil fuel combustion. The decay of vegetation has the same ratio as shown in Figure 1 in this ‘Plant Physiology’ journal article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC406107/pdf/plntphys00464-0001.pdf

            6. Irrelevant because oxygen depletion and δ¹³lightening do not match human activities, as fully explained in this article: http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html#III_A

            7. Irrelevant because of point 1 which shows that temperature drives CO2 change, because the temperature change happens before the CO2 change. The cause must happen before the effect.

            8. Irrelevant, because it’s ocean outgassing due to OHC increase caused by more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface and increased land plant decay caused by the significant increase in global greening,

            “Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Says – “From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. … Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth. … Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University.” – NASA, https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_bump_lrg.jpg

            9. Irrelevant because the increase in global greening far offset changes in deforestation.

            10. Irrelevant because your hokeystick chart doesn’t support your false claim.

            See, I’ve debunked all your false SkS propaganda memes before.

          • frflyer

            Regarding the paper by Harde that you cited.

            ” Harde (2017) therefore reaches an incorrect conclusion about the role of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Harde (2017) tries to explain changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration with a single equation, while the most simple model of the carbon cycle must at minimum contain equations of at least two reservoirs (the atmosphere and the surface ocean), which are solved simultaneously. A single equation is fundamentally at odds with basic theory and observations.”

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117301364

          • frflyer

            “There is no observational evidence linking Mannkind’s burning of fossil fuels, and planetary warming. None.”

            Except ALL of it.

            Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we know

            “when you claim that virtually all of the world’s climatologists are wrong and the earth is actually warming naturally, you have just placed the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that claim. In other words, simply citing previous warming events does not prove that the current warming is natural. You have to actually provide evidence for a natural cause of the current warming, but (as I’ll explain shortly) no such mechanism exists.”

            https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-isnt-natural-and-heres-how-we-know/

          • frflyer
          • frflyer

            The following is from Daniel Bailey, a scientist who works at Skeptical Science and sometimes with NASA climate

            There are ten main lines of evidence to be considered:

            1. The start of the growth in CO2 concentration coincides with the start of the industrial revolution, hence anthropogenic;
            http://radioviceonline.com/…/knorr2009_co2…

            2. Increase in CO2 concentration over the long term almost exactly correlates with cumulative anthropogenic emissions, hence anthropogenic;
            http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/…/mauna_loa_seas_adj_fossil…

            3. Annual CO2 concentration growth is less than Annual CO2 emissions, hence anthropogenic;
            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonb…/10/hl-full.htm
            http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u
            http://cdiac.ornl.gov/by_new/bysubjec.html#atmospheric

            4. Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
            http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/…/pdf/LevinRAD2000.pdf

            5. Declining C13 ratio indicates a biological source, hence not volcanic;
            http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GC000264.shtml

            6. Declining O2 concentration indicate combustion, hence not volcanic;
            http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/108.htm

            7. Partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean is increasing, hence not oceanic outgassing;
            http://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/7a.html

            8. Measured CO2 emissions from all (surface and beneath the sea) volcanoes are one-hundredth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions; hence not volcanic;
            http://www.agu.org/pubs/pdf/2011EO240001.pdf

            9. Known changes in biomass too small by a factor of 10, hence not deforestation;
            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carb…/10/hl-full.htm…
            http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/

            10. Known changes of CO2 concentration with temperature are too small by a factor of 10, hence not ocean outgassing.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lawdome75yrco2.svg

            The current, and ongoing, increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is due to human industrial activities. In scientific circles this is the climatological equivalent of the Earth being round – a fact so plainly obvious and supported by such a vast body of scientific evidence that to question its reality is absurd.

            It quickly becomes clear that it is the humans who have caused the rise in CO2 levels, by burning fossil fuels in the twentieth century. Every other hypothesis makes a host of predictions that do not pass the test of the evidence.”

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Judith Lean wrote a paper, in 2008, with Rind which I have quoted in an earlier post on this page. If I quote it again, Disqus will mark it as ‘spam’ and it won’t be posted. I’ll try a subset of the text:

            In the paper, the authors started off with a grand summary. They mentioned, ”An exhaustive model- based study concludes that increasing anthropogenic gas concentrations (GHGs and tropospheric aerosols) produced 0.3–0.5 K per century warming over the 1906–1996 period, and are the dominant cause of global surface warming after 1976 [Allen et al., 2006].”

            If some empirical, observational evidence, of this anthropogenic warming, existed prior to their publication in 2008, don’t you think that this review, would have mentioned it? …but, all they mentioned in this review, was this exhaustive model-based study by Allen 2006.

            Where is this empirical, observational evidence that Mannkind’s emissions of CO₂ caused warming? All I can find, is computer-model generated, imaginary evidence, and people who conflate warming with evidence illuminating the cause of the warming.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            There you go again “Where is this empirical, observational evidence?” We realize by now that YOU haven’t seen any, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist.
            Obviously you have considerable difficult adding two and two, or even one and one. Otherwise you would look at the many experiments which show that increasing CO2 in a body of air (like in a greenhouse) raises the temperature. Then you would look at the measurements (usually considered empirical evidence) of CO2 in the atmosphere (around 280 in pre-industrial days and over 400 now) and you would say to your self “Could this possibly be the reason that temperatures are rising?”

            Of course,you would have to accept the fact – shown by yet more empirical evidence – that temperatures are rising. If you were in any way connected to the climate sciences (which you clearly are not), you would do what scientists do and you would test this hypothesis in whatever way you could. And you would come to the conclusion that all the empirical evidence available pointed in one direction: the earth is warming because of humans’ love affair with fossil fuels.

            You would, but you don’t because you are a stubborn old fool who thinks he knows better than nearly every climate-related scientist on the planet.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Even you (tacitly) admit, there is no observational evidence!

            ❝many experiments … CO2 … temperature.❞

            Consider Ramanathan & Collins 1991, where they observed, not only an increase in the greenhouse effect, but, the termed it, a supergreenhouse effect. However, Earf reacted to it, and formed (a slight excess of) clouds, which cut off the incident sunlight, and stopped the warming.
            Ramanathan & Collins 1991: ”Observations made … in the upper range of sea surface temperatures, … In response to this ‘super greenhouse effect’, highly reflective cirrus clouds are produced which act like a thermostat shielding the ocean from solar radiation. The regulatory effect of these cirrus clouds may limit sea surface temperatures to less than 305 K.” Yes, Ms. Mayor, there are excellent measurements of atmospheric CO₂. There are bastardized measurements of global surface-air Tamperature. The correlation between the two isn’t so hot (pun intended) ‘cept for the last few years (when, the correlation is mediocre). In his awesome 1982 tome, called “Causation”, Barnard wrote: “That correlation, is not causation, is perhaps the first thing that must be said.”
            Barnard, G. A. 1982 “Causation. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences” John Wiley, New York
            “Correlation is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for a causal relationship” J Munshi
            This is sage advice from learned, esteemed professors, Eliszabeth …
            CO₂ is easily demonstrated as opaque to certain wavenumbers, in a brass tube, as was done by John Tyndall, when he experimentally verified infrared opacity in various gases. However, the gases in Tyndall’s tube did not convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. It is this atmospheric motion …
            Ramanathan & Collins 1991: “The required moisture for sustaining cirrus is not necessarily provided by the local evaporation, but instead, by large-scale transport within the lower troposphere, into the region of convection. These large circulation systems are the ‘Hadly’ and ‘Walker’ circulations. The sources [of energy] for these large-scale motions are the latent heat released by convection, the cirrus long-wave cloud forcing, and the spatial gradients in SST. Therefore, this convective large-scale system is self-sustaining. The large-scale convergence of moisture, into the warm oceanic regions, amplifies the warming, though the enhanced greenhouse effect, further driving the circulation. This continues, until the cirrus clouds, which accumulate during this process, reflect enough sunlight to arrest further warming. Thus, the [cirrus-cloud] anvils act like a thermostat.”

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Face palm. I admitted nothing of the sort, tacitly or otherwise. There is a wealth of observational evidence. You are just too stupid to accept that.

            And yes, I called you stupid. It takes a lot to make me say that, but, boy, have you earned the epithet.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Sure, there’s a wealth of observational evidence, of all kinds of things … but, none that show Mannkind’s CO₂ emissions cause planarity warming. We realize by now that YOU haven’t seen any, either, but that doesn’t stop you from believing it, simply because you are told it is so. Faith.

            Lean 2018: ”IPCC’s finding that the globe would warm in the range 2–4 °C by the end of the 21st century unless greenhouse gas emissions were reduced significantly was based on simulations made by physical climate models, …”

            Lean 2018: ”The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC (2007), charged with the detection and attribution of climate change for its Government stakeholders, stated that ❝Most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid‐20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases❞. The basis for asserting a discernible human influence on climate is statistical comparisons of observed temperature with physical model simulations of the changes expected from anthropogenic and natural influences (Hegerl & Zwiers, 2011; Stott et al., 2010).”

            Lean, Judith L. 2018 “Observation‐based detection and attribution of 21st century climate change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝Except ALL of it. Global warming isn’t natural, …when you claim that virtually all of the world’s climatologists are wrong ❞

            Really? So, you are unable to refute my contention with anything specific … https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9fdc8cda4bd69e751bf26ee9aa9b0b7ae72170f55c05a5d15e733dbf5c0ef0aa.jpg

          • With Respect

            Science is the method of discovering knowledge by holding exact or most nearly true only inference from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission so far as possible until new observation lead to amended or new inference.

            That’s what’s real.

            Scientists don’t need to ‘believe’ CO2 is Earth’s main climate driver. Scientists have inferred CO2 is Earth’s main climate driver from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission, based on more evidence than we have for gravity waves, extrasolar planets, the Higgs boson or any of a thousand of other things scientists believe.

          • nik

            Scientists, or politicians claiming that scientists….?
            Trust me! I’m a politician!

            ” Scientists have inferred CO2 is Earth’s main climate driver from all observation with least assumption, exception or omission, based on more evidence than we have for gravity waves, extrasolar planets, the Higgs boson or any of a thousand of other things scientists believe.”

            Infer what you like, ”if the observed facts do not support the theory, no matter how elegant the theory, then the theory is wrong!”

            Show me the ‘facts’ that support the theory.

          • With Respect

            Deadbeats will hold to any absurdity to avoid facing their debts.

            Tyndall, Foote, Fourier, Arrhenius, Hogbom, Callendar, Plass, Lamb and a thousand other scientists worked out the mechanisms of CO2’s GHE and the influence of fossil waste dumping long before any politician woke up to the facts.

            Show me facts that support your conspiracy theory that this came out of politics.

            As for being shown the facts that support the inference — not the theory, not the belief, not the hypothesis but the conclusion from observation — you’re in denial, and will cling to absurdity to avoid facing your fossil waste dumping debts. We’ve seen this about you and others like you over and over again. We’ve studied that science of coping with loss, and your responses are no different than those who cannot deal with the loss of a pet or coming out on the losing side of a football game: you’ll say anything to flee the truth.

            You know this, deep down, or you would never post as you do the same failed demand over and over again to be shown what you know is real. You know you can linger in ignorance and pretend you haven’t seen it because you think this is that kind of discussion.

            It isn’t. You’re a disease-sufferer being led around on a leash in the center ring of a circus of your own making. Once I’m done showing you off for what you are, you’re of no use to me, just another deadbeat, an example of what happens when people don’t collect what they’re owed.

          • nik

            You’re still full of verbal diarrhoea.

          • OWilson

            Here’s my “inference from observation” :)

            The world faces many human threats, war, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, government lies and corruption. and soaring National National Debt.

            All political national and international attempted solutions fail to stem these real and present dangers.

            Mother Nature herself delivers, random earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, deadly diseases, and has herself killed off 99% or so of all species that ever existed.

            The slight warming of the planet, and the weather, 100 years from now is not a pressing issue, given current technology, and the fact that the we are setting World Record Agricultural Production Records, year after year.

            To believe we can tax, spend (“invest” is a word corrupted by politicians!) and regulate the world to fix the weather within a degree or two, a hundred years from now is a political belief, not a scientific one!

            We now have the statement that “Co2 is the “primary”, and “main” climate driver. I’ve followed the scientific debate, but can find no reputable scientist or organanization who have directly stated this!

            Whatever happened to the Sun, water vapour, and residual heat from the core, not to mention internal radioactivity?

            Lol!

            I see a lot of denial in the running up of unsustainable National Debt that is kicked down the road to generations yet unborn, to be dealt with, after the current big spenders are long dead!

            That is obscene, selfish, immoral, and actually un-Constitutional, Taxation without Representation.

          • With Respect

            What smugly irrelevant crackery deadbeats and hippies will spout when put on the spot about their unaddressed debts and duties.

            If you can claim to have followed ‘the debate’ (despicable practice of ancient Greek political classes of abusing reference to false authority, logical fallacy and appeal to base emotion to make the worse case seem the better) and not know Dr. Richard Alley’s reputable direct statements derived from observation by inference, then you’re an incompetent reader. How about the American Physics Society? A reputable scientist and organization identified within seconds by simple search.

            Google it. Better, Google Scholar it.

            Less than 0.04% of Earth’s surface heat comes from internal radiation. And while it’s true about 90% of the surface heat of the Earth is explained by the Sun, the Sun’s effects fall more than 30 Kelvin short of explaining Earth’s temperature. All of that 31 plus degrees is the result of the Greenhouse Effect (GHE); about 3/4’s of the GHE is from water vapor, a condensing gas that has a wavelength hole that lets out some IR trapped by only one other GHG: CO2. When CO2 level rises, not only does that window further close on outgoing IR, but the dew point of water vapor also rises, letting exponentially more water vapor into the air, a positive feedback warming more.

            Can the Sun’s variability account for climate change? Some, yes; a tiny fraction of that 90% of the Earth’s source heat does vary, generally by less than 0.3% every 11 years — a signal so faint it is no longer detected in the noise of AGW — and a further rise of some 0.09% per million years of TSI converts to an amount of additional heat so small its influence can only be detected on geological timescales, and some short range variability less than 3% over decades or centuries, but all changes in Earth’s temperature due changes in the Sun’s output are scaled proportional to the 4th root of the difference, so it’s not the Sun.

            It’s not volcanoes or fairy dust or the breath of the invisible sky man or dragon farts.

            It’s CO2.

            The rest of your silliness? Over 70% of Americans represent that they want something done about AGW, and most agree the fossil industry pays too little share for its dumping. In British Columbia, the government that introduced the world’s most complete carbon tax was re-elected with an increased majority because the carbon tax lowered other taxes; now the whole country of Canada following BC’s lead is raising its carbon taxes to $55/ton in the next 5 years.

          • OWilson

            Your faith in politicians and lack of direct links to the simple question, Is noted.

            “”Co2 is the “primary”, and “main” climate driver”. Or as the author of the article, says, “pre-eminent”.

            Again, no reputable scientist or organization has directly stated this!

            As for political promises, most politicians will not be around in 5 years. See Obama’s promises, North Korea’s promises. Iran’s promises. His Excellency Rajenda Pachauri the Chairman of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC to you) was unceremoniously dumped for sexually harrasing his staff!

            I don’t need advice from him, thank you!

            Nor from Al Gore, the Pope, Prince Charles, Heinz-Kerry, Obama, or the assorted miriad of your air headed, crooners, mimes, and jesters that inhabit your Hollywood Swamp.

            Also your own authority to lecture me on my “unaddressed debts and obligations”, comes from where exactly ? Lol!

            Thanks, but no thanks!

            Now you’re done!

          • Bluetooth

            Climate changes continuously, just not caused by man….

          • frflyer

            Here is who believe CO2 is what is warming the planet, from human caused emissions

            Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
            Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
            Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
            Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
            Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
            Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
            Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Académie des Sciences, France
            Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
            Academy of Athens
            Academy of Science of Mozambique
            Academy of Science of South Africa
            Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Academy of Sciences of Moldova
            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
            Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
            African Academy of Sciences
            Albanian Academy of Sciences
            Amazon Environmental Research Institute
            American Academy of Pediatrics
            American Anthropological Association
            American Association for the Advancement of Science
            American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
            American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
            American Astronomical Society
            American Chemical Society
            American College of Preventive Medicine
            American Fisheries Society
            American Geophysical Union
            American Institute of Biological Sciences
            American Institute of Physics
            American Meteorological Society
            American Physical Society
            American Public Health Association
            American Quaternary Association
            American Society for Microbiology
            American Society of Agronomy
            American Society of Civil Engineers
            American Society of Plant Biologists
            American Statistical Association
            Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
            Australian Academy of Science
            Australian Bureau of Meteorology
            Australian Coral Reef Society
            Australian Institute of Marine Science
            Australian Institute of Physics
            Australian Marine Sciences Association
            Australian Medical Association
            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
            Botanical Society of America
            Brazilian Academy of Sciences
            British Antarctic Survey
            Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
            California Academy of Sciences
            Cameroon Academy of Sciences
            Canadian Association of Physicists
            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
            Canadian Geophysical Union
            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Canadian Society of Soil Science
            Canadian Society of Zoologists
            Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
            Center for International Forestry Research
            Chinese Academy of Sciences
            Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
            Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
            Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
            Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Crop Science Society of America
            Cuban Academy of Sciences
            Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
            Ecological Society of America
            Ecological Society of Australia
            Environmental Protection Agency
            European Academy of Sciences and Arts
            European Federation of Geologists
            European Geosciences Union
            European Physical Society
            European Science Foundation
            Federation of American Scientists
            French Academy of Sciences
            Geological Society of America
            Geological Society of Australia
            Geological Society of London
            Georgian Academy of Sciences
            German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
            Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Indian National Science Academy
            Indonesian Academy of Sciences
            Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
            Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
            Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
            InterAcademy Council
            International Alliance of Research Universities
            International Arctic Science Committee
            International Association for Great Lakes Research
            International Council for Science
            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
            International Research Institute for Climate and Society
            International Union for Quaternary Research
            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
            International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
            Islamic World Academy of Sciences
            Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
            Kenya National Academy of Sciences
            Korean Academy of Science and Technology
            Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
            l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Latin American Academy of Sciences
            Latvian Academy of Sciences
            Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
            Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
            Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
            Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
            National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
            National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
            National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
            National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
            National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
            National Aeronautics and Space Administration
            National Association of Geoscience Teachers
            National Association of State Foresters
            National Center for Atmospheric Research
            National Council of Engineers Australia
            National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            National Research Council
            National Science Foundation
            Natural England
            Natural Environment Research Council, UKbeleive
            Natural Science Collections Alliance
            Network of African Science Academies
            New York Academy of Sciences
            Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
            Nigerian Academy of Sciences
            Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Oklahoma Climatological Survey
            Organization of Biological Field Stations
            Pakistan Academy of Sciences
            Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
            Pew Center on Global Climate Change
            Polish Academy of Sciences
            Romanian Academy
            Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
            Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
            Royal Astronomical Society, UK
            Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Royal Irish Academy
            Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
            Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
            Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
            Royal Society of Canada
            Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
            Royal Society of the United Kingdom
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
            Russian Academy of Sciences
            Science and Technology, Australia
            Science Council of Japan
            Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
            Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
            Scripps Institution of Oceanography
            Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Slovak Academy of Sciences
            Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Society for Ecological Restoration International
            Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
            Society of American Foresters
            Society of Biology (UK)
            Society of Systematic Biologists
            Soil Science Society of America
            Sudan Academy of Sciences
            Sudanese National Academy of Science
            Tanzania Academy of united to Sciences
            The Wildlife Society (international)
            Turkish Academy of Sciences
            Uganda National Academy of Sciences
            Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
            United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
            University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
            Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
            Woods Hole Research Center
            World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
            World Federation of Public Health Associations
            World Forestry Congress
            World Health Organization
            World Meteorological Organization
            Zambia Academy of Sciences
            Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Einstein was confronted with a hundred other scientists who objected to his theory of relativity. Einstein reported quipped, “Why a hundred? If I was wrong, all it would take is just one.”

          • frflyer

            Except, we are talking about over 150 years of research and tens of thousands of peer reviewed research papers.

            “Two Centuries of Climate Science:
            part one of three; –
            Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930”
            by John Mason

            excerpt
            “…towards the end of the 19th Century by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927). Reasoning that, because it fluctuated daily, water vapour was continually recycling itself in and out of the atmosphere, he turned his attention to carbon dioxide, a gas resident for a long time in the atmosphere whose concentration was only (at that time) dramatically changed by major sources such as volcanoes or major drawdowns such as unusual and massive episodes of mineral weathering or the evolution of photosynthetic plants: events that occur on very long, geological timescales. Arrhenius figured out that an increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would result in a certain amount of warming. In addition, it was already known via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, that warmer air can hold more water vapour: the amount is about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. And that additional water vapour would in turn cause further warming – this being a positive feedback, in which carbon dioxide acts as a direct regulator of temperature, and is then joined in that role by more water vapour as temperatures increase.”

            [from comment by Chris G]
            “It strikes me as supreme hubris when I come across those who doubt that more CO2 will lead to more energy retention; it’s as though they think they know something that 200 years of hashing out the details of how this works has not already discovered. It’s not impossible, but you’d better bring the goods, and no one I’ve ever come across has.”

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/two-centuries-climate-science-1.html

          • frflyer

            Arrhenius was researching whether human emissions of CO2 could warm the planet, by burning fossil fuels – over 100 years ago!!

            You might also want to read “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart.
            you can read it online- free.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Arrhenius was researching whether human emissions of CO2 could warm the planet, bu burning fossil fuels – over 100 years ago!!”
            Yes, and he recognized that warming would be a good thing for the earth and humanity.

            “By the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equitable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.” – ‘On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground’, Svante Arrhenius, 1896

            And Guy Callendar also recognized that warming would be a good thing.

            “In conclusion it may be said that the combustion of fossil fuel, whether it be peat from the surface or oil from 10,000 feet below, is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power. For example the above mentioned increases of mean temperature would be important at the norther margin of cultivation, and the growth of favourable situated plants is directly proportional to the carbon dioxide pressure (Brown and Escombe, 1905). In any case the return of the glaciers should be delayed indefinitely.” – ‘The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature’ – Callendar, 1938

            So Arrhenius and Callendar were not climate alarmists, although they did believe in the CO2 climate warming hypothesis.

            And the real world has shown that the additional CO2 and slight natural warming of the late 20th century has indeed been a good thing, contributing to the greening of the planet, https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ , and has contributed to the 96% average increase in 40 of 43 food crop yields over the last half of the 20th century. Only 3 of 43 food crops had decreased yields averaging only 6%.

            The real world empirical data has shown the alarm over increased CO2 and warming to be false.

          • frflyer

            “And the real world has shown that the additional CO2 and slight natural warming of the late 20th century”

            Slight warming? You lost me there.
            1C warming and a likely 3C by end of century, on our current path, is VERY fast warming.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Slight warming?”
            Yes, slight warming over the last half of the 20th century, which is the only warming the IPCC claims is primarily human-caused. The satellite data shows that there has only been ~0.5C and most of that has been natural, due to El Nino and more solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface.

            “is VERY fast warming”
            There have been many previous natural warmings with greater rates of warming and greater absolute warming than recent warming of less than 1C/century, such as the following:

            – 250 yrs BP 106yr natural warming of >1.5C/century
            – 400 yrs BP 103yr natural warming of >1.5C/century
            – 1600 yrs BP 119yr natural warming of >1.25C/century
            – 2585 yrs BP 84yr natural warming of 2.0C/century
            – 2760 yrs BP 90yr natural warming of 2.2C/century
            – 2980 yrs BP 133yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 3511 yrs BP 89yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 4880 yrs BP 94yr natural warming of 1.5C/century
            – 6385 yrs BP 98yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 8226 yrs BP 91yr natural warming of 3.2C/century
            – 10.3K yrs BP 97yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 74.7K yrs BP 167yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 78.4K yrs BP 160yr natural warming of 1.9C/century
            – 80.2K yrs BP 153yr natural warming of 1.8C/century
            – 82.4K yrs BP 139yr natural warming of 1.7C/century
            – 90.1K yrs BP 155yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 102K yrs BP 65yr natural warming of 1.4C/century
            – 127K yrs BP 102yr natural warming of 1.3C/century
            – 129K yrs BP 162yr natural warming was 1.9C/century
            Sources: Mulvaney(2012) and this report

          • frflyer

            “Repeated experimental data (ex. the FACE experiments) show that increased CO2 levels have adverse consequences on food quality. Photosynthetic activity does increase, but the protein and iron content of major crops such as wheat, rice, and barley drop by 5 to 15% under elevated CO2 conditions (viz., levels expected in year 2100).

            The reason seems to be that increased CO2, despite increasing overall photosynthetic activity and thus plant size, robs certain plants (i.e. C3 plants) of their ability to process nitrogen, which is required to convert carbon to protein. Moreover, additional application of nitrogen to the plant (ex. through fertilizer) does not appear to ameliorate this.”

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1810

          • RealOldOne2

            The doubling of yield far outweighs the slight decrease in nutrient density. You are just looking for ways to deny reality that CO2 is beneficial, not harmful.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            150 years of incorrect conclusions brought to the forefront as if they were uncontested. Recognize the errors of your worshipped gods, Tyndall and Arrhenius. Svante did not know about the water vapour’s far infrared radiation … neither did John Tyndall. See, John used rock salt to cap his brass tubes, when he observed that CO2 was opaque to some bands of infrared radiation. He knew not to use glass, because Silicon dioxide glass is widely opaque to infrared. At least, rock salt has some penetration into the IR (but not enough). Arrhenius used data from Langley’s prism, which was made from rock salt. Rock salt is opaque from 20㎛ past 100㎛. Neither Tyndall nor Langley nor Arrhenius could “see” or “measure” wavelengths longer than 20㎛. However, the cooling of the middle and upper troposphere is primarily from the water vapour rotational band (15㎛-100㎛ far-infrared). [Liou 1981 An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation, 4.8, pg 109] … This is important, flighty, … about half of the infrared radiation that successfully escapes into space from water vapour, is in this long wavelength band. That means Arrhenius blundered, in his attempts to “subtract” water vapour’s effects from the combined atmosphere “greenhouse effect” … which means, he got a grossly wrong answer for the effects of CO2. Around 46% of water vapour’s radiation is in this band of longer wavelengths … Those scientists missed that. Even Plass, in 1956, laments the missing, far-infrared data:

            Plass 1956: ”An accurate analysis of the effect of H,O on atmospheric radiation has not been made as yet because of the complexity of this spectrum and the difficulty of making experimental measurements beyond 20 microns. Considerable further work needs to be done on the effect of H2O. ”

            Without detailed knowledge of the measure of water vapour in the far infrared, nobody could determine any balance or imbalance of the planet energy budget.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Except, we are talking about over 150 years of research and tens of thousands of peer reviewed research papers.”
            But not a single one of those peer reviewed papers empirically shows that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming like the climate alarmists claim.

            And you are misrepresenting the history of the ‘CO2 hypothesis’ if you are claiming it was the accepted hypothesis of the cause of climate warming for the past 150 years. It was a fringe hypothesis that was not widely held until the recent decades when it became more of a political and ideological movement funded by government largess.

            Back in 1951 the world’s leading climate scientists rejected the CO2 theory of global warming and documented the fact that the CO2 theory was never widely held. Here’s the evidence of that historical reality:

            “The purpose of the Compendium of Meteorology is to take stock of the present position of meteorology, to summarize an appraise the knowledge which untiring research has been able to wrest from nature during past years, and to indicate the avenues of further studies and research which need to be explored in order to extend the frontiers of our knowledge.

            Arrhenius and Chamberlain saw in this [variations in carbon dioxide] a cause of climate changes, but the theory was never widely accepted and was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation absorbed by CO2 is also absorbed by water vapor. In the past hundred years burning coal has increased the amount of CO2 by a measurable amount (from 0.28 to 0,30 percent), and Callendar [7] sees in this an explanation of the recent rise in global temperature. But during the last 7000 years there have been greater fluctuations in temperature without the intervention of man, and there seems to be no reason to regard the recent rise as more than a coincidence. This theory is not considered further.

            Geological weather changes. The cause of the ice ages has been and still is a subject of lively debate. Of the many theories that have been propounded, three have seemed particularly attractive and have received the most attention. These are (1) the theory of distribution of insolational heating, (2) the theory of mountain or continent building, and (3) the theory of solar variability
            Climatic weather changes. Climatic weather changes, with their smaller amplitudes, have received less attention than geological changes. Of the theories discussed above for the geological changes, only the theory of solar variability could carry over to explain climatic changes. …
            Secular weather changes. No cause of the secular weather changes, other than possible solar effects, has been seriously offered. …

            THE SOLAR HYPOTHESIS AS THE PRIMARY FACTOR CONTROLLING THE ENTIRE SPECTRUM OF ANOMALOUS WEATHER CHANGES [caps in original as the heading of next section] The discussion of the preceding pages indicates in certain respects the general over-all aptness of the solar explanation for the entire range of irregular weather fluctuations” – American Meteorology Society’s 1951 Compendium on Meteorology, pp. v, 1016, 384-5

            So not only did the AMS document that the CO2 theory of climate change was never widely held, they concluded that the solar effects hypothesis was the only one that was apt in explaining weather and climate changes.

            The 1951 AMS report mentions that Callendar supported the CO2 hypothesis, but in Callendar’s 1938 paper he acknowledged that the CO2 hypothesis was not widely accepted when he stated:

            “Few of those familiar with the natural heat exchanges of the atmosphere, which go into makings of our climate and weather, would be prepared to admit that activities of man could have any influence on phenomena of so vast a scale. … It is well known that the gas carbon dioxide has certain strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the spectrum, and when this fact was discovered some 70 years ago it soon led to speculation on the effect which changes in the amount of the gas in the air could have on the temperature of the earth’s surface. In view of the much larger quantities and absorbing power of atmospheric water vapour it was concluded that the effect of carbon dioxide was probably negligible.” – Callendar(1938) ‘The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its Influence on Temperature’

            Since rates of human carbon dioxide release in the atmosphere were constantly increasing, Callendar expected that global temperature would increase during the next 20 years and would show that the CO2 hypothesis to be correct:

            “The course of world temperatures during the next twenty years should afford valuable evidence as to the accuracy of the calculated effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide.” – ibid

            In the next 20 years after Callendar’s paper, humans added more CO2 than ever before. But the empirical data of temperatures over the next 20 years after Callendar’s 1938 paper showed a linear decrease in temperature of ~0.3C over the next 20 years: https://climatism.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/nas.jpg?w=590&h=402 & http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1938/to:1958/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1938/to:1958/trend . So we see that the Arrhenius/Chamberlain/Callendar CO2 hypothesis failed the real world test, because global temperatures decreased over the next 40 years after Calander’s prediction, even though humans added over 2 times the total amount of human CO2 between 1938-1978 than had been added before 1938: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/88dbdb5a68831dd1d6b7a202603ac5f702db4fffe2b5b9cf009dbe3a1ac18c69.png

          • frflyer

            “does any scientist really believe the statement about Co2 being Earth’s main climate driver?”

            Every major professional science organization in the world, with any relevance to earth sciences, AGREES with AGW

          • yetanotherbob

            NO, you are wrong, frflyer.

            What every real scientist agrees with is that the sun is the primary driver of earth’s temperature. Without the sun, Earths surface temperature would be just a few degrees Kelvin. Oxygen and nitrogen would be solids. Only hydrogen and helium would exist as gasses, and some of that hydrogen would be a liquid.

            What you should have said is that a majority of scientists believe that the warming observed in the past two or three decades is due primarily to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to the historical norm.

            That would be correct, but not politically correct, as it could be used to point out that not every scientists is on board with the political doctrine.

            Of course, if every scientist were really on board with any single point of view, that would imply coercion, and therefore not real science.

            Interestingly, that is basically the starting point for “nik” and then “OWilson that sparked off this entire thread.

            I’m not saying they are correct, but most of the responses against them are rather knee jerk and also just plain wrong.

            It is true that both sides cannot be totally right, but it is not true that then one side or the other has to be right. Both sides are often wrong to varying degrees in many situations.

          • frflyer

            This is a fact and I repeat it

            Every major professional science organization in the world, with any relevance to earth sciences, AGREES with AGW

            Of course the Sun is the primary source of energy on Earth.

            We are warming the planet 16 times as fast as it warmed coming out of the last glacial period, 20,000 to 11,000 years ago.

            That is because we are increasing atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature has done in at least the last 450,000 years and almost certainly the last 800,000 years or more.

            Nobody can model the climate since the industrial revolution and come up with anything but human emissions of greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular, as the main driver of the warming.

          • frflyer

            Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 80ppm since 1960. (56 years)

            How does that compare with naturally occurring changes over the past 450,000 years?

            Well from ice core data:

            450,000 years ago, it was at ~200ppm and it took ~50,000 years to go to ~ 280ppm. (80ppm increase)

            It was at ~190ppm 350,000 years ago and it took 25,000 years to go up to 300ppm. (110ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 260,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~300ppm. (120ppm increase)

            It was at ~200ppm 220,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~260ppm. (60ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 140,000 years ago and it took 15,000 years to go up to ~290ppm. (90ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 25,000 years ago and it took 24,800 years to go up to ~280ppm. (100ppm increase)
            ————————————-

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Last time you said that you had never met a “climate denier”, a ridiculous claim which was well and truly ridiculed.

            Now you claim never to have met a “climate change denier”. Obviously you have not looked in the mirror lately.

            However, what you think or choose to write is irrelevant. Global warming – and the resultant changes to water cycles, and weather patterns – is merely a symptom of the underlying problem. That problem is that man is rapidly destroying the habitats which support life on earth. Without massive changes in the way we – the hyperconsuming members of western civilization (so-called) – manage our lives, there is little hope for the survival of the human race.

          • frflyer

            “And does any scientist really believe the statement about Co2 being Earth’s main climate driver?”

            YES, at least 97% of them agree that humans are causing the planet to warm.

            And all these professional science organizations have made statements that they agree with AGW.

            Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
            Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
            Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
            Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
            Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
            Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
            Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
            Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Académie des Sciences, France
            Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
            Academy of Athens
            Academy of Science of Mozambique
            Academy of Science of South Africa
            Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
            Academy of Sciences Malaysia
            Academy of Sciences of Moldova
            Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
            Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
            Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
            Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
            Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
            African Academy of Sciences
            Albanian Academy of Sciences
            Amazon Environmental Research Institute
            American Academy of Pediatrics
            American Anthropological Association
            American Association for the Advancement of Science
            American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
            American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
            American Astronomical Society
            American Chemical Society
            American College of Preventive Medicine
            American Fisheries Society
            American Geophysical Union
            American Institute of Biological Sciences
            American Institute of Physics
            American Meteorological Society
            American Physical Society
            American Public Health Association
            American Quaternary Association
            American Society for Microbiology
            American Society of Agronomy
            American Society of Civil Engineers
            American Society of Plant Biologists
            American Statistical Association
            Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
            Australian Academy of Science
            Australian Bureau of Meteorology
            Australian Coral Reef Society
            Australian Institute of Marine Science
            Australian Institute of Physics
            Australian Marine Sciences Association
            Australian Medical Association
            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
            Botanical Society of America
            Brazilian Academy of Sciences
            British Antarctic Survey
            Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
            California Academy of Sciences
            Cameroon Academy of Sciences
            Canadian Association of Physicists
            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
            Canadian Geophysical Union
            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
            Canadian Society of Soil Science
            Canadian Society of Zoologists
            Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
            Center for International Forestry Research
            Chinese Academy of Sciences
            Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
            Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
            Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
            Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Crop Science Society of America
            Cuban Academy of Sciences
            Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
            Ecological Society of America
            Ecological Society of Australia
            Environmental Protection Agency
            European Academy of Sciences and Arts
            European Federation of Geologists
            European Geosciences Union
            European Physical Society
            European Science Foundation
            Federation of American Scientists
            French Academy of Sciences
            Geological Society of America
            Geological Society of Australia
            Geological Society of London
            Georgian Academy of Sciences
            German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
            Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Indian National Science Academy
            Indonesian Academy of Sciences
            Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
            Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
            Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
            InterAcademy Council
            International Alliance of Research Universities
            International Arctic Science Committee
            International Association for Great Lakes Research
            International Council for Science
            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
            International Research Institute for Climate and Society
            International Union for Quaternary Research
            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
            International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
            Islamic World Academy of Sciences
            Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
            Kenya National Academy of Sciences
            Korean Academy of Science and Technology
            Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
            l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
            Latin American Academy of Sciences
            Latvian Academy of Sciences
            Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
            Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
            Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
            Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
            National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
            National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
            National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
            National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
            National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
            National Aeronautics and Space Administration
            National Association of Geoscience Teachers
            National Association of State Foresters
            National Center for Atmospheric Research
            National Council of Engineers Australia
            National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
            National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
            National Research Council
            National Science Foundation
            Natural England
            Natural Environment Research Council, UKbeleive
            Natural Science Collections Alliance
            Network of African Science Academies
            New York Academy of Sciences
            Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
            Nigerian Academy of Sciences
            Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Oklahoma Climatological Survey
            Organization of Biological Field Stations
            Pakistan Academy of Sciences
            Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
            Pew Center on Global Climate Change
            Polish Academy of Sciences
            Romanian Academy
            Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
            Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
            Royal Astronomical Society, UK
            Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
            Royal Irish Academy
            Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
            Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
            Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
            Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
            Royal Society of Canada
            Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
            Royal Society of the United Kingdom
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
            Russian Academy of Sciences
            Science and Technology, Australia
            Science Council of Japan
            Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
            Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
            Scripps Institution of Oceanography
            Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Slovak Academy of Sciences
            Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
            Society for Ecological Restoration International
            Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
            Society of American Foresters
            Society of Biology (UK)
            Society of Systematic Biologists
            Soil Science Society of America
            Sudan Academy of Sciences
            Sudanese National Academy of Science
            Tanzania Academy of united to Sciences
            The Wildlife Society (international)
            Turkish Academy of Sciences
            Uganda National Academy of Sciences
            Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
            United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
            University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
            Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
            Woods Hole Research Center
            World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
            World Federation of Public Health Associations
            World Forestry Congress
            World Health Organization
            World Meteorological Organization
            Zambia Academy of Sciences
            Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

        • With Respect

          Your denial denial ignores the scientific work of Dr. Elisabet Kubler-Ross, who is famous for her ‘stages of grief’ model, which begins with denial.

          There’s little scientific difference between a climate denier and a man too attached to his money realizing he’s being faced by creditors demanding payment for past harms and expenses he incurred carelessly from them.

          Nor moral difference, nor economic, either.

          • nik

            You’re just full of…..absolutely.
            No one ‘denies climate’ me included.

          • With Respect

            What absurd things you post alongside your inelegant ad hominem ellipses.

            Your replies keep trying to spin away and parse away and sophism away from the very plain facts you seem to feel attacked by. When you feel personally invested in lies so much that facts feel like attacks on you, it’s what Dr. Kubler-Ross’ studies revealed about humans coping with loss: people will deny by holding to the absurd to avoid facing their losses.

            Deadbeats will hold to any absurdity to avoid facing their debts.

          • frflyer

            yes you do. I have debated you. After your posts are debunked, you deny it

          • frflyer

            Semantics. People often shorten climate change denial to climate denial. Poor choice of words IMO, but your argument is about nothing but semantics

          • 4_19_1775

            Not semantics. Climate is changing, has nothing to do with co2 emissions. Most OBVIOUS agent: THE SUN

          • frflyer

            Wrong
            The warming has everything to do with human caused CO2 emissions
            and Nothing to do with the Sun.

            he Sun is Not causing the current global warming.

            The science of the greenhouse gas effect says that we would expect to see warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere.

            That is exactly what has been observed. And that is a signature of the greenhouse effect, and NOT of Solar effect.

            If the sun was the cause of the warming, we would expect to see both layers of the atmosphere heat up.

            If the sun was the cause of the warming, days would be warming more than nights.

            But what is being observed is more warm anomalies at night, which is what should happen if greenhouse gases are causing warming.
            (an anomaly is a deviation from the norm)

            In other words nights are warming faster than days are.

            At night, the earth radiates long wave thermal radiation out into space, releasing some of the heat absorbed during the day. CO2 keeps the heat from radiating into space. Warmer nights is another signature of the greenhouse gas effect.

            The sun has been quiet since about 1960, and if anything has been declining in output since then.

            There was also a hundred year solar minimum, that lasted about two years, 2007-2009.

            Yet we had one of the warmest years on record in 2010

            We just had the warmest decade on record.
            Every decade since 1979 has been warmer than the one before it.

            If it were the sun, average global temperatures would be increasing more in daytime, in summer and in the tropics;
            instead of at night, in winter, and at the poles. which is what is happening and what has been observed. And the stratosphere would also be warming

            And those things observed are fingerprints of greenhouse gas warming.

          • 4_19_1775

            Carbon dioxide is not an insulator. Your model is broken.

          • frflyer

            I never used the word insulator.
            CO2 absorbs thermal energy and then re-emits it in all directions, much of it back toward Earth.

            That is how is traps heat in the troposphere. This has been understood since 1859

          • Joseph Ellerbrock, PE

            I’m sure this is a stupid question, but I really don’t know very much about the complexities of “climate change” from one day to the next, or one millenium to the next. Can someone tell me how the average temp of the earth and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured accurately over a long period of time, say over 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years, etc.? The means for such measurements were more crude (inaccurate) just 100 years ago than they are now. And what about the measurement locations, not only on the earth’s surface, but in the atmosphere where the temp varies relative to altitude? Shouldn’t the measurements over time be taken at the same locations every time? I live in New Mexico and frequently hike in the mountains. It can be noticeably hot in midmorning, yet after I’ve hiked up about 1000 feet, it is noticeably cooler (several degrees) even on a sunny day and after my body has heated up due to physical exertion. Also, if climate data is so accurate and models so good at predictions, why can’t the weathman have 97% consensus with his instrumentation from one day to the next at least 97% of the time? Please explain my Qs as I’m a very stupid electrical engineer with 40 years of experience. And I don’t even have a MS degree in science, just a BS. Many who have posted in opposition to the skeptics on here should be very familiar with BS as well as hot air, so maybe they can teach me something. And speaking of consensus, I’d like to know how many believers on this forum agree among yourselves on any specific aspect of such a complicated problem. If it’s not at least 97%, some of you are not scientists and probably have a BA degree like Al Gore, the greatest *scientist* who ever graduated from “Hahvaad” with a B. of Arts degree. :)

          • frflyer

            “Can someone tell me how the average temp of the earth and the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured accurately over a long period of time, say over 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years, etc.?”

            There are various proxy, or paleo climate data sources, tree rings, ocean and lake bed sediments, fossils of coral and shelled plankton, ice cores, fossil shellfish, etc.

            Some of these hold chemical signatures of CO2 levels, temperature, chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Ice cores go back 800,000 years. Some indicators go back millions of years.
            ——————————————–
            “if climate data is so accurate and models so good at predictions, why can’t the weathman have 97% consensus ”

            Because they are NOT the same thing.
            Weathermen deal with short localized chaotic variability.
            Climate scientist deal with long term averages, for which short term variability can amount to statistical noise. In a way, it is easier to project climate than weather.
            Climate is the context weather happens in.

            Similar to how, if you are interested in long term stock market action, you don’t focus on the chaotic hour to hour day to day variability.

          • frflyer

            Al Gore has NOTHING to do with the science.
            And by the way, his movie and book were mostly correct, though deniers have made up all kinds of lies about what he said,
            ————
            What matters is that Every major professional science organization in the world, with relevance to earth sciences Agrees with AGW. —-
            Except these two
            American Association of PETROLEUM Geologists
            Canadian Society of PETROLEUM Geologists

          • frflyer

            The scientific consensus on AGW is a direct result of an overwhelming preponderance of Evidence in the peer reviewed research.
            Like this

            Between 1991 -2012 there were 13,950 papers published.
            24 of them reject AGW.
            Of the 33,690 scientists who contributed to the 13,950 papers, only 34 reject AGW – [That’s 1/10 of 1%]
            —–
            And the consensus keeps getting stronger

            In the one year + from November 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013, –
            there were 2,225 peer reviewed papers published by 9,136 contributing scientists.
            Only ONE of those 9,136 rejects AGW – [That’s just over 1/100 of 1%]
            —–

          • frflyer

            The Sun is NOT causing global warming.
            Solar output has actually Decreased since about 1960, during which time 2/3 of the warming since 1880 has happened.

            References:

            Bard, E., Raisbeck, G.M., Yiou, F., Jouzel, J., 2000. Solar irradiance during the last 1200 years based on cosmogenic nuclides. Tellus 52B, 985-992.

            Beer, J., Blinov, A., Bonani, G., Finkel, R.C., Hofmann, H.J., Lehmann, B., Oeschger, H., Sigg, A., Schwander, J., Staffelbach, T., Stauffer, B., Suter, M., Wölfli, W., 1990. Use of 10Be in polar ice to trace the 11-year cycle of solar activity. Nature 347, 164-166.

            Cini Castagnoli, G.C., Cane, D., Taricco, C., Bhandari, N., 2003. GCR Flux Decline during the last Three Centuries: Extraterrestrial and Terrestrial Evidences. In: T. Kajita, Y. Asaoka, A. Kawachi, Y. Matsubara, M. Sasaki. (Eds.), GCR Flux Decline during the last Three Centuries: Extraterrestrial and Terrestrial Evidences, Universal Academy Press, Inc., pp. 4045-4048.

            Muscheler, R., Joos, F., Mueller, S.A., Snowball, I., 2005. How unusual is today’s solar activity? Nature 436, E3-E4. (Reply by Solanki et al)

            Raisbeck, G.M., Yiou, F., 2004. Comment on ”Millennium Scale Sunspot Number Reconstruction: Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940s”. Physical Review Letters 92, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.199001.

            Solanki, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M., Beer, J., 2004. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature 431, 1084-1087.

            Usoskin IG, Solanki SK, Schussler M, Mursula K, and Alanko K., Millennium-scale sunspot number reconstruction: evidence for an unusually active sun since the 1940s. Phys Rev Lett. 2003, 91(21):211101.

          • frflyer

            THIS is what is causing the warming.

            WE are increasing atmospheric CO2 100 times faster than the fastest that nature has done in At Least the last 450,000 years and almost certainly in the last 800,000 years or more,

            Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 80ppm since 1960. (56 years)
            Atmospheric CO2 has increased by over 120ppm since 1880 (138 years)

            How does that compare with naturally occurring changes over the past 450,000 years?

            Well from ice core data:

            450,000 years ago, it was at ~200ppm and it took ~50,000 years to go to ~ 280ppm. (80ppm increase)

            It was at ~190ppm 350,000 years ago and it took 25,000 years to go up to 300ppm. (110ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 260,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~300ppm. (120ppm increase)

            It was at ~200ppm 220,000 years ago and it took 20,000 years to go up to ~260ppm. (60ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 140,000 years ago and it took 15,000 years to go up to ~290ppm. (90ppm increase)

            It was at ~180ppm 25,000 years ago and it took 24,800 years to go up to ~280ppm. (100ppm increase)
            ————————————-
            But if you are a denier, you somehow can’t fathom how human emissions of CO2 are warming the planet.

            ———

          • 4_19_1775

            Carbon dioxide is not an insulator.

          • crankedyank

            In the sprit of fraternal correction, you are apparently in the grip of scientism, which impels you to make an ad hominem argument while invoking the science god, in the form of psychology. This invocation doesn’t make it OK. Since climate change and the relationship of CO2 levels is the subject of discussion, the mental state or moral condition of those who disagree with you on this matter is not presently relevant. When the validity of a persons standing to even contribute to the discussion is questioned on the basis of their intellectual and/or moral fitness, as determined “scientifically” by an expert in the psychological phenomenon of denial, we have a system of thought that is circular, philosophically closed and subjective. This is the kind of thinking that has gotten people burned at the stake for heresy, as nik pointed out before you doubled down. It is fun to imagine that a neat and all encompassing causality is at play and indeed it may be. It is, however, dangerous to let the heady thought that one has a superior understanding of this erode one’s ability to maintain a distinction between fellow participants in a discussion and the subject of the discussion.

          • Bluetooth

            These judgmental, punitive AGW people liken deniers to witches that need to be burnt at the stake. I say they are the delusional ones. Open your eyes and walk outside. It doesn’t take much to notice that the climate is cooling…..

          • frflyer

            Every year since 2001 was warmer than any year in the 20th century, with the sole exception of 1998. – Globally
            15 of the warmest years on record were in the last 16 years.
            Delusional? Look in the mirror

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Evidence of warming … regardless of how warm, sheds light on one fact, and one fact, only. Evidence of warming is … well … evidence of warming. Warming does not implicate any particular cause.

          • janet444

            You cannot make a scientific assessment regarding climate change by walking outside. It’s a complex topic, as this thoughtful article makes very clear.

          • 4_19_1775

            CO2 is not an insulator. Sorry

          • With Respect

            You’re improving. It took you 240 years to come up with your alias, but only 3 months to apologize for your drivel-by one-liner gaslighting.

            At this rate you’ll still never be right, but at least you’re brief.

            Your urge to post absurdities is obviously tied to your deadbeat nature, your fear of facing your creditors and paying what you owe them when you take what is theirs.

            Is it because you just hate Capitalism? Or do you just hate the people who you are in debt to for your fossil waste disposal? Or is it yourself you hate?

        • frflyer

          Denier is a term used to define people who believe dozens of lies, myths and misrepresentation of the science, with no skepticism whatsoever. You are Not skeptics

      • CB

        “No, us skeptics do not make that argument: deniers do.”

        Thank you! It’s not skeptical to demand evidence put right in front of one’s face. Maybe leaving it here will allow the Deniers to access it, because they are apparently not bothering to read the article:

        vimeo.com/34099316

    • nik

      Totally different phenomena, and irrelevant.

      • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

        That’s why it is termed an ‘analogy’, nik.

        This teaches us that just because one phenomenon precedes another, that does not rule out the opposite occurring. One has to look at the physical processes that can happen to determine that.

        That’s why to argue that because the rise in temperature always precedes and drives a rise in CO2 during the start of a glacial/interglacial transition is proof that the opposite cannot occur, is a wrong argument. The reason: it does not examine the underlying physical processes associated with each.

        If one understands the current/magnetic field example, then one would not make this mistake.

        • nik

          Thank you, I understand the reversibility of electro magnetism. I worked with electronics for nine years in the military. As a 12 year old, I made my own ‘lab’ motors and generators, to explore the effects.

          CO2 and heat energy does not have the same interaction, as electro magnetism.
          You cannot transform heat directly into CO2, like the electro-magnetism interchange.
          All matter can be converted to energy, including CO2, but they are not necessarily reversible processes. Only if carbon is separated from its O2, can it be burned to produce heat, but then it is no longer CO2.
          CO2 on its own does not produce heat. As the article discusses, it only can act an insulator, mainly by reflection, but very weakly, as it is one of the weakest of the ‘greenhouse’ gasses, and at 0.04%, there is almost none of it in the atmosphere.
          Its effectiveness as an insulator can be judged by looking at the Sahara desert. Scorching hot in the daytime, but within a few hours, freezing cold at night. The atmospheric CO2 doesn’t change between day and night. Only solar radiation changes.
          Therefore, Solar radiation is the major controlling component of the climate on Earth.
          My intention is to illustrate that the claims of the AGW lobby are false, and that the governmental pressure to convince the world of a falsehood, is driven purely by politics, not scientific fact. I have been castigated for bringing politics into a ”scientific discussion” but in this case, it is unavoidable.
          To ignore it would be like pretending that the elephant in the room was not there.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Nik,

            As with the argument about rising temperature preceding rising CO2 levels being a bad argument for saying the reverse cannot happen, the argument from inconceivability with regards to only 0.04% of the atmosphere being CO2 is also bad.

            But as I mentioned in my last debate with you, it is not my purpose here to argue you from your positions. That’s an impossible task in a comments section. That is one reason that I did not address my initial comment to you.

            But these two arguments that you make are not arguments rooted in a scientific method of analysis. Again, that is what the analogy I provided is supposed to teach, and again you’ve taken it too literally.

            Before I provided a link to a website that gives a good explanation of why CO2 is not an insignificant trace gas. I provide it again:

            https://scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/28/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-one/

            I challenge you to look at what is written here. I had also linked to the About page where the author describes his blog. If you look there, you would, I think, be happy with the perspective he brings to discussing climate science.

            Now my challenge is not meant to be one between us. My challenge to you to read this set of posts on CO2 is your own personal one. You can either ignore it or not. It does not matter to me because I ask for no report back from you on whether you did or not.

            The challenge to you is to see whether you can read this and still maintain your position concerning CO2’s insignificance due to it only being 0.04% of the atmosphere.

            If you can, you would have to convince yourself that you know exactly where his argument goes astray. I don’t think you can do that.

            As before I appreciate the discussion.

          • nik

            Thank you, I will read it.

            I have a post here;

            http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2018/03/14/goodbye-professor-hawking/#comment-3809084305

            Perhaps you would like to read it and comment.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            I can make no comment on this.

          • nik

            Thank you again, its very interesting.
            The first response to article in the above link
            John M. Quinn
            As a physicist/geophysicist who has worked for the U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office and the U. S. Geological Survey for more than 30 years, and who has spent the last 8 years examining the Global Warming phenomenon (the first two of which were at the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), I have come to two conclusions.

            First Global Warming is real. Second, CO2 regardless of its origin (i.e., either natural or anthropogenic) does not drive Global Warming.

            The CO2 Enhanced Greenhouse Effect Theory is totally irrelevant to the Global Warming phenomenon. Why? One finds on the secular time scale that both of the X- and Y- component temporal, annual-means profiles of the Earth’s Orientation mimic exactly the Global Temperature Anomaly (GTA) annual means profile On the decade time scale one finds that the GTA mimics the Geomagnetic Dipole variations and the variations in the Earths Anomalous Rotation Rate [i.e., Excess Length of Day (ELOD) Annual Means]. The Dipole Field, the GTA and the ELOD all have a 60 year period on the decade time scale. There are many other such correlations on both time scales.

            Thus, if CO2 were driving the GTA, and given the geophysical parameters that change over time in sync with the GTA, CO2 enhancements would reasonably have to drive the Earth’s dynamo which creates the Dipole Field and somehow also affects the Earth’s orientation and its rotation rate. But CO2 cannot do this because it has no pondermotive force associated with it. Furthermore, CO2 on the decade time scale lags the GTA by about 9 years according to Mauna Loa, HI Observatory data collected since 1955, which is a period of time that is at the height of anthropogenic activity. Furthermore, on the millennium time scale the time lag averages about 800 years (Monin et. al., 2001). Therefore, if CO2 were the driver of Global Warming through the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, then it would have to violate the Principle of Cause and Effect.

            I have a short paperback book that explains this in more detail. It should be available in the book stores (e.g., Barnes and Nobel, Amazon.com, etc.) in late December 2009, or January 2010. Its title is:

            GLOBAL WARMING: Geophysical Counterpoints to the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory

            Publisher: Dorrance Publishing Co., Inc., Pittsburgh, PA, USA

            ISBN: 978-1-4349-0581-9

            While I do not know what precisely (though I know a little) causes Global Warming, I do know what does not cause it. CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anthropogenic or otherwise, are merely passive players that, like the GTA, are driven by other more dynamic forces associated with Earth’s core, the Sun, and even the Cosmos (referring to the Danish theory of cloud formation), all of which act, react, and interact in a very complex manner.

            Note that the IPCC concentrates on Solar Irradiance, but ignores other solar energies such as that associated with Solar Magnetic Flux that has more than doubled since 1900. Gravity is another player in the Global Warming picture. Also note that Mars has global warming comparable to Earth’s without CO2 (Fenton, et. al., Nature, 2008). There are no Martians to either generate or enhance CO2 on Mars.

            John M. Quinn
            Lakewood, CO
            USA

            I’ve yet to read the remaining comments, there’s an awful lot of them.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            OK, as a trained scientist, this is how I look at Mr. Quinn’s comment:

            What he has written is a lot of words that make assertions, but for which no supporting evidence is offered except his book. I can write similar sounding words in a very short time, to wit:

            Carbon dioxide cannot be a driver of climate as any examination of the Boltzmann transport equation will show. Steady state energy balance cannot be obtained in a system far removed from equilibrium like the atmosphere and upon inclusion of convective driving forces, one is let to conclude….

            That’s just gibberish I put together. But it’s very impressive sounding gibberish, right?

            That is why Science of Doom responds with:

            Without buying the book I don’t know anything about this new theory.

            And while John Quinn has posted a comment saying that CO2 has no effect on climate, what is really needed is for him – and everyone else interested – to deal with specific points in this seven part series. Then there’s something to “get my teeth into”.

            I am surprised you want to read every comment! I’d just read the series and then skim the comments, but that’s just me…

          • nik

            At my age, I dont think I’d live long enough to read all the comments, so I’ll read a few here and there, or skim, like you. :-)

          • nik

            Another point, mathematical models are fine, but they are only as good as the assumptions made to assemble them. Those assumptions are always dependent upon the prevailing knowledge, which may be either incomplete, or overlooked.
            History is littered with engineering failures, caused by such factors, from Henry 8th ”Mary Rose,” to the Comet aircraft, and the London ‘wobbly’ pedestrian bridge. All engineering designs have a built in ”Safety Factor” otherwise called an ignorance factor.

            Given the complexity of climate systems, they are even more likely to suffer from such inadequacies. A recent article stated that not one climate model so far had been able to start with a past known climate situation, and make any predictions that did not very rapidly diverged from reality.

            So maths can accomplish a lot, but it is limited. Ultimately, the observed facts either prove or disprove any theory, no matter how elegant the theory.

            I’m also very suspicious and jargon, and as you say, impressive gibberish. If the idea cannot be expressed in plain English, then the writer is probably ‘flannelling!’

          • yetanotherbob

            Right, it’s gibberish

            Anyone with any training would spot that very quickly. I’m not certain though that the analogy with Mr. nik’s assertions is accurate however.

            What I have read from him is a mixture of observations where the primary AGW arguments are demonstrably wrong and a bit of tongue-in-cheek that plays strongly on the irony of the entire debate. He could be anything from a redneck to a Nobel Prize winner who is trying to unmask the weaknesses of the AGW movement in order to strengthen it in the long term.

            What he is not is a total ignoramus.

            I’m not certain that he actually believes any of what he says, but he’s also not totally wrong either. Many of the things being put forward against him are less true than are his own bits.

          • RealOldOne2

            “What he has written is a lot of words that make assertions, but for which no supporting evidence is offered except his book”
            Actually, that is exactly what Tom Yulsman has done in this article. He merely repeats the claims of those who claim CatastophicAGW-by-CO2, but provides no empirical evidence from peer reviewed science to support his claims. I’ve read and commented on many of Tom’s articles and he has never provided any peer reviewed empirical evidence to support his claim that CO2 has caused or will cause any catastrophic warming, or that CO2 is the “preeminent climatic thermostat” that controls the earth’s temperature. He just repeats claims.

            The fact is that there are no peer reviewed papers which show that anthropogenic CO2 has been the primary cause of the late 20th century warming, like the climate alarmists claim. It’s a hypothesis built on flawed, faulty climate models, 95% of which predict too much warming and which can’t project future temperature at even the 2% confidence level, vonStorch(2013). If you think such papers exist, please cite them.

    • nik

      Hi!
      Having read the first chapter in the link, and cogitated on it, I will accept that CO2 may have a warming effect.
      If this effect was taken in isolation, then it would be a positive feedback effect, ie. More CO2 = more warmth, and that produces more CO2, etc. Which in isolation would cause a runaway greenhouse effect.
      If the Earth was in the same orbit as Venus, then it would probably end up in the same climactic state.

      However, that has never happened, because, the Earth has an inbuilt negative feedback system that counteracts it.

      So, I will modify my original statement from, ”As CO2 has had no noticeable effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.”

      To, ”As CO2 has had no disastrous effect on climate in 600 million years, until 15- 20 years ago, when carbon tax was invented, any alleged climatic effects can be ignored.

      The inbuilt negative feedback system is the remainder of the CO2 cycle. CO2 increases, which provides more CO2 for plant life, trees being the most important, this stimulates tree growth, and as they then absorb more CO2, the system stays approximately in balance, in the long term.

      Human destruction of trees on a large scale, as has been happening since the beginning of the I.R. have destabilised that balance. First by burning large areas of trees for fuel, removing more trees for industry, and then by clearance, to farm vast areas, and in some places replacing trees with cattle, that produce methane, a more worrisome gas, as it doesn’t have the same natural negative feedback as CO2.

      So, I would consider that it is the removal of trees, which normally have a cooling effect on the Earth, first by transpiration of water into the atmosphere, and then by absorbing sunlight, and converting it into wood, and that has destabilised the CO2 cycle, which in turn has caused the warming.

      The production of CO2, by itself by burning fossil fuels, would have little effect, as it has been shown that the real increase in CO2 since the I.R. is probably nearer 20-50 ppm. than the original claim of 120 ppm. That amount wont cause the claimed effect of the AGW lobby, so that case collapses.

      So, as I see it the answer to the alleged disastrous climate change, which has yet to appear, is to cease deforestation, and plant more trees.

      The Earth has been warming steadily for the last 10-15 thousand years, due to the Milankovitch cycle, but that is due to end, maybe, in the not too distant future. There have been reports of the Antarctic sea ice advancing, even in summer. Also in both hemispheres, the coldest winter temperatures, and the heaviest snow falls since record began have occurred, including snow in the Sahara desert. The Arctic, is over water, and water cools a lot slower than land. As 70% of the Earths surface is covered by water, that tends to slow the change, and the arctic gets the benefit of the Gulf Stream, so ice will continue to melt there for some time to come.

      When Arctic ice stops melting, the change to full advance of the ice age will accelerate. Deep sea, and lake core drillings have shown that the change has occurred in as little as 20-50 years.

      In summary, I dont consider that reducing human produced CO2 will have a significant effect, on cooling the planet, but increasing tree coverage might, but would that be desirable, as the effect of cooling the climate may well accelerate the onset of the next ice age,

      • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

        Thanks for the response, nik. I am glad you have read the first part of the post I linked to.

      • Damn Nitpicker

        Venus has no magnetic field. No plate tectonics. No molten core. Venus is not at all like Earf.

        • nik

          Living up to your moniker, I see.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝I see it the answer to the alleged disastrous climate change, which has yet to appear, is to cease deforestation, and plant more trees❞

            Not so sure about that. I like trees better than denuded area …

            Baldocchi 2001: ”Changing a landscape from forest to agricultural crops, for instance, increases the surface’s albedo and decreases the Bowen ratio [the ratio between the flux densities of sensible and latent heat exchange; i.e., increasing the latent heat] (Betts et al. 1996); forests have a lower physiological capacity to assimilate carbon and a lower ability to transpire water, as compared to crops (Kelliher et al. 1995; Baldocchi and Meyers 1998).”

            Myhre & Myhre 2003: ”A distinct feature in all the calculations is the negative radiative forcing at the northern midlatitudes due to the conversion of forest to cropland. Regionally the radiative forcing is likely to be among the strongest of the climate forcing mechanisms. … The single most important factor yielding the large range in estimated forcing is the cropland surface albedo values. This underlines the importance of characterizing surface albedo correctly.”

            ”Betts (2000) … his study revealed that the planting of trees, to reduce the increase in atmospheric CO2, in order to mitigate global warming, may actually lead to the opposite, as the vegetation changes result in a heating …”

            ”Snow-covered areas have much higher surface albedo over open land (as cropland) than in forested areas. This effect causes a temperature decrease in the case of deforestation, particularly at high latitudes, …” In areas where fire has decimated the trees, when there is snowfall, the high albedo of the snow causes excess cooling … when there were trees, the trees absorbed sunlight, lowering the albedo.

          • nik

            So, reading between the lines of Jargon, and inappropriate inventive phrasing, what you or someone else is suggesting, is that crops with roots a few centimetres, or inches deep, that probably cover 50% or less than the footprint of a mature tree, in two dimensions, have a greater cooling effect, than a mature tree, whose roots are meters or yards deep, and whose branches are in three dimensions, with a leaf cover, that may be 20-30 meters or yards tall, and in multiple layers, over the whole area.

            In addition, a tree, is there for the whole year, whereas crops are there for a few months only, and for at least half of that time, are immature.

            That will take a lot of hard evidence to be convincing.

            [One of my specialist subjects in college was thermodynamics, and phrases containing the terms, ”negative radiative forcing” and similar, were noticeable for their total absence.]

            As to snow, and albedo, snow is likely to be evident for a few months only, crops also for a few months, and bare ground for a time probably equal to both.
            So, tree cover will be constant.

            According to the CO2/AGW theory, any energy reflected by snow, will be trapped and reflected back by CO2, whereas with trees, it is trapped and, effectively, converted, into carbon so it is removed from the atmosphere.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Wow. Energy reflected by snow … I assume that is short-wave, i.e., sunshine … “…will be trapped and reflected back by CO2…”
            Um, CO2 is transparent in the short-wave, so … no.
            Gaseous CO2 in the atmosphere never reflects … that’s a conceptual error, or a very slack choice of words. CO2 can absorb certain IR photons, and, rarely, emit IR photons, but it does not reflect sunshine. At certain wavelengths, CO2 is opaque but that does not constitute reflection.
            “…whereas with trees, it is trapped …and converted to carbon…” What, Energy creates carbon? That’s news to me. (sarc) What isotope of carbon? (/sarc)

          • nik

            ”reflected back by CO2…” Not my claims, the rubbish claims of the ”AGW” lobby.

            ”Converted” does not equal ”creates!”

            Energy is used to split CO2, into carbon and O2, and the carbon is then fixed and O2 released.

            [Living up to your moniker again.]

          • Damn Nitpicker

            I call ’em as I see ’em. No quarter for anybody.

          • yetanotherbob

            Sorry, CO2 does emit IR. It emits at it’s temperature, same as every other molecule. That’s simple physics. It actually emits at the same wavelength it absorbs. That’s quantum mechanics.

            This site needs some science.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Baldocchi, Dennis, et al. 2001 “FLUXNET: A new tool to study … carbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

            Myhre, Gunnar, and Arne Myhre 2003. “Uncertainties in radiative forcing due to surface albedo changes caused by land-use changes.” Journal of Climate

            Lejeune, Seneviratne & Davin 2017: ”… the higher albedo of the anthropogenic croplands and pastures compared to primary forests as an important cooling mechanism in each model, particularly in winter over snow-covered areas.”

            Lejeune, Seneviratne & Davin 2017: Historical Land-Cover Change Impacts on Climate: Comparative Assessment of LUCID and CMIP5 Multimodel Experiments AMS

          • nik

            Thats fine, in principle, but as the largest areas of forest, are tropical rain forest, where snowfall is rather noticeable for its absence, and also where the greatest deforestation has occurred, its a moot point.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Sad, the deforestation in those tropical places. I’m not attempting to justify it …
            Oh, and … please come up with some justification for your opinions, please. You say the largest areas are tropical … fortify your position with quotations and citations …
            I say it is Boreal Forest, not tropical

          • nik

            Roughly 2/3 is tropical, about half remainder, arctic.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            I’m not asking for you to spout off numbers, I’m asking for you to back up your numbers with sources … that can be checked to validate your statements.

          • yetanotherbob

            “); forests have a lower physiological capacity to assimilate carbon
            and a lower ability to transpire water, as compared to crops.”

            Taken out of context, and as quoted it is wrong.
            The original was stating that using forest lands left as old growth forests sequestered less CO2 than did crop lands which are harvested every year.

            Crop lands do sequester more carbon than do mature forests. However, forests do sequester more carbon than do croplands for part of their growth cycles.

            If sequestration is your primary requirement, then you want to harvest trees regularly, and replant. All organisms growth follows a hysteresis curve. There is an early period of relatively slow growth, followed by a period of rapid growth, then much slower growth after that.

            Crop lands are harvested regularly, often more than once a year. if the portions of the crops that are not used are then retained, then you can sequester that portion. Think baling up the straw left over after the wheat is sold, and burying it in a deep mine somewhere.

            If on the other hand, you do what most farmers do and just burn it, then you have sequestered nothing.

            A single large tree can sequester as much carbon as an entire field of wheat straw. However, it does come into near static sequestration after a period of twenty to fifty years, where the tree is effectively laying down only a few pounds of new wood a year. That is why the conservationist approach to using forests to sequester carbon fails over time.

            Without regular harvest and sequestration out of the atmosphere, any forest reaches a near maximum in it’s carbon content.

            The wheat field, on the other hand sequesters a near constant amount every year.

            That is why the report you reference reads as it does. It does not however mean that in an area where harvesting and sequestration are practiced will be better off as farmland. In most cases, farmland in practice releases net CO2 when compared to rapid growth forests, though not always when compared to mature climax forests.

            It’s actually a complex question.

            I’m not personally aware of any locations where actual sequestration of carbon is routinely done for either the farm or the forest. So the question is really moot. Nowhere means no carbon is actually being taken out of the atmosphere long term. Usually, both are just burned when they are harvested, resulting in near zero carbon actually removed from the environment.

            If you know of any, please tell where it is being done.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            ❝If on the other hand, you do what most farmers do and just burn it, then you have sequestered nothing.❞

            Aside from burning sugar cane, I know of no farmers who burn anything. I live in rural areas of the modern, “first world” countries, and nobody burns it.

      • yetanotherbob

        A little nitpic.

        Positive feedback only in any system always proceeds to the destruction of the system. Negative feedback allows a process to be controlled.

        That’s basic control theory. See Shannon’s work on control systems from the 1950’s. There are formulas, but they involve some Calculus. I’d best not give any here.

        You need to be careful how you phrase things. Some of the people here will take you out of context and apply things in a different manor than you might desire.

    • RealOldOne2

      “Skeptics usually consider the fact that the rise in temperature leads the rise in CO2 as necessary and sufficient evidence that the opposite could never occur.”
      We have empirical evidence showing that CO2 lags temperature on both the long timescale (~800yr lag in ice core record, Caillon(2003), etc.), and on the short timescale (from a few to several month lag in the SST, surface temp, satellite temp records, Humlum(2013)).

      Can you cite any CO2/temperature datasets or peer reviewed science which presents empirical data showing that temperature lags CO2?

      • Jammy Dodger

        “necessary and sufficient”

        Did you not understand the significance of those words? Otherwise you would not be trying to create a strawman argument.

      • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

        No I cannot, though I have never looked for one either. I will do so.

        In the meantime, I will also read the Humlum paper. Once I have done that do you mind if we discuss it in detail?

        • RealOldOne2

          Fine

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Great. It is a long paper, so it will take a few days to get through it. I will post again when ready.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Thanks for your patience. I am ready to discuss this paper.

            So the conclusions reached in Humlus 2012 are big, if true. One conclusion they reach is that the increase in CO2 is lagging the increase in temperature. This would lead to a further conclusion that the current measured warming is likely natural.

            They also conclude that human CO2 emissions are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

            As I say these are big, capital letter BIG, conclusions.

            Now my background is in condensed matter physics, not atmospheric physics. How would you expect a scientifically trained person, but an amateur in the field of climate science – someone such as myself – to analyze this paper? How should I approach checking its accuracy/reliability?

          • RealOldOne2

            I agree that you have stated the two main conclusions of Humlum(2011) and have well stated the significance of those two conclusions.

            “How should I approach checking its accuracy/reliability?”
            I am going to propose advancing this discussion with what I have found in my several decades of science and education work to be the best way for someone to come to a conclusion which they will have confidence in. That is to develop the solution/conclusion themselves, with assistance from others, but not from others telling them directly.

            Based on what you stated, you have been trained in science and the scientific method, so you should possess the tools to answer your own question. Let’s suppose that you are the lead/senior scientist and I am your assistant and we have both been offered a dream science job as a team. As part of our job interview to see if we are qualified for the new science job, we have been given the Humlum(2011) paper and have been asked to analyze paper and provide our opinion of whether the two conclusions are correct or are faulty. Our new job director has told us that he will base his hiring decision on our laying out our logical reasoning and the scientific evidence which led us to our opinions/conclusions.

            Since you are the lead/senior scientist, I am going to defer to you to make a proposal on how to analyze the conclusions. Let’s start with the first conclusion about CO2 changes lagging temperature changes. After developing that conclusion, we’ll move on the the conclusion about source of CO2 increase.

            So what do you propose to do to analyze whether Humlum’s conclusion that CO2 changes lag temperature changes is correct? How can we determine if that is a correct conclusion? Give this some time and thought, and then make a proposal. I will assist you as required.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Thank you for the reply.

            Based on what you stated, you have been trained in science and the scientific method, so you should possess the tools to answer your own question.

            Yes, I believe I do posses the skills required to answer this question. My posing of the question had two purposes. The first was to see if you wanted to make comment on your own approach. Since you have declined to do so, I will indeed share mine below. The second was to emphasize the point that if one does not work in a particular field, there are challenges and dangers to critiquing those field’s published papers.

            I apologize in advance for the length of this. I do want to emphasize too that I am attempting to write in a neutral tone – nothing here should be taken as being in a sarcastic or mean attitude. And though we will likely end up disagreeing about the importance of this paper there is nothing wrong with that. As always, the consequential disagreements lie in the scientific community and are worked out by that community.

            My first step was to try and understand exactly what analysis the authors had undertaken. Fortunately in this case, that is not too difficult. The authors essentially apply a rolling 12 month difference to various data sets: CO2, HadCrut3 global surface temperatures, HadSST2 sea surface temperatures, and UAH lower troposphere temperatures. There are other data sets analyzed too, but these suffice to give the idea. (It should be noted too that the authors first apply a 12 month running average to the CO2 data to remove the annual variation.)

            Now, what a rolling 12 month difference calculation does is remove slope from the data. This is easily understood from the definition of slope. If I have a straight line and take the difference in Y values over the same delta X range, but with sliding X position, I get a flat line at a Y value that is the slope. The plots of data in the paper bear out this understanding. The easiest to confirm is the CO2 plot.

            The point to make about this is that this type of calculation removes the very background increase that most researchers would attach to the anthropogenic signal.

            This seemed strange to me, and as we’ll see, it seemed strange to others as well.

            After applying their analysis to the data sets, overlay graphs are composed of CO2 and the various temperature indices and also what they consider to be anthropogenic CO2. The various plots of data in Humlum quite clearly show changes in the temperature indices changing prior to changes in CO2, whereas the correlation between what they consider to be anthropogenic CO2 and atmospheric CO2 is reversed or non-existent.

            Now, no paper is ever analyzed in a vacuum. And it is a natural result that for researchers that work in the field, no paper ever is. The good in-field researcher will know the literature and that will help him critically analyze a piece of research. But, for someone not familiar with the literature – like most of us climate amateurs – this is a severe handicap. We are fortunate, therefore, that this paper was written in 2012.

            Because five-six years have elapsed, we can appeal, through the use of Google Scholar, to the various citations of this work to see how it was received. This is quite revealing. As I am sure you are aware, when a researcher disagrees strongly with a published piece of research, they can attempt to have a Comment published. It turns out that there were three Comments published regarding the Humlum paper. That number of critical comments, in and of itself, is worth noting. Here are links to all three:

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000891

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113001562

            Unfortunately, none of these are available freely, but one of the authors (Richardson), wrote a blog post for Skeptical Science:

            https://www.skepticalscience.com/richardson-2013-man-made-carbon.html

            Now, I am well aware that many folks hate Skeptical Science with a passion. My reason for giving the link is based solely on the assumption that what he wrote there is also what he wrote in his published comment. If true, and there is no reason to think not, we can see what his arguments are.

            We see that one of them is what I outlined above: that the analysis performed by Humlum – removing the trend – removes the very relationship they seek to analyze. Other criticisms are outlined as well.

            It is unfortunate that these comments are not freely available, but one can get a feel for their criticisms from their abstracts.

            But aside from the actual arguments used in the three comments, I think it is equally important to note that I cannot find any Reply from Humlum to any of them! I find that extremely strange. If I publish a piece of work and then someone attacks that work, I am going to write a Reply if I think they are wrong. Their silence, to me, is a bad omen for this paper. If they cannot defend their work, then it is surely hazardous for others to attempt to do so.

            Now I’ve tried, but maybe I just haven’t put in the correct search terms. Can you find a reply from Humlum to any of these comments?

            Moving on, the next thing I did was check if there were any blog posts by climate scientists that are thought of as “skeptics”. There were three I checked: Judith Curry’s blog, Roy Spencer’s blog and Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog. Only Pielke’s had a commentary. This too I find interesting, especially because Curry frequently has something to say about new, big papers. Again, it is possible that I have missed commentary posted at these sites. If you know of any from Spencer or Curry, please point me to them.

            The Pielke piece, actually written by Donald Rapp, is here:

            https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/review-of-humlum-et-al-2012-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global-temperature-by-donald-rapp/

            I then checked other blogs written by climate scientists and did find a RealClimate post on the paper:

            http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/09/el-ninos-effect-onco2-causes-confusion/

            What these last two posts and at least one of the commentaries have in common is that they all attribute the results of Humlum to El Nino effects. In other words, by removing the anthropogenic trend, they isolated changes in CO2 due to ocean temperature changes, which, in turn, are due to El Ninos.

            In other words – and I’ll emphasize that this is my understanding, which may be wrong – these scientists think the wrong conclusion is drawn from the data.

            It is also worth pointing out what the Rapp post on Pielke’s blog did not say. It did not say that human emissions are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, it seems to say the opposite. Just read paragraph 9 that starts “Human activity is presently…” Again, coming from a skeptic blog post, this is interesting.

            Ultimately, I could find no skeptic scientists that were excited about this paper for the reasons that I assume Humlum would want them to be excited – that this paper proves that both the measured temperature rise and the measured CO2 rise are natural, and that the temperature rise is causing the CO2 rise, not the other way around.

            Finally, I did search for other papers on the same topic and found this more recent one:

            http://file.scirp.org/Html/1-2360241_56384.htm

            The Humlum paper is reference 4. The third paragraph states the following:

            Paper [4] noting the inverse phase relationship between the trends of these two variables [atmospheric CO2 and Earth’s temperature] suggested that the temperature variations were not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. However, it has been pointed out [5] that a differential method used in [4] removes the long-term trend in the CO2. The corrected analysis showed that the temperature trend followed the CO2 trend.

            To summarize:

            – I’ve read and understood the paper as best I can, both method and results.
            – I’ve reviewed, to a limited extent, how the paper is cited in the published literature.
            – I’ve read, to a limited extent, what climate scientists on both sides have written concerning the paper on their blogs.
            – I’ve found at least one recent paper on the same subject whose authors seem to take for granted that Humlum et al is wrong.

            This is all I have done In the short amount of time I’ve used. But I think I’ve learned enough to conclude that the conclusions reached in the Humlum paper as outlined in my previous comment to you, are not generally accepted by the climate science community – and this includes both sides.

            And there is a very important point I want to emphasize here. This summary is not my opinion of the paper. You’ll find, I hope, that I’ve tried not to argue either for or against this paper – other than to note what I thought was an oddity in how they analyzed the data. What I have attempted to do here is, as dispassionately as possible, provide an accurate summary of the climate science community’s attitude toward this paper. If I think people are fumbling basic physics in comments sections, I’m not shy about correcting them. But I try (though I may not always succeed) to tread very cautiously when speaking about things I’m not an expert on and just report what I find.

            I think this is a caution that most folks should exercise. A little more humility from everyone would go a long way.

            Thanks for your time.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Good work cgs. Thank you for sharing it.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Thanks for the kind words!

          • RealOldOne2

            Thanks for your detailed and concise reply explaining your path and reasoning used to analyze the first conclusion of the paper, CO2 changes lagging temperature changes. There is no apology necessary for its length. It takes what it takes and being thorough is better in my mind than leaving holes. And I appreciate your respectful tone of your reply too. Even though we disagree on the conclusion, my reply is intended to have the same respectful tone, ie., I won’t insult you by making a “tl;dnr” reply which climate alarmist trolls like Jammy Dodger & With Respect have made.

            My overall response is that your path was OK, but your reasoning/conclusions along the way were flawed, as I will point out in my own rather lengthy comment.

            Your first concern/objection about the running 12 mo. mean is moot and not valid. Yes, a 12 mo. running mean removes the slope, but determining the slope is not the objective. The objective is to determine the phase relationship between the variables. You agreed in your previous comment, a cause must happen before the effect, so the phase relationship is a key factor in establishing cause and effect. As as long as you apply the same running mean to all data sets, the phase relationship is maintained.

            Your statement “The point to make about this is that this type of calculation removes the background increase that most researchers would attach to the anthropogenic signal” is not a valid criticism because:
            1) you are assuming that the background increase is due to anthropogenic input.
            2) The background increase can just as well be from a natural trend, since the natural fluxes change over time and are many times larger than the anthropogenic perturbation, as admitted by the IPCC:

            “Note that the gross amounts of carbon annually exchanged between the ocean and atmosphere, and between the land and atmosphere, represent a sizeable fraction of the atmospheric content – and are many times larger than the total anthropogenic CO2 input. In consequence, an imbalance in these exchanges could easily lead to an anomaly of comparable magnitude to the direct anthropogenic perturbation.” – IPCC, TAR, WG1, p. 191

            3) And again, the magnitude of the background increase is irrelevant to determining the phase relationship.

            You correctly state that the Humlum’s graphs clearly show that the temperature indices change prior to changes in CO2 and that there is non-existent or reversed correlation with anthropogenic CO2 signal.

            “to see how it was received. This is quite revealing.”
            Actually it wasn’t revealing at all that the climate establishment received this paper by rushing to attempt to write rebuttal papers. This is the strategy the climate establishment uses to give them cover for ignoring any papers that don’t fit their predetermined human-caused global warming narrative. It doesn’t matter how flawed the rebuttal paper(s) are. Usually one paper is all they need. The fact that they published multiple papers, all flawed, in attempt to refute Humlum(2013) shows how serious a blow to the human-CO2 narrative Humlum’s paper is.

            No need to go to SkS for an analysis of the Richardson paper. It can be downloaded here: https://docslide.com.br/documents/comment-on-the-phase-relation-between-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-and-global.html .
            The Richardson paper’s flaws are:
            1) its mass conservation argument assumes that nature’s CO2 is in balance, and that all ocean surface an air temperature above it is constant throughout the globe
            2) the only temperature-CO2 argument it even addresses is the anthropogenic CO2 vs temperature conclusion and so leaves the CO2 lags the various temperature records conclusions of Humlum(2013) valid.
            3) uses the flawed ‘dif12 removes longterm trend’ argument.
            So Richardson’s rebuttal fails.

            The abstract of the Kern attempted rebuttal paper shows that it fails because its claimed “logical deficiencies” are flawed:
            1) Its “what could be the sink for fossil fuel CO2 emissions if neither the atmosphere or the oceans” is flawed because first, nature can’t discriminate between fossil fuel CO2 and natural CO2, plus we know that the land has been an increasing sink because of the documented global greening.
            2) Its “What is the alternative explanation for ocean acidification…” fails because the NOAA data shows that there is no trend of increased ocean pH level and present level is within previous natural levels: https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/mwacompilationofglobalocean_phjan82014.jpg
            3) Its “δ 13 C, and radiocarbon dilution) and the declining O 2 /N 2 ratio” argument fails because δ 13 ratios are not unique to FF combustion, as I’ve shown With Respect, and the ¹⁴C decay argument fails because the decrease in ¹⁴C is due to the natural decay from the “bomb spike” as shown in the last figure of this Oak Ridge National Lab report: http://1.usa.gov/SGFleW
            So Kern’s attempted rebuttal paper fails to refute Humlum(2013).

            The Masters & Benestad rebuttal paper fails in its argument that Humlum paper did not recognize the impact of the El Nino impace on CO2 variation because it evaluated SST vs CO2, which would have included the El Nino impact. And it’s likely that the alleged “methodological errors” is the same flawed ‘dif12″ claims of other failed rebuttal papers.

            So bottom line is that none of the attempted rebuttal papers refute the fact that CO2 changes lag temperature changes in all of the various temperature records. And since a cause must come before the effect, the empirical data shows that temperature change causes CO2 changes.

            Your argument that Humlum hasn’t posted a rebuttal proves nothing. The rebuttal papers don’t refute the main premise, so there is no need to write a rebuttal paper, and it is possible that Humlum wasn’t allowed to post a rebuttal. I read about this happening to one skeptical author, where they put him off until it passed some “deadline” where the publisher said it was no longer current. Such tactics by the climate alarmists’ gatekeeping of peer review were exposed in the climategate emails.

            The RealClimate blog article has the same flawed arguments that I have already discussed, ‘dif12 removes trend’ and the RC article did confirm that the CO2 changes did lag temperature changes.

            Your “one recent paper on the same subject whose authors seem to take for granted Humlum et al is wrong”, Ruzmaikin(2015), makes the same failed ‘dif12 removes trend’ argument and makes a blatantly false claim “The corrected analysis showed that the temperature trend followed the CO2 trend” referencing only Richardson(2013). Richardson nowhere presented any evidence that CO2 followed temperature in the various temperature records. Neither did any of the other failed rebuttal papers. None of the rebuttal papers or the RealClimate article refuted the fact that CO2 lagged temperature in the data.

            So I’m not surprised that you find reasons and accept flawed (per my arguments above) to not accept Humlum(2013). To do so would mean that the climate establishment is wrong.

            In summary,
            – a cause must come before the effect. And the empirical data shows that temperature changes, both up and down, come before CO2 changes both up and down.
            – There has been many attempts to dismiss Humlum(2013), but no one has refuted this fundamental fact that CO2 changes lag temperature changes.

            So I’m not surprised that you find reasons and accept flawed (per my arguments above) arguments to no accept Humlum(2013)’s conclusions.

            Thanks for your time too and your willingness to discuss science in a civil manner. It’s a welcome change to the many rabid climate alarmists posting on these comment sections.

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            Thanks for the reply. As I suspected, we will have to agree to disagree on the importance of this paper.

            I would emphasize again that in my previous comment my purpose was to review the response of the climate science community to the Humlum paper. As I tried to make clear, I am in no position to judge this paper as I am not a climate scientist. My physics PhD does not give me license to pass scientific judgement on papers outside of my field of expertise. Even papers that I like quite a bit and I think represent good work, I will not go so far as to say that I know they are correct.

            So, respectfully, what I accept is this: at this point in time, the climate science community in general (and this appears to be climates scientists on both sides of the debate) have rejected the main conclusions from the Humlum paper concerning the lagging of CO2 with respect to temperature and the implications that would follow from that. This seems to be a fact.

            If there are flawed arguments that are being used to reject this paper, no one that I can find, not even any of the co-author’s of the paper, have risen to announce them. And I will stick to my position that the silence from Humlum is very important concerning this.

            That some of the arguments used to reject Humlum make sense to me, doesn’t of course make them right. On the other hand, as noted, there is no reply in the literature with which to contrast them against.

            So I have found it most profitable, when discussing science in comments sections, to keep the discussion focused. In an effort to do that I’m interested in your response to the following:

            From what I can gather, one of the main criticisms against Humlum goes something like this. There is a measured increasing trend for atmospheric CO2. When you detrend this data and smooth it, you get a series of peaks. These peaks, interestingly enough, match quite well with the El Nino index, which, of course, is related to sea surface temperature. Thus, it is asserted, the CO2 data contains at least two contributions: a dominating increasing trend + smaller changes due to ocean release of CO2 during El Ninos.

            Thus, CO2 data minus linear trend = El Nino contribution

            And since the oceans have to get hot first before they release their CO2, then, of course you see temperature leading CO2 in the detrended data sets.

            So, if you agree that I’ve correctly understood this argument, I’ll ask: what’s the problem with it?

            Note: Although I believe this argument is used by multiple scientists, I do think the Donald Rapp/Pielke blog post is the most clear on this.

            Second Note: It is my understanding that the lagging of the peaks in the detrended CO2 data relative to the detrended temperature data is one of the main arguments used by Humlum to conclude that OVERALL CO2 lags temperature (I think that paragraphs 3 and 4 on page 67 state this position of theirs very clearly). That’s why the above argument is important since, if correct, this lag/lead would only apply to CO2 released, and temperature changes caused, by El Nino events. It does not apply to whatever produces the dominating increasing CO2 trend.

            Third Note: I think it is obvious (but I have been wrong before!) that there is no need to address the source of the dominant increasing trend to make this argument.

            And if you will indulge me, I will also ask another question and then leave the floor to you. My question is this: why do you think no skeptic scientist has come to the defense of the full conclusions of the Humlum paper?

          • RealOldOne2

            You edited your comment to add most of this and I didn’t see it until you recently made the dishonest claim that I “dropped out” of the discussion. It’s a shame that you resort to such fraudulent cult-like tactics. But then you’re a CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism believer.

            The flaw in your argument is that it’s not that the ocean’s “ability to absorb CO2 decreases”, it’s that when the ocean temperature increases the ocean actually outgassers CO2. And your argument is simplistic in that it basically assumes that the mean ocean temperature level is uniform throughout the oceans. It’s not.

            The flaw in your “Second Note” is that ocean temps are not the only factor in causing natural changes in CO2 fluxes. There are land-based natural changes too, temperature changes, increases in deciduous leaf matter which decays, etc.

            Your “Third Note” is incoherent. To make what argument?

            “why do you think no skeptic scientist has come to the defense of the full conclusions of the Humlum paper?”
            Other scientists such as Murry Salby, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts–9I & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ROw_cDKwc0 , have reached the same basic conclusion that the increase in CO2 was primarily natural.

            And I would point out that NONE of the attempted rebuttals of Humlum(2013) even attempted to refute the phase relation conclusion that CO2 changes lagged temperature changes, which was the fundamental point in the paper. The attempted rebuttals addressed the natural vs. human source of the increase in CO2.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “dishonest claim”
            “fraudulent cult-like tactics”
            “CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism believer.”

            What brought this on? I thought cgs had been quite polite to you. Perhaps I missed something? Or did you just have a rush of panic that he was winning the discussion?

          • RealOldOne2

            Sorry Dodger, you’ve totally discredited yourself as a troll, endlessly dodging science because you are peddling BS.

            What spurred my post was cgs’s dishonest claim on this thread where he claimed I “dropped out” of this discussion, when in fact his original reply was just to agree to disagree. Then he later edited his post, dishonestly without showing that he did to make it appear that I couldn’t answer his question.

            So you can bugger off now little troll.

            Edit: Here is the thread where cgs dishonestly accused me of “dropping out” : http://www.cfact.org/2018/05/23/global-warming-exhibit-b-april-was-the-400th-straight-better-than-average-crop/#comment-3916308742

          • Jammy Dodger

            Well, that is your version. If you have not replied for a month that looks like you have “dropped out” of the discussion.

            People like you are too quick to accuse people of dishonesty or lying. The fact you missed something, which is easy to do, is no evidence of dishonesty. It is a tactic used by deniers when they are losing the discussion.

          • RealOldOne2

            “Well, that is your version.”
            That’s reality.

            “People like you are too quick to accuse people of dishonestly or lying.”
            When people are dishonest and lie, I call them out.

            “It is a tactic used by deniers when they are losing the discussion.”
            Your lie is noted!

            Also your trolling tactic of “tl;dnr” is noted. Poor troll.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “That’s reality.”

            No, that is your opinion. It is a very poorly formed opinion.

          • RealOldOne2

            Your denial of reality is noted.

          • Jammy Dodger

            You think your opinion is the same as reality? That is a bit delusional.

          • RealOldOne2

            Your delusions are noted.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Don’t tell him Pike!

          • https://ridingtheirownmelting.wordpress.com/ cgs

            I just saw that you will probably have to go to the original post on Imageo to see my entire post. Disqus seems to be cutting some off if you look at it through them.

    • RealOldOne2

      Yulsman correctly states that “scientists actually have long known that something other than CO2 sets thing in motion when Earth enters and emerges from ice ages: shifts in solar radiation …” and “The bottom line is that a change in amount of solar energy reaching Earth may get things going”.

      But he is just speculating when he goes on to say “but it’s CO2 that plays the dominant role”, because there is no empirical evidence that is true. It’s just the assumption of the CO2 hypothesis.

      The real world data shows is not true, as the 1940-1970 global cooling essentially reversed the 1910-1940 warming even though CO2 steadily increased from 1940-1970, and as there has been no CO2-induced warming over the last ~2 decades, even though human CO2 increase has been even higher during the most recent two decades.

      There is much more evidence that H2O is the “thermostat”, as the Ramanathan 1981 paper that Damn Nitpicker cited below finds, ie., high SST during El Ninos causes more high cirrus clouds which regulate the max SST by blocking solar radiation.

      Clouds, made of H2O, are the thermostat.

      When warming occurs this causes more clouds which reduces solar radiation reaching the surface to prevent ‘runaway’ warming. A negative feedback keeping the temperature within a limited range.
      When cooling occurs this causes fewer clouds which increases solar radiation reaching the surface to prevent ‘runaway’ cooling. Again, a negative feedback keeping he temperature within a limited range.

      There is no physical reason that this cloud/water vapor negative feedback would stop working if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere. So Yulsman’s claim “if water vapor would rain out the result would be a very dramatic cooling” is wrong. If water vapor were to rain out, there would be fewer clouds and more solar radiation would reach the earth’s surface causing warming. It would never drive to an icehouse climate.

    • Igor

      Idiots usually claim – as in the Koyoto Protocol – that CO2 rises before temperature. The fact that they got this seriously wrong is no excuse to then invert this and pretend to make out that those bringing up this issue are “deniers”. Utter perversion and stupidity of the first order.

      Real science does not ever revert to branding healthy and fully merited skepticism as “denial”.

      • Jammy Dodger

        Real science does not start off by labelling a “claim” as being made by idiots. Do you not think you are being hypocritical?

        I will not even bother to detail that you have also got it “seriously wrong” in that you have not qualified what you are saying with any scope, conditions or caveats. But I guess you are just trolling judging by the confrontational language you are using.

    • Christopher Reiss

      This point is well-taken, but the lag also provides an opportunity to reverse the causation, if we look in the right place.

      At the very peak CO2/temperature levels, what happens next is that temperature plummets – very abruptly, according to the Vostok data.

      But CO2 remains at a 100,000 year maximum, while temperature plunges into a glaciation.

      Of course, this alone isn’t conclusive – it could well be that the warming effect of CO2 is being countered by some other dynamic (like the Milankovic cycle.)

      But the burden of proof for that falls on the one asserting hypothesis CO2 drives global temperature. We’ve got the CO2 pedal-to-the-metal, and the planet freezes anyway.

      The skeptic is wise to remain so, until the proponent of the CO2 hypothesis can offer a countering mechanism to explain why temperatures plummet at peak CO2 – repeatedly, every ice age.

      I’m only saying it’s a fair question, and the burden of answering falls on the one asserts CO2 drives climate change in the first place.

  • David Rice

    Milankovitch Cycles dictate the direction of Earth’s temperature changes; atmospheric dipole moment molecules such as CO2, H2O, and CH4 dictate how much the temperature changes.

    • nik

      Rubbish!
      Solar radiation dictates how much the temperature changes.
      Milankovitch Cycles dictate when the radiation changes.

  • Charlotte Copp

    Are you interested how climate change and remote sensing relate? or want to learn more? If so, please participate in this project, Stories Through the Bird’s Eye: Engaging with Remote Sensing. The aim of this project is to engage in conversation about remote sensing, around a topic that could be considered debatable. I want to hear (I really do) what you have to say! So please contribute your ideas! https://ds.lclark.edu/copp/stories-through-the-birds-eye/

  • mark slater

    Why havent you mentioned the grand solar minimum or how cosmic rays influence our cloud nucliation? How there are cycles which come around every 200yrs. Or even geoengineering, non-intention or other?

    • Damn Nitpicker

      Solar is a cause … For one, the measure, TSI, called the “Total Solar Irradiance” … is touted to be, or assumed to be, the total influence of the sun. It is not. For two, even by the measure of the TSI, the sun has caused 37% of the warming, since 1880.

      The sun’s magnetic field has a profound influence upon Earf. When coupled with Earf own magnetic field, it acts as a shield against galactic cosmic rays. When the sun’s magnetic field bucks that of Earf, more GCRs strike Earf. GCRs don’t bring a lot of total energy to the system, but, what they do, when they strike, is leave behind cloud-nucleating particles. Slightly enhancing cloud formation, cools Earf. Bucking that cloud formation, warms Earf.

      Then, there is the stuff that the TSI misses … the extreme UV, hard and soft X-rays, and gamma rays. Add to that , the hard particles hurled at Earf … the “solar wind” and coronal mass ejections. There is a lot of stuff that is not measured by the TSI, and even the TSI reconstruction shows 37% of the ½W/㎡ of “Global Warming” comes from the sun, as measured by the TSI.

    • Damn Nitpicker

      Cliver, Boriakoff & Feynman 1998: ”Extrapolating the aa-temperature correlations to Maunder Minimum geomagnetic conditions implies that solar forcing can account for ≈50% or more of the estimated ≈0.7 – 1.5°C increase in global surface temperature since the second half of the 17th century. Our analysis is admittedly crude, and ignores known contributors to climate change, such as warming by anthropogenic greenhouse-gases, or cooling by volcanic aerosols. Nevertheless, the general similarity in the time-variation of Earth’s surface temperature, and the low-frequency or secular component of the aa index, over the last ≈120 years, supports other studies that indicate a more significant role for solar variability in climate change, on decadal and century time-scales, than has previously been supposed.”

      Cliver, E. W., V. Boriakoff, and J. Feynman 1998. “Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature.” Geophysical Research Letters

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1029/98GL00499/asset/grl10965.pdf;jsessionid=738DD7E2815E90DC6EEFC90CCF3EB740.f01t02?v=1&t=jd1nir9e&s=37a728b29fa0254b97173de94ff44d01bf00a388

    • Damn Nitpicker

      Lean & Rind 2008: ”In contrast, recent empirical analyses suggest that solar variability accounts for as much as 69% of twentieth century warming, 25– 35% of recent warming, globally [Scafetta and West, 2006, 2008], and produces a factor of two larger warming during the 11-year cycle than in prior studies [Camp and Tung, 2007].”

      Lean, Judith L., and David H. Rind 2008. “How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006.” Geophysical Research Letters

      Jesse 2006: ”In recent years, evidence has also been growing for solar variability, as the most likely external primary forcing. … Increasingly, climate records are suggesting that rapid changes, … correlate with inferred variations in solar activity (e.g. Jiang et al., 2005; van der Plicht et al., 2004; Björck et al., 2001; Shindell et al., 2001; Bond et al., 1997). … further links between solar activity variations and climate are found, … Recent studies have suggested that minor changes in solar activity may, via feedback mechanisms, have a larger effect on climate than previously thought during this period (for example Van der Plicht et al., 2004; Björck et al., 2001; Bond et al., 2001).”

      Jessen, Catherine A 2006. “The ups and downs of the Holocene: exploring relationships between global CO.” Lund University

      Soon, Connolly & Connolly 2015: ”… we compare our new composite to one of the solar variability datasets not considered by the CMIP5 climate models, i.e., Scafetta and Willson, 2014’s update to the Hoyt and Schatten, 1993 dataset. A strong correlation is found between these two datasets, implying that solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881.”

      Soon, Willie, Ronan Connolly, and Michael Connolly 2015. “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century.” Earth-Science Reviews

    • Derpitudinous_Neologism
  • Robert

    The irony that the author walks through several denial is meme and the comments favoring them just repeat them is instructive…..

    Kudos for noting several times the lack of quality resources used as foundations for those memes!

    • MARKL67

      There is peer reviewed, quality resources that dispute this article. The author simply ignored it.

      • Jammy Dodger

        Oh really? It should not be difficult for you to give a reference or two so we can all share then.
        Please, please, please, do not point to another well worn denier meme. Say a list by Poptech? Point to a specific article that has a specific, defined point that disputes something in this article.
        Then perhaps you will have offered up a real point that can be discussed.

        • MARKL67

          I don’t need to repeat what’s already been posted. Scroll down…

          • Jammy Dodger

            Not from you as far as I can see. I repeat:

            “Point to a specific article that has a specific, defined point that disputes something in this article. ”

            I thought not.

      • Robert

        Actually, in reading the article, the author went into detail about the lack of reliable resources for many of the denialist claims.

        Also noted; a lack of resources in your own comment

        • MARKL67

          There are plenty of peer reviewed papers opposed to AGW. Many have been posted by others here. I’m not going to bother re-posting as you anti-science alarmists dont pay attention anyway. Believe whatever you want, but its patently false to say there are no reliable sources.

          • Robert

            So…
            1- the ” posted by others here” variant of ‘go Google it yourself’ denialist meme

            2- the “dont pay attention anyway” variant of ‘I’ll make an unsupported claim and then meekly claim it doesn’t matter anyway’ denialist meme

            Executive Summary of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report

            This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

            In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

            You’d think that there’d be something like that showing the ” plenty of peer reviewed papers opposed to AGW” so posters who can’t be bothered to have something to link to…

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov

          • Jammy Dodger

            Yes, but it is all so hand-wavy isn’t it MARKL67? Just a vague reference to some peer reviewed papers somewhere but you cannot be bothered to point to any, or make a substantial point or actually engage meaningfully. You just stay on the right side of plausible deniability so you do not actually have to defend any concrete facts. It is all just vague allusion and wispy smoke from you.

          • MARKL67

            Apparently you can’t be bothered to simply scroll down. Science isn’t about facts. It’s about cause and effect. It’s about what’s observable and testable which hasn’t gone too well for alarmists. AGW is falsified.

          • Jammy Dodger

            I cannot “be bothered” to scroll down because I am talking about you and what you are (not) saying.

            You cannot “be bothered” to be more factual because if you committed to some standpoint of substance you know you would not be able to defend it.

            So nothing but wavey, wavey, wavey nothingnesses from you.

          • MARKL67

            Exactly. You cant be bothered to find, research or review the peer reviewed science that refutes your beliefs/opinions. Thats what I find to be true about most alarmists. Your ilk puts on the blinders to block all opposing evidence and then resorts to lies and ad hominem.

          • Jammy Dodger

            “You cant be bothered to find, research or review the peer reviewed science that refutes your beliefs/opinions.”

            How do you come to that conclusion? A complete non-sequitur. Try to keep up without trying to divert from the point.

            Which is you are unwilling to reference one bit of peer reviewed science, make the point you believe it is making in defence of your thesis and stand by it.

            Just admit it. You are just flapping your hands around in the air and calling it waving.

          • Robert

            From the Executive Summary of the U.S. Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report

            This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.

            In addition to warming, many other aspects of global climate are changing, primarily in response to human activities. Thousands of studies conducted by researchers around the world have documented changes in surface, atmospheric, and oceanic temperatures; melting glaciers; diminishing snow cover; shrinking sea ice; rising sea levels; ocean acidification; and increasing atmospheric water vapor.

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/

            You’d think that there’d be something like that showing the ” plenty of peer reviewed papers opposed to AGW” so posters who can’t be bothered to have something to link to…

            And now, into day two of obfuscation …”You cant be bothered to find, research or review…”

            https://science2017.globalchange.gov

          • 9.8m/ss

            The great majority of “peer reviewed papers opposed to AGW” listed on denier blogs turn out to accept mainstream science on AGW. They fill in a tiny detail someplace, or update some small question. The theories that inform climate science are the same theories employed by the technology of modern life, tested every second by millions of people. When science adds a detail or corrects some small error, the scientific illiterate proclaims it invalidates all the science that went before. It’s an error in thinking that the anti-science propagandists exploit on denier blogs, in practically every article. Hockey stick debunked! Solar activity! CO2 is plant food!

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            No don’t bother.

            We all know that there are papers opposed to AGW. We also know that many of them have been questioned by the scientific community; some have been funded by organizations with a vested interest in denying AGW. And they are in the minority.

      • Robert

        Actually, the article isn’t about whether ACC is happening or not. It is about the level / quality of evidence being brought forward by the science compared to the level / quality of evidence being brought forward by those who make claims about there being research “..opposed to AGW”.

        And your inability to source evidence for your claims is supporting evidence for the author’s position;

        You are deluded by hubris — the idea that by reading one graph of suspect origin you know better than an entire scientific community consisting of literally thousands of researchers, operating over many decades and doing the actual hard work of science — and holding up their findings to rigorous review by expert peers.

        • MARKL67

          We “deniers” do have the peer reviewed evidence to support our position and which destroys every alarmist argument. But, since you dont agree with those expert and/or peer reviewed positions, you and “Evidence Dodger” and your ilk claim its not “quality” evidence. That makes alarmists the true science deniers, huh?

          • Robert

            Two unsupported claims:
            “..do have ..”
            “..which destroys…”

          • MARKL67

            Are supported. You just refuse to read or acknowledge anything opposed to your opinion

          • Robert

            And yet again, an unsupported claim: “Are supported. “

          • Robert

            “..your opinion”
            No, nearly two centuries of research. Consilience. Science. Evidence.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            You give too much credit to Arrhenius. Considering that about half of the heat that the planet sends to space, occurs in the far-infrared, from water vapour radiation, in the wavelengths 15μm to 100μm, was not known then, his cacluaitons were off by a factor of two, just considering that. Arrhenius used data taken from a bolometer through a rock-salt prism. Rock-salt becomes opaque before 20㎛. Sodium Chloride rock salt works well between 1.2㎛-5.3㎛ … NaCl transmission drops below 90% at 12㎛; is less than 80% at 15㎛, drops below 50% by 16㎛, and becomes 90% opaque by 20㎛. (Figure 2-10 of Alpert, Keiser & Szymanski 2012 (book) IR: Theory and Practice of Infrared Spectroscopy Springer).
            Tyndall also used Rock-Salt windows on his brass tubes. These guys had already discovered that a Silicon-Dioxide (ordinary glass) prism would not due, because glass becomes terribly opaque in the near infrared, and stays that way. So, these guys used Sodium Choride, aka rock salt, as their prism.

            But, there’s more. Arrhenius used Langley 1890,

            (Langley 1890 The Temperature of the Moon Memoir of the National Academy of Sciences)

            but Langley 1890 had errors.

            Langley corrected the errors by publishing Langley & Abbot 1900, Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution,

            but Arrhenius published:

            Arrhenius 1896 On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Jounal of Science

            during the interim …

          • Robert

            Unsupported claim:
            “..expert and/or peer reviewed positions, …”

          • Robert

            And your inability to source evidence for your claims is supporting evidence for the author’s position;

            You are deluded by hubris — the idea that by reading one graph of suspect origin you know better than an entire scientific community consisting of literally thousands of researchers, operating over many decades and doing the actual hard work of science — and holding up their findings to rigorous review by expert peers.

          • Robert

            Perhaps we should try disabusing MARKL67’s unsupported claims by actually showing some of breadth and depth of the research, the multiple lines of evidence, the interconnected causes and effects.

            “The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 92%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence). (Ch. 3; Fig. ES.2)”
            USGCRP, 2017: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp., doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6

            WHAT WE KNOW
            THE REALITY, RISKS, AND RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

            The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed, through statements by virtually every national scientific academy and relevant major scientific organization — including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk. http://whatweknow.aaas.org/get-the-facts/

            What’s Really Warming the World? Climate deniers blame natural factors; NASA data proves otherwise
            https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

            What is climate change? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-guide

            Environment and Climate Change Canada https://www.ec.gc.ca/cc/

            European Climate Adaptation Platform (CLIMATE-ADAPT) http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu

            Cornell Climate Change http://climatechange.cornell.edu

            republicEn: Engaging Conservatives https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/republicen/

            George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication https://www.climatechangecommunication.org

            EARTH Institute http://earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2124

            And the science condensed :

            D.3 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change

            Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes (see Figure SPM.6 and Table SPM.1). This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. {10.3–10.6, 10.9}

            • It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period. {10.3}

            • Greenhouse gases contributed a global mean surface warming likely to be in the range of 0.5°C to 1.3°C over the period 1951 to 2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings, including the cooling effect of aerosols, likely to be in the range of −0.6°C to 0.1°C. The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. Together these assessed contributions are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C to 0.7°C over this period. {10.3}

            • Over every continental region except Antarctica, anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century (see Figure SPM.6). For Antarctica, large observational uncertainties result in low confidence that anthropogenic forcings have contributed to the observed warming averaged over available stations. It is likely that there has been an anthropogenic contribution to the very substantial Arctic warming since the mid-20th century. {2.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic influence, particularly greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone depletion, has led to a detectable observed pattern of tropospheric warming and a corresponding cooling in the lower stratosphere since 1961. {2.4, 9.4, 10.3}

            • It is very likely that anthropogenic forcings have made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) observed since the 1970s (see Figure SPM.6). There is evidence for human influence in some individual ocean basins. {3.2, 10.4}

            • It is likely that anthropogenic influences have affected the global water cycle since 1960. Anthropogenic influences have contributed to observed increases in atmospheric moisture content in the atmosphere (medium confidence), to global scale changes in precipitation patterns over land (medium confidence), to intensification of heavy precipitation over land regions where data are sufficient (medium confidence), and to changes in surface and sub-surface ocean salinity (very likely). {2.5, 2.6, 3.3, 7.6, 10.3, 10.4}
            SPM WG1 AR5

          • cunudiun

            Bullshit

          • MARKL67

            Not

          • cunudiun

            Bullshit. You can’t name any “peer reviewed evidence to support our position and which destroys every alarmist argument..” You’re lying.

          • MARKL67

            Not lying. Scroll down or perhaps you can’t be bothered either.

          • cunudiun

            You’re obviously lying because you can’t name a source. You say “Scroll down.” To what? There’s nothing you’ve named to scroll down to. Pants on fire!

          • Robert

            MARKL67’s main argument is that ‘we’re too lazy’ to look for his evidence….

          • cunudiun

            He might be right about that. I haven’t got a lot of energy for wild goose chases.

          • Jammy Dodger

            Um ………… no.

            That is some sort of weird projection you are making where up is down and black is white.

            Let me see. How to decide who is denying the science? Is it those people who broadly go along with the consensus, 200 years of science development on climate and who have 100000+ peer reviewed science papers to draw upon.

            Or is it you who refuses and is unable to reference just one peer reviewed paper with a substantial point in it?

            I think we all know the answer to that.

  • 4_19_1775

    Carbon dioxide is not an insulator. Air is a better insulator than co2.

  • 4_19_1775

    No known industrial applications of co2 as an insulator. Why

  • Gunning Bedford

    it’s hypocritical to take Schmidt’s opinion, without qualification, and use it to denigrate and discount Scotese. None dispute Scotese, and the conclusion easily reached from many other temperature reconstructions that show zero correllation between temperatures and CO2 content dating back millions of years. Even Schmidt’s own Real Climate editorial on Scotese ” can we make better graphs” cites a graphic published in the IPCC AR4 including plant stomata, geocarb, Wallman, Tajika that confirms Scotese’s basic values showing zero correllation between CO2 and earth temperature history going back > 500 million years.

  • Chiong C Guo

    CO2 Absorption Spectrum — There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming

    http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

    • Jammy Dodger

      As the first sentence in this article is misleading I would not put too much store on the rest of the article being very accurate or informative:

      “Heat cannot be trapped in the atmosphere, because it radiates away in femto seconds.”

      Mind you, Usain Bolt runs the 100 metres in femto seconds as well. So the statement is not even wrong. But so what? The time is still very long compared with the Mean Free Time between collisions which is what the author appears to be ignoring.

  • Craig Thomas

    Good article.

  • Christopher Reiss

    This point is well-taken, but the lag also provides an opportunity to reverse the causation, if we look in the right place.

    At
    the very peak CO2/temperature levels, what happens next is that
    temperature plummets – very abruptly, according to the Vostok data.

    But CO2 remains at a 100,000 year maximum for about a thousand years, while temperature plunges into a glaciation.

    Of
    course, this alone isn’t conclusive – it could well be that the warming
    effect of CO2 is being countered by some other dynamic (like the
    Milankovich cycles.)

    But the burden of proof for that falls on the
    one asserting the hypothesis that CO2 drives global temperature. We’ve
    got the CO2 pedal-to-the-metal, and the planet freezes anyway.

    The
    skeptic is wise to remain so, until the proponent of the CO2 hypothesis
    can offer a countering mechanism to explain why temperatures plummet at
    peak CO2 – repeatedly, every ice age.

    I’m only saying it’s a fair
    question, and the burden of answering it falls on the one asserting CO2
    drives climate change in the first place.

    Otherwise, the climate record contradicts their thesis. We see a magnetic field crossing a wire and – nothing.

  • Aj

    I would like to preface by saying that I am no denier. I have no scientific background other than a slew of math and science classes I have taken throughout my degree programs. The main issue I have with people talking about climate change is the audacity to definitively claim something as fact especially theories that are still in their infancy. In every science class I have ever taken, questioning the hypothesis and theory was always a good thing. I can understand the urgency to pull people on board so that we can curb our habits as humans but it is dangerous to blast skepticism as the skeptic has lead us to our greatest scientific achievements. I study data for a living, it doesn’t make me an expert, but it has allowed me to understand correlations, causation, trends, inverse correlations etc. I continue to try and read on my spare time and wish that I had more access to the raw data, methods of collection, reasoning and sample sizes and sources for the data collected. If anyone knows of a site that would provide such robust information I would appreciate the recommendation. I believe it is good for skeptics to be involved in the conversation because they challenge the popular belief and push all of us to provide better answers.

    • Christopher Reiss

      The best source of raw data comes from the Vostok Ice Core domes.

      http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm

      http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/temp/domec/domec.html

      The elephant in the room is the data shows CO2 trailing temperature by ~ 800 years. Temperature abruptly climbs at the end of a glaciation, and CO2 rises afterward. Which we’d expect as warm oceans release CO2.

      We also see the temperature plunge back into a glaciation when CO2 is at a 100,000 year maximum.

      I’m not a denier either, but by making the uncritical assertion that man-made CO2 is driving recent warming ignores some very real possibilities :

      What if climate change is happening for other causes – and can’t be prevented by our turning down the CO2. How do we preserve civilization in an unstable climate (which is what we see in the ice core data)?
      What if an ice age is coming within 100 or 1000 years (as the core data again suggests)? We’re the first humans to see it coming. By chasing CO2 and the attendant mythology that “we are to blame”, are we behaving like midieval victims of the plague, imagining their plight is a manifestation of their own sin?

      Do we have our heads so deep in the archetype of our own flawed magnificence that we are running around, solving the wrong problem, in the face of clear evidence of what’s about to happen?

  • David Greene

    if the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, what has gone down?

  • Eltjo Haselhoff

    Nice and profound post. However, although I know close to nothing about ‘greenhouse physics’, my gut tells me the truth is still out there. I can’t imagine people warm up a planet. But I can imagine people belief what governments tell them, and I also know governments like taxes. Time will tell who’s right, and your post certainly helped. Thanks again!

    • Jammy Dodger

      You cannot imagine that people could warm up a planet? What you should be asking yourself is “Is it possible that people could warm up the planet?”.

  • Joseph Ellerbrock, PE

    If too much CO2 is really the problem, or even suspected it’s part of the warming problem (if warming is indeed a threat), I’d much prefer my tax dollars be invested in a greener program to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere: plant more plants, edible or aesthetically pleasing plants. Plants lots of trees too to keep the ground cooler. Hell, plant plants everyf’ingwhere: On top of houses, huts, buildings, garages, people’s heads. “Save the planet: green dollars for green solutions.” Another thing we can all do is to hold our breaths for about an hour a day… and I mean everybody. Meditate while you hold it. Meditate upon green peas. Meditate on a great freeze. Or on a sweet breeze between your knees. And hold your farts in public, it is a GHG and it is rude anyway. I myself, I have never done it. https://www.oddee.com/item_98612.aspx

    • Damn Nitpicker

      ❝Plants lots of trees too to keep the ground cooler.❞

      Myhre & Myhre 2003: ”Betts (2000) … his study revealed that the planting of trees, to reduce the increase in atmospheric CO2, in order to mitigate global warming, may actually lead to the opposite, as the vegetation changes result in a heating …”

      ”… the negative radiative forcing at the northern midlatitudes due to the conversion of forest to cropland. Regionally the radiative forcing is likely to be among the strongest of the climate forcing mechanisms.”

      Baldocchi 2001: ”Changing a landscape from forest to agricultural crops, for instance, increases the surface’s albedo and decreases the Bowen ratio [the ratio between the flux densities of sensible and latent heat exchange; i.e., increasing the latent heat] (Betts et al. 1996); forests have a lower physiological capacity to assimilate carbon and a lower ability to transpire water, as compared to crops (Kelliher et al. 1995; Baldocchi and Meyers 1998).”

  • Bec

    The caption under the first picture say Carbon Dioxide “first and foremost”? I thought water vapor was the greenhouse gas that made up 90% of the atmosphere… we wouldn’t want a denier calling this out as blatant attempt to deceive people.

    • Jammy Dodger

      “Water vapor is unique in that its concentration varies from 0-4% of the atmosphere depending on where you are and what time of the day it is.”
      https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Composition

  • Joseph Ellerbrock, PE
  • Joseph Ellerbrock, PE

    You will find Dr. Freeman Dyson’s name on this petition as well as mine, plus over 31,000 other scientists and engineers. I signed it back in 2009 and the list continues to grow, especially in the last few years as it becomes ever more obvious that the sky will not be falling anytime soon…if ever. CO2 is good for the planet. https://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p338.htm

    • RealOldOne2

      Thanks for speaking out against the CatastrophicAGW-by-CO2 climate alarmism.

      The climate alarmists are getting desperate as their meme is falling apart, as nature isn’t cooperating by continuing the natural, solar radiation increase-induced warming cycle of the late 20th century.

      Two decades now, and no measurable CO2-induced warming. The only thing that has caused any positive temperature trend has been the natural warming caused by the 2015-2016 El Nino, which was a release of stored solar energy from the ocean to the atmosphere.

      As you say, more and more eminent scientists are speaking out against climate alarmism movement. Here are some others:

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

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

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

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

      “For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society. It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the slightest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.” – Harold (Hal) Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Univ. of Calif. Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Oversight Committe; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety; Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; – http://humansarefree.com/2016/04/top-scientist-resigns-global-warming-is.html?utm_campaign=shareaholic&amp; utm_medium=digg&utm_source=news

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

      Another good summary by Dr. Lindzen is here: http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/ where he debunks the ‘97% consensus’ meme and points out the exaggerations of the climate alarmists.

  • Mark R

    Your suggestion, or that of others, that Chris Scotese just does tectonic reconstruction and is uninformed about paleoclimates is off the mark, and misleading. He is currently a research scientist at the Field Museum and adjunct professor at Northwestern Univ. Since his retirement in 2013, he has published 6 articles in highly regarded journals that include discussions on paleoclimate. He is an expert.

  • Rohan Bussell

    “Here we review the geologic records of CO2 and glaciations and find that
    CO2 was low (1000 ppm) during other, warmer
    periods.”
    It begs fairly obvious questions: (1) were their mass extinctions as the world moved into “other warmer periods”? (2) was life rarer at ppm higher than 500? (3) what was the ppm when our ancestors first appeared?
    When David Attenborough gets up at COP24 and fearmongers the world with claims that civilizations will collapse and much of the natural world will go extinct, then we see that the real questions have nothing to do with whether ‘climate change is real’…one of the most nebulous and meaningless phrases I know of…and it becomes ‘is it damaging enough to warrant the mitigation being demanded?’, ‘is it likely to be as dangerous and calamitous as claimed?’, ‘is there evidence of attribution to match the claims?’.

    The corollary to that is simply that theyre great questions, and Im interested in the answers, but I have very little trust in establishment figures like Schmidt to be good sources of information outside of the processes he contributes to for the IPCC etc…because I have seen him in the world, towing the company line, and refusing to even debate roy spencer.

    The people preaching doom n gloom shoulder a very heavy burden of proof, whether they accept it or not; and they have done a very poor job of regulating the doomsday rhetoric. That hurts their cause, because they just come over as members of a lunatic ruling elite, much like those depicted in Apocalypto, sacrificing the unfortunate natives to the vengeful sun god, whom they blame for the practical challenges of their civilization.

    • Jammy Dodger

      1. were their (sic) mass extinctions as the world moved into “other warmer periods”?

      Have a look at this. There are many factors in extinctions. Temperature is implicated in most of them.

      https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/massextinct_08

      2. was life rarer at ppm higher than 500?

      What do you mean by rarer? Biodiversity? Extent?

      3. what was the ppm when our ancestors first appeared?

      “Evidence suggests that it has likely been millions of years since atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures were higher than they are today (Hönisch et al., 2009; Yhang et al., 2013; Zhang et al, 2014). ”

      Some useful information:

      https://www.co2.earth/co2-proxy-data

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