Human-caused climate change is “supercharging” hurricanes, raising the risk of major damage

By Tom Yulsman | May 12, 2018 5:19 pm

A new study shows that record-breaking ocean heat pumped up Hurricane Harvey, contributing to catastrophic flooding

Climate change is supercharging hurricanes, a new study focusing on Hurricane Harvey has found

An animation of infrared imagery from the GOES-16 weather satellite shows the evolution of Hurricane Harvey between Aug. 25 and 28 2017. (Note: The animation may take awhile to fully load and play smoothly. Source: RAMMB/CIRA)

The North Atlantic hurricane season last year was extraordinary for a number reasons, but none more memorable than these:

Irma, Maria and Harvey.

These three hurricanes brought enormous devastation to portions of the continental United States, the Caribbean islands, and other parts of the tropical Atlantic. Harvey alone produced more than 100 trillion kilograms of rain, causing cataclysmic flooding along the Gulf Coast.

Now, a new study links Harvey’s devastation to climate change resulting from human activities.

As the summer of 2017 began, the amount of heat stored in the world’s oceans was the highest ever recorded. That was also true within the Gulf of Mexico, where Harvey prowled, according to the study, appearing in the journal Earth’s Future.

All that heat pumped Harvey up with enormous amounts of moisture — making it one of the wettest storm systems in United States history. The highest rainfall amount recorded on land during Harvey totaled 48.20 inches at a rain gauge on Clear Creek near Houston. That ranked as the highest rainfall amount in a single storm for any place in the continental United States, according to NOAA.

And by one estimate, 1,300 square miles of Harris County’s 1,800 square miles was inundated with 1.5 feet of water from Harvey.

Shortly after Harvey hit, I created this animation for a story intended to help readers visualize the full extent of the flooding:

By supercharging Hurricane Harvey, climate change contributed significantly to the flooding it caused

False-color before and after images acquired by NASA’s Terra satellite and centering on Houston show dramatic flooding from Hurricane Harvey. One image was captured on May 2, before Harvey; the other on Aug. 31, 2017, afterward. (Images: NASA Worldview. Animation: Tom Yulsman)

Thanks to the new study, these impacts can now be attributed in no small measure to the effect we are having on our planet’s climate system.

The authors, led by Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, say their new research has implications for hurricanes generally. “While hurricanes occur naturally, human-caused climate change is supercharging them and exacerbating the risk of major damage,” they write.

Hurricane Harvey offered an excellent opportunity to examine the “supercharging” phenomenon because it traveled by itself over relatively undisturbed water in the Gulf of Mexico. This meant there were fewer complicating factors for the researchers to contend with, including the impact of other storms. As a result, Trenberth and his colleagues could gain a detailed picture of how Harvey feasted on the record-breaking heat in the Gulf of Mexico.

To do so, they used temperature data collected by Argo, a network of autonomous floats in the Gulf. They also used satellite-derived precipitation data provided by NASA’s Global Precipitation Measurement mission.

These data revealed a direct link between the moisture evaporating from the warm surface waters of the Gulf of Mexico as Harvey passed overhead, and the precipitation that subsequently fell on land.

“We show, for the first time, that the volume of rain over land corresponds to the amount of water evaporated from the unusually warm ocean,” Trenberth and his colleagues write in their study.

Here’s how it works: As a hurricane like Harvey charges toward the coast, it violently stirs up the sea surface, helping water to evaporate. And the more heat energy that’s available, the more water that will evaporate. That moisture rises and converges into the storm, and then much of it precipitates, falling out as rain.

As Hurricane Harvey moved across the Gulf, the scientists found an expected signature: Thanks to all of the energy that went into evaporating water from the sea surface, a cool wake was left behind the storm.

But measurements showed that in this case, the wake wasn’t as cool as it might have been. Here’s why: The upper reaches of the Gulf contained such a staggering amount of energy that as the storm cooled the surface, heat from below simply welled up, rewarming the surface waters. And this, in turn, continued to help supercharge the storm.

The top graph shows a growing trend of heat buildup in Earth's ocean's overall, with the black indicating the monthly ocean heat content anomaly and red showing annual. The second graph show the trend in ocean heat content for the top 160 meters of the Gulf of Mexico. The bottom graph shows how sea surface temperatures have varied from the long-term average in the Gulf of Mexico. For each, the last month is October 2017 and the last red dot is for Jan-Oct 2017. The baseline is 1961-90. (Source: Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union)

The top graph shows that the heat content of the world’s oceans has been rising. Black indicates the monthly ocean heat content anomaly, and red shows the annual anomaly. The middle graph shows a rising trend in ocean heat content for the top 160 meters of the Gulf of Mexico. The bottom graph reveals a rising trend in sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico. For each graph, the last month shown is October 2017 and the last red dot is for the period Jan-Oct 2017. The baseline period is 1961-90. (Source: Earth’s Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union)

The oceans have absorbed the vast majority of the heat that has built up in our planet’s climate system due to our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — some 92 percent in total, in fact. Two-thirds of that excess has been absorbed by the upper ocean.

Research published by Trenberth and colleagues last year showed that the upper ocean warmed four times faster between 1992 and 2015 than it did between 1960 and 1990.

These percentages don’t really give us a concrete idea of just how much heat is going in to the world’s oceans. So this comparison may help clarify that: The increase in ocean heat content observed since 1992 in just the upper 2,000 meters of the ocean is equivalent to 2,000 times the electricity generated by U.S. utility companies over the ten years ending in 2016.

What goes into the ocean doesn’t all stay in the ocean. That’s literally so, because heat absorbed in the ocean is slowly released back into the atmosphere. And it’s figuratively so for a number of reasons.

Ocean waters are expanding as they warm, causing sea level to rise. Warmer seawater also is helping to melt ice shelves and glaciers, speeding the flow of ice into the oceans from Greenland’s and Antarctica’s massive ice sheets. This too helps raise sea level.

And as Trenberth and his colleagues have shown, warming ocean waters are supercharging hurricanes, leading to more damage on land than would otherwise occur.

With that in mind, we should be planning for stronger storms, with an eye toward making coastal communities more resilient through “better building codes, flood protection, and water management,” Trenberth says. We should also be preparing to deal better with loss of electrical supplies to communities, and for evacuating communities.

But we didn’t really need the new study to tell us that. As Trenberth and his colleagues put it in their paper:

Houston has been beset with three 500year floods in three years prior to Harvey, and Miami regularly experiences “sunny day” flooding with high tides. Why was there reportedly only 1 in 6 with flood insurance in the Houston area and Florida? Why have various flood mitigation measures not been enacted? The hurricanes of the summer of 2017 in the Atlantic are yet another example of how disaster risk management and climate adaptation, while challenging for multiple reasons, remain critically important.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Robert Callaghan

    **Fracking scientist says fracking will make us hit 2° C by 2030**

    Fossil emissions are going down only 1% / decade as a part of total energy use.

    To avoid 2° C, fossil emissions must go down 100% in 2 decades says Stefan Rahmstorf.

    The news by fracking scientist, Dr. Ingraffea, means emissions now have to go down *100% in 10 years!*

    Kevin Anderson says we have a 5% chance of staying below 2° C.

    This means we have 95% chance of not avoiding disaster in 10-20 years.

    Headline Link: https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/11/climate-change-two-degree-warming-fracking-natural-gas-rush-ingraffea

    Headline Video Link: https://youtu.be/PGfIjCG-zB4 IMPORTANT 12 min

    **Additional Source Links:**

    https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/07/13/analysis/these-missing-charts-may-change-way-you-think-about-fossil-fuel-addiction – The Missing Fossil Fuel Charts

    https://youtu.be/io3FI-PLCXA?t=666 – Stefan Rahmstorf 12 min

    https://youtu.be/gDP8xH_Qmls?t=127 – James Hansen 13 min

    https://youtu.be/-2b68JFsnkA – Kevin Anderson 45 of 95 min

    The US will soon spend more on interest payments than the Pentagon each year.

    https://3r8md7174doo44lgpk3kou79-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/USInterestvsMilitarySpending.png

    **More Energy/Ecology/Climate Links:**

    World energy consumption

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#/media/File:Bp_world_energy_consumption_2016.gif

    In 2017, the myth of powering the world with 100% renewables has started to crack

    http://energyforhumanity.org/en/climate-energy/2017-myth-powering-world-100-renewables-started-crack/

    EUROPE GETS 60% OF ITS “RENEWABLE ENERGY” BY BURNING TREES OFF CARGO SHIPS

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2114993-europes-green-energy-policy-is-a-disaster-for-the-environment/

    The EU is emitting way more greenhouse gases than it says

    https://qz.com/528491/the-eu-is-emitting-way-more-greenhouse-gases-than-it-says/

    UC Davis Peer Reviewed Study: It Will Take 131 Years to Replace Oil with Alternatives (Malyshkina, 2010)

    http://energyforhumanity.org/en/climate-energy/2017-myth-powering-world-100-renewables-started-crack/

    At this rate, it’s going to take nearly 400 years to transform the energy system

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610457/at-this-rate-its-going-to-take-nearly-400-years-to-transform-the-energy-system/

    University of Chicago Peer Reviewed Study: predicts world economy unlikely to stop relying on fossil fuels (Covert, 2016)

    https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.30.1.117

    Solar and Wind produced less than one percent of total world energy in 2016 – IEA WEO 2017

    https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2017.pdf

    Fossil Fuel Share of Global Energy since 1990 – BP 2017

    https://imgur.com/k7VecMq

    Renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’: Top Google engineers

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

    Top scientists show why powering US using 100 percent renewable energy is a delusional fantasy

    http://energyskeptic.com/2017/big-fight-21-top-scientists-show-why-jacobson-and-delucchis-renewable-scheme-is-a-delusional-fantasy/

    IEA Sees No Peak Oil Demand ‘Any Time Soon’

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/iea-sees-no-peak-oil-demand-any-time-soon-1488816002

    Peak Conventional Oil In Ten Years

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/nov/19/peak-oil-economicgrowth

    The Curse of Energy Efficiency

    https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/02/26/Energy-Efficiency-Curse/

    Vaclav Smil: “The great hope for a quick and sweeping transition to renewable energy is wishful thinking”

    https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/vaclav-smil-e2809cthe-great-hope-for-a-quick-and-sweeping-transition-to-renewable-energy-is-wishful-thinkinge2809d/

    The Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind – Vaclav Smil

    http://vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf

    Wind turbines are not helping with energy — they are consuming much more coal in their creation

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-are-neither-clean-nor-green-and-they-provide-zero-global-energy/#

    Is Renewable Energy Renewable?

    https://ozziezehner.com/2013/04/03/is-renewable-energy-renewable/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6uVnyjTb58 – 100 min

    Global Energy Demand & Carbon Emissions Increase In 2017

    https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/22/global-energy-demand-carbon-emissions-increase-2017/

    A new report finds that none of the negative emission technologies has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).”

    https://easac.eu/publications/details/easac-net/

    Humans are sleepwalking into a mass extinction of species not seen since the demise of the dinosaurs | The London Economic

    https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/humans-are-sleepwalking-into-a-mass-extinction-of-species-not-seen-since-the-demise-of-the-dinosaurs/23/03/

    Black Carbon Aerosols Cause Global Dimming But Overall Warming – Paul Beckwith 15 min

    https://youtu.be/_NsdV9e2eRc

    75% of Earth’s Land Areas Are Degraded (news.nationalgeographic.com)

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/03/ipbes-land-degradation-environmental-damage-report-spd/

    SMARTPHONES = Earth Dead Faster Than Expected

    https://www.fastcodesign.com/90165365/smartphones-are-wrecking-the-planet-faster-than-anyone-expected

    Billions of people live on farmland that is deteriorating and producing less food

    http://www.thisisplace.org/i/?id=7251ef46-1f44-43d6-a7ed-bde0782e825f

    40% of Amazon Rainforest Already destroyed !!!

    https://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html

    Tropical rainforests may be near a tipping point beyond our control

    https://www.salon.com/2018/04/09/tropical-rainforests-may-be-near-a-tipping-point-beyond-our-control_partner/

    Insect Collapse = Suicide

    https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/21/insects-giant-ecosystem-collapsing-human-activity-catastrophe?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

    The Ring of Fire Awakens

    https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Cover-Story/Is-the-Ring-of-Fire-becoming-more-active

    The Earth-Space Battery And The Future of Life on Earth

    http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/31/9511.full.pdf

    Life At $10/milliwatt

    http://www.cabrillo.edu/~rnolthenius/Apowers/A7-K43-Garrett.pdf

    ► 99% of Rhinos gone since 1914.

    ► 97% of Tigers gone since 1914.

    ► 90% of Lions gone since 1993.

    ► 90% of Sea Turtles gone since 1980.

    ► 90% of Monarch Butterflies gone since 1995.

    ► 90% of Big Ocean Fish gone since 1950.

    ► 80% of Antarctic Krill gone since 1975.

    ► 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.

    ► 60% of Forest Elephants gone since 1970.

    ► 50% of Great Barrier Reef gone since 1985.

    ► 50% of Human Sperm Counts gone since 1950.

    ► 80% of Western Gorillas gone since 1955.

    ► 50% of Forest Bird Species will be gone in 50 years.

    ► 40% of Giraffes gone since 2000.

    ► 40% of ocean phytoplankton gone since 1950.

    ► Ocean plankton declines of 1% per year means 50% gone in 70 years, more than 1% is likely.

    ► Ocean acidification doubles by 2050, triples by 2100.

    ► 30% of Marine Birds gone since 1995.

    ► 70% of Marine Birds gone since 1950.

    ► 28% of Land Animals gone since 1970.

    ► 28% of All Marine Animals gone since 1970.

    ► Humans and livestock are 97% of earth’s land-air vertebrate biomass.

    ► 10,000 years ago humans and livestock were a mere 0.01% of land-air vertebrate biomass.

    ► Humans and livestock are now 97% of land-air vertebrate biomass.

    ► Our crop and pasture lands caused 80% of all land vertebrate species extinctions.

  • Oortcloud

    It’s easy, and popular, to blame Harvey on AGW. But what if humans had nothing to do with the warming at all? Skeptics hold that the current warming is a natural cycle which follows the cold period of the LIA. The last time the earth warmed was during the MWP. We have no records from that time and so we can’t dismiss the possibility that such events have occurred many times during previous warming periods.

    • Chris Crawford

      Here goes Mr. Oortcloud again, spewing the same old lies he spews everywhere else. I challenged him to answer a simple, basic question about climate science. He couldn’t answer it, so he slinked away. Now that he’s back, I’m going to ask him the same question:

      If solar power output were to decrease by 1%, by what percentage would earth’s surface temperature decrease, to first order?

      Let’s see if he tries to brazen his way out of this one, or slinks away again.

      • dogsoldier0513

        How about explaining what caused 1816 to be known as ‘the year without a summer’?

        • Chris Crawford

          The eruption of Mount Tambora.

          • dogsoldier0513

            Good answer! Now, how much CO2 did it dump into Earth’s atmosphere?

          • Chris Crawford

            The global cooling effect of volcanoes is due to the SO2 that it injects into the atmosphere. See:
            http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/climate-cooling

            The CO2 emissions from volcanoes are much less than anthropogenic emissions. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

          • CB

            Everything you say is true, but one fact is missing:

            Eruptions on land cause local and short-term cooling.

            Immediately after an eruption, the effect can be cooling in the area nearby, but because sulfur compounds are heavier than the air, they soon fall to the ground, whereas the carbon dioxide does not.

            This makes the long-term, global effect of vulcanism a warming effect, not a cooling effect.

      • Tom Yulsman

        Chris: Please try to keep the snark level down. For example, you could have said something like: “In a previous post, I asked a simple climate science question but I never heard back from you. Perhaps you missed my response, so here is my question again… ” Avoid words like “slinks away.” They will do nothing to convince him or others that his views about the science are incorrect. Quite the opposite, in fact.

        • Chris Crawford

          I respect your efforts to keep the discussion productive. I have some experience with Mr. Oortcloud and his posts are… often untruthful. One thing is absolutely certain: I have refuted Mr. Oortcloud’s false assertions many times, providing evidence from peer-reviewed publications, and he has never altered his claims one iota in response to my refutations, so any hope that any argument will convince him is vain. The same thing applies to other deniers. I have been answering these people for more than 15 years, and I have never seen even one of them alter their position by the slightest amount in response to contrary evidence.

          The only value of responding to them here is to demonstrate to other readers that climate science deniers are fonts of falsehoods.

          Please advise if my most recent response to Mr. Oortcloud (beginning with “the sad cases there…” goes over the line.

          • Oortcloud

            You’re bullshitting. We’ve had ONE other encounter dude, and you didn’t supply a single reference.

          • FishOutofWater00 .

            You have gone from making a false claim, that the MWP was a global, not a regional event, to rudely attacking someone who pointed out that you are not engaging in a good faith discussion. Bullying does not win any points in science. Google scholar will bring up dozens of articles about the regional nature of the MWP.

          • Oortcloud

            Google Scholar will do that if your search is limited to studies showing no climate regimes. Scroll down for my exchanges with the author of this article (Tom Yulsman) where I take that claim part objection by objection.

          • socalpa

            Sorry fish , you are indeed Out of water .
            .
            The MWP was a global event .
            .
            Google scholar produces dozens of refuted articles that the MWP was a regional event ..
            .
            Here are three major reconstructions showing a distinct MWP and LIA .
            .
            Marcott et al 2013 .
            .
            Two ocean reconstructions ..
            .
            Oceans 2k 2015 .2,000 year global SST reconstruction .
            .
            Rosenthal et al 2013 10,000 year OHC reconstruction which postulates oceans 0.65C warmer 1,000 years ago then current temps . HTM . MWP and LIA global events
            .
            I suggest you and others are stuck in 1998 . Every IPCC AR since TAR shows both global as well..

          • classicalmusiclover

            Neither Marcott et al. 2013 nor Rosenthal et al. 2013 suggests that the MWP was synchronously warmer than today on a global scale. Rosenthal furthermore attests that current warming of the oceans is more rapid than anything seen in his research about the previous thousand years. You are misrepresenting their research and their conclusions.

          • socalpa

            Nonsense .
            .
            Marcott , oceans 2k 2015 and Rosenthal show a globally synchronous MWP and LIA .
            .
            Rosenthal explicitly states oceans were warmer by 0,65C during the MWP .. .
            .
            Oceans 2k 2015 2,0000 year global SST matched Rosenthal temps for MWP and LIA ..
            .
            It is you that is lying ,as I have given you the abstract before … ,

          • classicalmusiclover

            More hand-flapping.

            How come you can’t put “globally synchronous MWP and LIA” and “globally warmer” in the same sentence?

            Because you can’t.

        • Oortcloud

          Chris Crawford is bullshitting. We’ve had ONE other encounter and you didn’t supply a single reference.

      • Oortcloud

        My you are a busy guy in your mission to police the internet. If you’re wondering why you received no reply on the WTTW page it’s because the sad cases there removed all of my comments which contained references to back everything I said there. Cowardly and under-handed on their part.

        The question you ask above is not the same question that was asked on me on the WTTW page. Ask your original question again here and let’s see if the mods will allow me to supply references.

        As to the topic here, if you’re calling me a liar then you must be rejecting the accepted scientific truth that climate has varied in the past and that the MWP preceded the LIA.

        As for your question above, I can’t answer it, and neither can you. Why? because the various feedbacks make such a determination impossible. Here is what i provided to you on the WTTW page, as it’s applicable here as well:

        Given the current geography of Earth and stage of the Milankovitch cycle we expect that the planet has settled around a climate mean that varies naturally due to competing feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmth increases evaporation over time leading to an increase in cloud cover that leads to natural cooling. Milankovitch cycles play a role in overturning the current climate regime on the order of thousands of years. Within those cycles climate varies around a mean on the order of hundreds of years. Within those hundreds year periods are the short term modifiers such as ENSO. What we conclude is that climate is dynamic rather than (more or less) static as AGW insists. Climate may only effect the thin skin and atmosphere of Earth, but that is still a very large area that takes time to warm and time to cool. Feedback mechanisms can’t shift temperature trends quickly.

        So, a decrease in solar output may or may not have an immediate effect depending on other factors such as the phase of the ENSO cycle.

        You may be tempted to argue that the current warming is happening faster than the warming of the MWP. That is a specious argument because there is no data from the 11th century on which to make that case.

        • Chris Crawford

          “the sad cases there removed all of my comments”

          Well, I suppose that says something about the value of your comments there.

          “As for your question above, I can’t answer it, and neither can you.”

          You assume that I have an education similar to your own. As it happens, I have taught lower division physics courses, and the question, in various forms, shows up on second-semester sophomore tests. I won’t give you the answer — it is so useful in stumping deniers. Besides, any reader here who has had a little college-level physics knows what I’m referring to.

          In any event, your answer is incorrect; perhaps you don’t understand the meaning of the phrase “to first order”.

          “…there is no data from the 11th century on which to make that case.”

          False. See AR5 WG1, Chapter 5, Information from Paleoclimate Archives.

          • Oortcloud

            Man, that is one pathetic attempt at an insult. Let’s be clear – that site allows YOU to insult people because you’re an AGW defender, while those mods censor counter-references.

            Your claim to being a professor is bogus, as is your claim to know the answer to your own question. If you actually knew the answer you’d post it here. So, you’re a liar.

            Paleo data is not hard data. As one goes back in time the record becomes blurred simply due to age. What is presented in AR5 is a degree of certainly that is simply impossible. Only hard data, taken at the time is pertinent to the question. Hell man, even the data from the 1800s is suspect due to the instrumentation available at the time. Paleo data can’t be even that accurate.

            Don’t go ape-shit this time if I don’t respond right away. It’s a beautiful day outside and I have a life outside the internet. Go out and enjoy yourself – there’s plenty of time.

          • Chris Crawford

            Your claims are, as usual, falsehoods, but I think I’ll leave it to the moderator to deal with your comment.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Chris: It looks like he ignored everything I wrote. Moreover, compared to his sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude, the snark in your original comment was very mild. That said, I am trying — and unfortunately mostly losing — to keep things focused on evidence, facts, and actual science here. (Focusing on science at a science magazine? What the hell am I thinking?)

            As for Mr. Oortcloud, it looks like you are right: No amount of actual scientific evidence will convince him.

          • Oortcloud

            This is only the second time we’ve interacted. Besides the WTTW article I’ve never had any dealings with you. Can you link to any others? Of course not.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Oortcloud: By your logic, we cannot know anything about Earth history except for the tiniest scintilla of time during which we’ve had instruments like thermometers to collect “hard data.” This is patently absurd on its face.

            Moreover, your arguments are self-refuting. You essentially argue that we cannot know that humans are causing the current warming because the Medieval Warm Period was, well, warm, and if Earth can have warm periods without humans, then humans can’t cause warming. Let’s put aside the obvious logical flaw in this argument (not to mention what science actually has shown, which you seem determined to ignore). Instead, let’s just focus on how you have refuted yourself:

            If we cannot really know what happened to the climate beyond the thermometer era, then how do we know that Medieval Warm Period was actually warm? By your own argument, we cannot, because there were no thermometers back then to provide hard data. Therefore, it could have been colder than currently. Or… Whatever.

            Lastly, you seem to be afflicted by hubris. You know better than thousands of scientists who have dedicated their lives to trying to understand how Earth systems work. You are smarter, more knowledgable than all of them, plus the legions of scientists who have come before them, dating back to the likes of John Tyndall, one of the most famous physicists of all time. You’re better than all of them. They’ve deluded themselves. But you, never.

          • Oortcloud

            That’s a ridiculous conclusion based on the very little that I wrote. As alarmists always seem to do, you’re inventing your opponents’ position as you go along. Nowhere did I say that we can’t know the past. You just made that up rather than asking me for clarification.

            The current warming is, so far, only ~1C difference from the end of the LIA. And, even that is suspect due to the low number of recording stations, the calibration of those that did exist, and other modern factors such as heat islands. We may, in fact, only be seeing less of a rise than has been supposed. Then again, it might be a bit higher, but we can’t know for sure because of the lack of hard data. What we do have are historical records and paleo data that give us a broad picture, but no fine detail. Clear?

            You wrote:

            “You essentially argue that we cannot know that humans are causing the
            current warming because the Medieval Warm Period was, well, warm, and if
            Earth can have warm periods without humans, then humans can’t cause
            warming. ”

            Which is another assumption on your part. My argument is that we can’t conclude that humans are causing the present warming because we have no hard data, and therefore making the case that WE MUST BE causing warming is unscientific as well as presumptuous.

            Your last paragraph above is so-o-o-o-o typical of the attitude of climate alarmists. Do you really think that what you came up with is original and that I’ve never heard it before? Seriously dude, that’s the sort of elementary school bashing that makes me so confident. It’s the sort of childish rant that tells me that getting a PhD is only a matter of doing the work, not thinking critically.

          • Tom Yulsman

            I’m just reading what you wrote, Mr. Oortcloud. If I’ve misunderstood you, it is because you have not been clear. Or perhaps it is because you make illogical and even absurd arguments.

          • Oortcloud

            No, what I write is very clear. That”unclear” putdown has been tried time and again by people I’m mopping the floor with. That’s fruxtration on your part. You guys are committed to living in a fantasy world where science can mean whatever you want it to mean. When someone simplifies the situation for you, you feign confusion, or become legitimately confused.

            I never said you had a PhD. .You linked to studies and described experiments by people with PhDs. Mine a was general comment about the state of PhDs.

            Listen guy, read the thread. I was respectful and open. You’re the one who started making stuff up about where i stand on the issues. And. read your own article; it’s climate alarmist in topic and scope.

            I have data and accepted science on my side. You, and your fellow alarmist have panic on your side. What you wrote in your article amounts to making stuff up as you go along, which is what climate science is all about.

            This is pretty good article about how climate science is just one interpretation of data:

            http://archive.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2011/09/25/climate_skeptics_dont_deny_science/

            And here we have a study showing that skeptics are more scientifically literate than believers:

            https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503&http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503

            I have no doubt that you’re an environmentally conscious and well-meaning guy. But your well-meaning has been co-opted to bad ends.

          • Chris Crawford

            “I have data and accepted science on my side.”

            Wow! Talk about cutting the bonds of reality and soaring off into the wild blue yonder!

          • James Owens

            More like a dark, dank cave – not the open sky

          • Oortcloud

            So tell me genius, what have I presented here that hasn’t turned out to be 100% accurate?

          • Tom Yulsman

            “I never said you had a PhD.” And I’m sure you don’t beat your wife either.

          • Oortcloud

            Thank you for confirming what I’ve learned to expect from alarmists. Petty, infantile and cowardly.

          • 9.8m/ss

            The climate science dismissives I hear from most have been listening to talk radio or reading Daily Caller for so long that they no longer think about their bogus assumptions, if they ever did. The #1 bogus assumption is that climate science makes its projections by extrapolating historic or prehistoric trends. Wrong. Projections come from mathematically modeling the physics of the system, and initializing the model with observations of current conditions. Paleoclimate from proxy evidence is interesting for validating the models, but extrapolation doesn’t get you anywhere and everybody knows it.

          • John Thompson

            Actually it is precisely the lack of accurate data that makes this issue very difficult to deal with.
            We simply do not have enough prior data to make predictions about the future.
            Past predictions have been wrong on this topic.
            Things like what is actually a 500 year flood event are not settled, and in fact based on best guesses. (Again, due to the lack of accurate measurements and the limited length of time we measure. Past flood evidence is notoriously difficult to pin down because floods cover or remove evidence of prior floods.)
            When we are basing so much on educated guesses of the past – without real hard evidence – you have to expect people will disagree.
            One way to end the animosity is to make it clear that all restrictions, regulations and taxes concerning this issue would be opt in – only for those who believe it is some major threat.
            The old – put your money where your mouth is – thing.
            If half the people who believe in man made global warming being a major problem were to end just half their CO2 emissions, we would more than meet the targets for reductions without the other half of the people having to do anything.
            If that produces a lifestyle that others want, then maybe they will join in.
            This is an issue that doesn’t just stay in science, if it didn’t get into politics then the animosity would be minimal.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Oortcloud: Thank you for taking the time to contribute here.

      As to your point about the Medieval Warm Period: Research has shown pretty conclusively that the warming was not global. Some areas did warm, but others did not. In fact, a paper published in 2015 in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances shows that the warming did not even affect the entire North Atlantic region. (See: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/11/e1500806)

      The researchers found that alpine glaciers on Baffin Island and in western Greenland were almost as big, and in some cases as big, as they were during the Little Ice Age. In other words, they did not shrink as would be expected with significant climatic warming. Other data also show that “the western North Atlantic region remained cool, whereas the eastern North Atlantic region was comparatively warmer during the MWP—a dipole pattern compatible with a persistent positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation.”

      As my colleague here at the University of Colorado, Giff Miller, put it at the time (quoted in a story published by Inside Climate News — https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/medieval ): “If anyone is interested in the actual evidence this is going to be one more nail in the coffin of the Medieval Warm Period.” It shows that “the ice is in an expanded state and it’s not retreating rapidly, it certainly says that Medieval times were not anomalously warm.”

      FYI: Miller is renowned paleoclimatologist. I know him well, and he is a straight shooter — he goes where the evidence leads.

      This one study builds on others that have shown that the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, and thus not at all comparable to what we are seeing now. Moreover, even in places where the MWP was, in fact, relatively warm, there is evidence that it is even warmer today. For example, research published in the peer-reviewed journal Geology in 2012 (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/40/11/1007/130714/mild-little-ice-age-and-unprecedented-recent?redirectedFrom=fulltext ) showed that summer temperatures in Svalbard, an Arctic archipelago ~400 miles north of Norway, have been between 3.6°F and 4.5°F higher over the past 25 years than the summers the Vikings enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period.

      I also mention this particular study because it gets at another one of your points — that scientists supposedly have no records from that time. True, there are no thermometer records. But there are so-called ‘proxy’ data. The best known of these are ice cores, which have provided key insights into climate shifts dating back hundreds of thousands of years. And in the last 10 or so years, scientists have perfected the use of molecular records of climate stored in lake sediments.

      Here’s a description of the molecular detective work carried out by the scientists involved in the Svalbard project, from a press release about the study issued by Columbia University’s Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory (http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/high-arctic-heat-tops-1800-year-high-says-study):

      “Researchers produced the 1,800 year climate record by analyzing levels of unsaturated fats in algae buried in the sediments of Kongressvatnet lake, in western Svalbard. In colder water, algae make more unsaturated fats, or alkenones; in warmer water, they produce more saturated fats. Like pages in a book, the unsaturation level of fats can provide a record of past climate. So far, most Arctic climate records have come from ice cores that preserve only annual layers of cold-season snowfall, and thus cold-season temperatures. But lake sediments, with their record of summertime temperatures, can tell scientists how climate varied the rest of the year and in places where ice sheets are absent.”

      For more details on this research, see this story by a long-time colleague and renowned science writer, Michael Lemonick, in Climate Central: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/so-called-medieval-warm-period-not-so-warm-15064

      I may be participating this February in a similar scientific endeavor, this time in Iceland. Giff Miller, whom I mentioned earlier, hopes to drill cores of sediments from lakes there to try to build an environmental history for Iceland, starting 10,000 years ago. In anticipation of this project, I recently toured the lab where the molecular detective work is carried out on the samples returned from such research, and I can tell you that it is really impressive — and convincing.

      Bottom line: It is good to be skeptical! It is, in fact, one of the defining characteristics of science AND journalism (at least for journalism in the way it should be done!). But while requiring convincing evidence, scientists and journalists alike must go where that evidence leads. They should also be skeptical of biases that may be blinding them to actually seeing where the evidence is leading. In the case of anthropogenic climate change, huge amounts of evidence gathered over well more than a century show convincingly that humans are warming the planet, and thereby causing impacts like melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea level — and supercharged hurricanes, as shown in the study I wrote about here.

      • Oortcloud

        Sorry, but research shows that the MWP was global. Only a few people including M. Mann have pushed the idea that it was regional.

        https://eos.org/research-spotlights/medieval-temperature-trends-in-africa-and-arabia

        https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C-116.6493119999999&z=1

        Doing away with the MWP by claiming it to be regional was necessary in order for climate alarmists to make their case that the present warming is unusual. And, consider how ludicrous it is to say that any one region would significantly alter it’s climate for 300 years without that bearing on any other region of the globe. Mann has even put forward the idea that the “regional” MWP was the result of a persistent change in North Atlantic wind patterns. AGW believers make the case right now that minor changes have huge global impacts. How he expects that such a prolonged change could not result in a massive shift elsewhere is a wonder.

        Your link to ScienceMag is broken..

        Here (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683615596827) we have a study showing a correspondence between glacial advance and retreat in Antarctica with the MWP and LIA. Also, during the MWP Greenland was open to colonization due to the retreat of glaciers. We don’t even need climate data for that, it’s an fact of history.

        The link you provided (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122015/medieval) is to an alarmist website, which has the gall to quote M. Mann whose work to refute the MWP has in itself been refuted many times over, not the least for it’s egregious abuse of statistics.

        You try to make the case that the MWP was not as warm as today based on paleo data (https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/40/11/1007/130714/mild-little-ice-age-and-unprecedented-recent?redirectedFrom=fulltext). There is absolutely no way that paleo data can render so fine a result as to make that case. Not only is paleo data not hard data. it’s degraded, and it’s calibrated by the assumptions of the researchers. Paleo data can give us a broad picture, but never such a fine measurement as to make a case down to even 1C.

        I note also that the work you quote from the Svalbard Archipelago is a one-off and has not been published as yet.

        Your link to Lamont-Doherty is also broken.

        From all of the above we can see that your case for the MWP being regional is a weak one. We have no hard temperature data from the MWP, nor do we have SST data from the Gulf of Mexico nor hurricane records from the US east coast, nor rainfall records. Everything you’ve written here is supposition based on the experience of this current warming period.

        • Tom Yulsman

          Mr. Oortcloud: You’ve cherry picked one study to support your preconceived notion. Moreover, the study you cite does not support your contention. It does not at all show that the Medieval Warm Period was global. It shows that most — but not all — of Africa and Arabia experienced warming. Beyond that, it offers no evidence whatsoever about what happened globally.

          In my previous comment, I offered two examples of research providing evidence that the MWP was not global. Let me offer more — research with a global perspective by a group called the PAGES scientific network. It involves scientists from nine regional working groups around the world, each of which analyzes paleoclimate data for its region. Their paleoclimate analyses include data from a wide variety of sources, including tree rings, pollens, corals, lake and marine sediments, ice cores, and stalagmites, as well as historical records. And the data, from 511 locations and going back 2,000 years, span the globe. The PAGES study was published in 2013 in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Geoscience: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1797.

          Here is the bottom line from the study:

          “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

          There are two key points most relevant to your argument here: First, there was no globally synchronous warm interval lasting decades that could define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period. Second, there current warming has been higher than at any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

          I also want to point out that your overall argument is illogical. You are saying, in essence, that because the Medieval Warm Period was globally as warm or warmer (even though it wasn’t) than today, and that this occurred due to natural causes, ergo the current warming cannot be due to humankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide (despite simple physics that argue otherwise, and decades of multifaceted scientific research by thousands of researchers). This akin to saying something like this: Over the course of thousands of years, wildfires occurred naturally, so therefore wildfires today cannot be caused by human beings. Bottom line: Your argument is not only illogical; it is absurd.

          Lastly, you’ve previously argued that we can’t really know what the climate was like beyond the era of thermometer records because those records do not represent “hard data.” Yet here you are using paleoclimate research for periods before thermometer records. So which is it, Mr. Oortcloud? Do you stand by what you’ve said before and therefore believe that we can know nothing with any confidence about climates before the thermometer era? Or do paleoclimate records actually give us picture of what Earth’s environment was like in the past? You can’t have it both ways.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Original-Music-written-arranged-produced-by-ME/195887277117017 JohnnyMorales

            What a great example of the Dunning Krueger effect in action.

            The Dunning Kruger effect ensures one thing, the fact that he knows far less than he thinks he does means what you wrote won’t make sense to him.

            And because of the Dunning Krueger effect the fact that it doesn’t make sense won’t make him wonder about what he’s missing.

            Instead he’ll decide that it doesn’t make sense to him, because YOU don’t know what you are talking about (or decide you are part of a vast conspiracy determined to take away his incandescent bulbs and force him to use LED bulbs – and thus take away his freedom).

            The Dunning Krueger effect also explains why you go to such futile lengths

            Smart people often assume that if something is easy for them, then it probably is easy for most people.

            As a result, at least initially, you share his inability to grasp HIS limitations. So you speak to him as an equal assuming he will understand if he just gets a nice, thorough explanation.

            While that may be true for some, quite a lot simply do not have the ability to comprehend the issue. For them it is too vast and complex. No argument can convince a person, if they don’t understand what the argument is all about to begin with.

          • Oortcloud

            Man, you didn’t even bother to open BOTH of the links. The second gives a further 1300 references to studies concerning the validity of natural climate cycles. This has happened repeatedly when I deal with alarmists; you’d rather deny the information right in front of your faces than admit to any deficiency in your knowledge. But, even without looking at the second link, you’d have to admit that the claim that the MWP was restricted to Europe (popularized by M. Mann) is bogus. But instead you’re waiving it off. The lengths you people will go to maintain your fantasy world is akin to that seen among schizophrenics.

            Let’s look at the NatureGeoscience study you’ve referenced, (full study here – https://www.researchgate.net/…Continental-scale_temperature_variability_during_the_.past_two_millennia). Firstly, it’s an on-line pubication, not peer-reviewed, and published by a consortium committed to proving AGW rather than honestly reporting findings as my references did.

            That study underscores exactly what I’ve had to say about paleo data.

            “The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature
            reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the
            nineteenth century …but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between ad 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century ”

            So there they confirm the LIA, which is the most recent of the climate regimes. And, it agrees in detail with what is known from other sources about the LIA. Where they differ is on whether or not the LIA was global. they failed to find evidence for the MWP, which is further removed in time and for which samples are more degraded. But, the NOAA did their own analysis of the study (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/continental-scale-temperature-variability-during-last-two-millennia) and they say:

            “and distinctive periods such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little
            Ice Age stand out, but do not show a globally uniform pattern on
            multi-decadal time scales.”

            Which is what I told you before. Short term modifiers such as ENSO occur within longer climate regimes and muddy things up, but the climate regimes show up even in studies meant to refute them.

            You repeat a fallacious argument that the current warming is greater than has occurred in thee last 1400 years. Again, that’s based on paleo data that simply can not be calibrated to such a fine degree as is outlined in this report:

            http://www.parc.ca/pdf/conference_proceedings/mar_03_limitations.pdf

            and in this one, though it must be stated that the authors are AGW skeptics:

            https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/response-volume1.pdf

            You have said twice that I must believe that human influence is not reponsible for the current warming. I told you once already that that is not the case. So I have to repeat myself so please GET IT THIS TIME; there is no concrete evidence that humans are responsible. The reason is that we have no hard data from previous warming periods and those periods could not be attributable to humans. Your response has been to deny that such periods took place, regardless of the evidence in their favour. That’s where you and I differ; I look at this scientifically, you look at it ideologically, and to the point that you’ll intentionally blind yourself to evidence. Besides that, my original argument is that because we have no data on SST in the Gulf, nor hurricane records, nor any other pertinent information, your conclusion that AGW is responsible for those hurricanes can’t be substantiated. As well, we have this new study that shows how the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation is behind the strength and rapidity of those hurricanes:

            http://kaltesonne.de/hurrikane-kommen-heute-wegen-atlantischem-ozeanzyklus-schneller-auf-touren-als-noch-vor-30-jahren/

            As well, we have this from GFDL (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/) where they state that:

            ” Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide
            compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.”

            As to your last paragraph, it would do you good to actually read what’s there instead of going off on a rant. I said previously that paleo data can only give a broad picture, not the fine detail that you insist is there. That has been backed up by the references I supplied above. Do us both a favour and stop inventing my position as you go along in your desperate attempts to win an argument that you’ve clearly lost.

    • 9.8m/ss

      The LIA and MIA happened before there were instruments to measure the forces that caused them. We may never know what combination of natural forces brought them about, much less how extensive they were, to useful precision. Changes that large would be driven by forces large enough to measure today. And they are irrelevant to today’s climate problem. “Skeptics” who insist that “natural cycles” is an explanation of any physical phenomenon aren’t skeptics at all. If they were truly skeptical, as scientists are, they would know that there are no “natural cycles” without natural forces to drive them. The climate isn’t a spring. It doesn’t bounce back from one extreme or another.

      • Oortcloud

        Irrelevant to today? Man, where do you get that? If the LIA came to an end then temperatures have had to rise. otherwise we’d still be in the LIA. As for mechanism, I’ve summed up elsewhere in this thread what was the thinking on long-term climate variability before AGW came along to say that climate is all about CO2.

        Given the current geography of Earth and stage of the Milankovitch cycle we expect that the planet has settled around a climate mean that varies naturally due to competing feedback mechanisms. For instance, warmth increases evaporation over time leading to an increase in cloud cover that leads to natural cooling. Milankovitch cycles play a role in overturning the current climate regime on the order of thousands of years. Within those cycles climate varies around a mean on the order of hundreds of years. Within those hundreds year periods are the short term modifiers such as ENSO. What we conclude is that climate is dynamic rather than (more or less) static as AGW insists. Climate may only effect the thin skin and atmosphere of Earth, but that is still a very large area that takes time to warm and time to cool. Feedback mechanisms can’t shift temperature trends quickly.

        Clear? In this current warming we’re only talking about a rise of ~1C since the end of the LIA. It’s more reasonable to think that the natural force of cloud cover, plus or minus ocean upwellling and other factors have been responsible rather than an increase in CO2 up to 400 parts per MILLION.

        • 9.8m/ss

          “In this current warming we’re only talking about a rise of ~1C”

          Not really. The 40% increase in CO2 during industrial times isn’t going to suddenly disappear, and the system hasn’t reached thermal equilibrium. Manmade CO2 did its 1C, and it will do another and another. And emissions will continue at least for decades, as there is still no public policy to slow them down much, and those increases will do their 1C and another 1C.

          • Oortcloud

            Ridiculous. As i said, since the LIA ended temperatures have had nowhere to go but up. Past warm periods have had nothing to do with CO2. There is no evidence whatsoever that the current warming is anything but another natural warming in the cycle.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Since there were no thermometers during the Little Ice Age, and thus no “hard data,” as you’ve stated here so many times that it has become tiresome, how do you know that there even was a Little Ice Age?

            My point: Your arguments are illogical, self-refuting — and absurd.

            As for your contention that “past warm periods have had nothing to do with CO2,” this statement flies in the face of long-accepted science — and basic physics.

          • Oortcloud

            I know there was an LIA because of the mountain of evidence, as opposed to your refusal to accept it based on the Mann-stick, which has been refuted.

            Past warm periods have seen a rise in CO2. none of that was from from human industry. Rather, the rise followed the temperature increase.

            I don’t understand why you’re still here whining. You’ve had your ass-kicked. Getting up and asking to get it kicked again is not a sign of bravery, it’s a sign of stupidity.

          • Tom Yulsman

            You can say what you want about the science and the ideas expressed here, but you may not engage in personal attacks like these. Bottle it or be gone.

          • Oortcloud

            Where do you get off? Elsewhere here you accused me of beating my wife.

            You lost this very one-sided debate – big time. You got creamed and then you started in with the personal attacks. Don’t toss stones out the window of your glass house pal.

          • John Thompson

            There were also no anemometers or rain gauges in Texas prior to around a century and a half ago.
            The concepts of what normal hurricanes are like or what normal rainfall is like is not scientifically established.
            You can’t say what a “500 year flood” is without alot more than 135 years of often limited data. (Back then it was just a few of the major cites that even recorded data).
            Now I’m going to ask a really hard question:
            If the media monitors 1000 locations, then wouldn’t the odds of a 1000 year flood event be basically 100% each year?

          • Chris Crawford

            As I explained above, you are wrong about the amount of data required to determine the improbability of a weather event.

          • John Thompson

            You provided no valid basis for your assertion.
            Each location has those odds.
            But let’s use your logic – that there is no defined area for a prediction of a 500 or 1000 year flood event.
            So then the entire country would have to experience a 500 year flood level to call it that.
            So there wasn’t one in a few towns in Texas since you say that the odds are not for individual locations. Most towns didn’t flood, so I guess that means overall there was no 500 year flood event.
            Are you aware that there was a 500 year flood event 30 miles from my house but not at my house?
            I’m sorry but the 500 year flood prediction is by location.
            Even along the Brazos river, some guages broke that predicted level, and other’s didn’t.
            Yes, specific location matters.

          • Chris Crawford

            Again, it’s clear that you have no idea what ‘500 year event’ means. Go learn what it means.

          • socalpa

            No , it does not .The comment by Oortcloud is supported by the paleoclimate record ,and the physical properties of CO2 .

          • James Owens

            In addition to the long-term view of surface temps – let’s also be cognizant of the big interactive picture – only 4% of the added heat resulted in that rise of 1°C of surface temperatures.
            Most went into the oceans and the rest melted ice – hence, the accelerating sea level rise.
            And we don’t seem to understand how the Southern Ocean works to take heat and CO2 from the air – is that process subject to disruption?

          • socalpa

            Speculation .
            .
            Beginning to end .
            .
            The global data shows onset of current warming at ~1700CE ..200 years before any significant rise in CO2 .
            .
            Sea surface temp reconstructions show oceans cooled 1C from ~ 1300CE – 1700CE ,and were 0.65C warmer than current 1,000 years ago.
            .
            See Rosenthal et al 2013 , Oceans 2k 2015 .

  • dogsoldier0513

    Care to explain the extremely severe hurricanes that plagued the Caribbean during the 1600s?

    • Chris Crawford

      Hurricanes are natural phenomena. The fact that hurricanes have taken place in the past does not mean that extremely powerful hurricanes cannot be attributable to AGW. In the same manner, the fact that lightning has been causing forest fires for millions of years doesn’t mean that we can dismiss Smokey the Bear as a “Forest Fire Alarmist”.

      This study provides solid evidence that the extreme rainfall from Hurricane Harvey can be at least partially attributed to AGW. If you have a problem with that, then provide an appropriate scientific argument for why it is wrong.

      • dogsoldier0513

        Average Earth temperatures have only been tracked since 1889. Extreme rainfall amounts have only been tracked since 1951. Does this imply that neither occurred prior to those dates?

        • Chris Crawford

          No. So what?

          • dogsoldier0513

            Then why does NONE of the ‘research’ done by global warming alarmists’ take prior cycles into account, and why does the same ‘research’ totally disregard the effects of volcanic eruptions on current CO2 levels?

          • Chris Crawford

            “… why does NONE of the ‘research’ done by global warming alarmists’ take prior cycles into account”

            False. See AR5 WG1 3.6.

            “…why does the same ‘research’ totally disregard the effects of volcanic eruptions on current CO2 levels?”

            False. See https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Original-Music-written-arranged-produced-by-ME/195887277117017 JohnnyMorales

            Have you ever heard of the Dunning Krueger Effect? If not you should find it very interesting.

            It explains oortclown very nicely. It also explains why you keep trying. Though I think at some point prior or soon the reason if it hasn’t already changed, will change to simply wanting to give him a hard time for believing his gut instinct.

            You will never convince him, because his gut instinct is never wrong.

            It farts out the intoxicating stink of truth to clear his mind of the fog his head fills with arguing about facts with alarmists by allowing him to see the truth behind the lies PC snowflakes always tell.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Mr. Dogsoldier: As Mr. Crawford points out, you are simply wrong that scientists have not taken prior cycles into account. An entire realm of science, called paleoclimatology, is dedicated to determining how Earth’s climate has changed in the past. Many hundreds of scientists, probably thousands, work in this field worldwide. They publish many hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers every year on ‘past cycles’ and other climatic shifts. And this field is by no means new. It has existed for many decades.

            As for scientists disregarding the effects of volcanic eruptions on current CO2, this too is simply false. This is well studied, and volcanic CO2 is dwarfed by anthropogenic emissions. For more, see:

            https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2011EO240001

            https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas.html

            https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/comment-volcanic-versus-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science?page=1

  • http://www.aesopinstitute.org Mark Goldes

    Hard-to-believe new science makes possible technology that will replace fossil fuels FAST! See aesopinstitute.org

    Existing combustion engines can soon be easily and cheaply converted to run on water instead of gas or diesel. See MOVING BEYOND OIL on the website. The water can be extracted from the air, ending the need to refuel.

    New engines will need no fuel. They are designed to run on atmospheric (ambient) heat and will power every variety of vehicle including ships and aircraft.

    Ambient heat will power thin laminates that can keep phones charged and power homes.

    Ambient heat is a 24/7 reservoir of solar energy larger than earth’s fossil fuel reserves!

  • Uncle Buck

    Why wasnt it a stronger huricane, then? I mean, number 14 in US landfall strength at 938 mb isn’t really supercharged, is it? Then it stalled, dumping a bunch of rain. I dunno, sounds like a weather event to me. It’s remarkable due to population proximity. Kind of like Sandy, which hit a big population during a spring tide. How does this pass as AGW?

    • Chris Crawford

      Mr. Buck, the study determined that, without AGW, Hurricane Harvey would not have dropped as much rain. Yes, Hurricane Harvey was a weather event, but it was made more powerful by AGW.

      • Mike Richardson

        Similarly, the historic flooding in Southeast Louisiana in August 2016 (which directly impacted me and my family) was believed by many climatologists to have been magnified by AGW due to the excessive evaporation and resulting precipitation. When a weather front held the rain clouds in place, it resulted in over two feet of rainfall in less than 24 hours. Not many places wouldn’t flood with that amount of water dropped in that short a period.

        • John Thompson

          Yes, and the common factor was a boundary that stalled the forward movement speed of the systems.
          BTW, here’s something to ponder:
          A “500 year flood” means that you have a 1 in 500 chance each year of a flood that big.
          With modern media, we easily report on 500 locations in Texas.
          So then wouldn’t that mean that the odds of having one 500 year flood event out of the 500 locations each year would be 100%?
          I put this all in the category of “look more, find more”.
          BTW, I really wish they would stop forgetting that there is no real proof of what a 500 year flood event actually is. No gauges on the rivers prior to about 150 years ago. No rain gauges either.
          So to use that as some kind of data point is not valid – what a 500 year flood is – is an educated guess.
          The 1913 flood on the rivers hit in the same area as Harvey was MUCH, MUCH higher.
          So really what they call a 500 year event could easily be a 100 year event.

          • Chris Crawford

            “So then wouldn’t that mean that the odds of having one 500 year flood event out of the 500 locations each year would be 100%?”

            Nope, that logic is wrong, because storms are not localized to individual towns. One storm can spread over a large area.

            “So to use that as some kind of data point is not valid – what a 500 year flood is – is an educated guess.”

            No, it is the result of a calculation. In science, we can actually calculate things that haven’t happened before. Nobody had ever made an A-bomb go off before 1945 — they did a lot of calculations based on what they DID know and then built a bomb based on those calculations. Ask the people in Hiroshima how well that worked.

          • John Thompson

            Shall I mention that they had to do lots of experiments BEFORE they were able to build a bomb?
            There is no experiments they can do to determine a 500 year flood level.
            They look at signs of past flooding and try determine when they happened.
            They then use that as a basis for their guess.
            Of course because floods over lap, it is not an exact science.
            IT IS A PREDICTION, NOT A MEASUREMENT!

          • Chris Crawford

            Look, the fact that you don’t know the science doesn’t mean that it’s wrong. You’re just blowing smoke. When you have a specific criticism of the actual methods they use, I’ll be happy to explain how it works.

          • Uncle Buck

            Well, they use reconstructed data and extrapolate to yield their conclusion. Mixed data and or reconstructed data for SST could generate just about anything. Doesn’t prove they’re wrong, but the timeframes are inadequate for the analysis, in my opinion. Precision is a huge factor. If you want to see AGW, you’ll see it. But it’s not required to recreate this event. That’s one of the fundamental problems with climate. What is a long enough period given the statistical limitations of recent, high precision data, vs older and lower quality data?

          • Chris Crawford

            “Well, they use reconstructed data and extrapolate to yield their conclusion.”

            No, they don’t. It’s a great deal more complicated than that. Like I said: go learn how these things are done. Ignorant criticisms serve only to demonstrate ignorance.

          • Uncle Buck

            Ad hom comments reveal the weakness of the commenter.

            How long have we had precise SSTs and the exact same depth and amount of data? What passes for a trend in your eyes? How about the eyes of all science? Stats are tricky and can be deceptive. Explain it.

          • Chris Crawford

            So now you have to go look up what an “ad hominem argument” is. Sheesh.

            “How long have we had precise SSTs and the exact same depth and amount of data?”

            We have never had perfect data. There’s no such thing as perfect data.

            “What passes for a trend in your eyes?”

            The best test of a trend is a slope that is non-zero to statistical significance. However, this is not the only way of establishing a trend, merely the simplest.

            “How about the eyes of all science?”

            Pretty much the same thing.

            “Explain it.”

            What?

          • Uncle Buck

            A trend, huh? I can correlate the stock market to this trend in a not so disguised analysis. What does it mean? Nothing. Variation from normal requires establishment of what is statistically normal to start with. What is normal, given that climate is never static? Again, the issue really is do we need AGW? The answer is resoundingly no. The mechanisms (notice that’s plural) driving this are undoubtedly multivariate, requiring doing math on the positives and negatives of each variable, in an open system, by the way. Complex? Absolutely. I think these guys are smart, so let’s not get too personal. Their statistics, assumptions, and data are weak, despite sophisticated methods. The analysis requires many more inputs and outputs, and years of precise data that don’t exist. Otherwise, it’s a stock market analysis.

          • Chris Crawford

            Apparently you failed to read my comment. I explicitly referred to statistical significance.

            And no, you are not smarter or more knowledgeable than the scientists.

          • Uncle Buck

            You surely aren’t following what I am trying to convey. Does any of this require AGW? No.

            I would never claim to be smarter. But I do understand the limitations of statistics. Their analysis is not a failure, but they went entirely too far with the claim of AGW. Diefication of CO2 is dangerous business if you can’t control the other gods in the room, like cloud formation, humidity, the amount of wind and heat content at multiple levels, ocean currents, and all of the myriad factors in a fluid, open and dynamic system. From what I can see, they did a good job of describing a heating event, suggesting further study and observation. That’s it. It’s cool enough by itself, but the limelight is in CO2 now, isn’t it?

          • Chris Crawford

            I see. You’re not smarter than the scientific community; you just think that they make stupid mistakes.

            Right.

          • Uncle Buck

            Yep. Happens all the time, by me, you, everyone else. And no one dares defile climatologists working with CO2, on account of it being such an exact and predicable discipline where all the mechanisms are understood and statistical estimates are no longer needed. Where else can you go where the science is settled? Oh yeah, that would be NO WHERE. Starting with the assumption that CO2 drives climate, wrong answers are evidently impossible.

          • Chris Crawford

            Since you cannot offer a reasoned argument, you are forced to resort to a straw man argument. Go look up what “straw man argument” means.

            Look, the fact is that you haven’t read the scientific literature, you don’t know what the science is, and yet you are arrogant enough to criticize work that you don’t even understand.

          • Uncle Buck

            You must be really, really smart. I mean really smart. I mean, like, wow, thanks.

            You’re right, this event couldn’t have happened without CO2.

            That was close.

          • Chris Crawford

            No, it’s the scientists who know the science. I don’t go to a politician when I need dental work, I don’t go to a politician for medical problems, and I don’t go to politicians for science. I go to the people who know what they’re talking about. And I don’t presume to think that I know better than they do.

            And the scientific community has been saying for over a century that CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to rise. Lo and behold, it’s happening.

          • Uncle Buck

            I know, I know, and we’re all going to die in an apocalypse with a runaway greenhouse, a new Venus. Alarmist hyperbole. The earth has tested CO2 increases many times and resolved it, not the least of which is our current cyclic glaciation. I looked into your pal Trenberth, too. He’s a piece of work. He is clever, I’ll give him that. Try googling Landscapesandcycles.net/Trenberth.

          • Chris Crawford

            “I know, I know, and we’re all going to die in an apocalypse with a runaway greenhouse, a new Venus.”

            I didn’t write that — YOU did. Once again you resort to a straw man argument, because you have been beaten.

            “The earth has tested CO2 increases many times and resolved it”

            Yes indeed. The earth will survive anything we do. But our civilization isn’t so robust.

            Lastly, your comments on Mr. Trenberth are pure ad hominem. You just can’t address the issues, can you? You don’t have a leg to stand on. Give it up; you’re just digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.

          • Uncle Buck

            Yes, it could certainly be construed as ad hominem. But you are the one invoking the infallibility of “scientists,” not providing even one comment that didn’t rely entirely on a circular reference. My guess is you didn’t check out the link. Mr. Trenberth believes in his message, and he COULD be adding scientific value, but he clearly has trouble with full scientific disclosure. Agendas are funny that way. A mirror might be handy for you right now.

            Give it up? Sure, I give. You would defend an Islamic suicide bomber if he believed in AGW.

          • Chris Crawford

            “Yes, it could certainly be construed as ad hominem.”

            Construed? No, it *IS* an ad hominem argument, pure and simple.

            “But you are the one invoking the infallibility of “scientists,””

            You are just an idiotic font of straw man arguments. YOU are the one talking about infallibility, not I. And I have focused on the scientific community, not individual scientists.

            “A mirror might be handy for you right now.”

            I am defending science against anti-rationalism. YOU are the one with the political agenda. You have no rational leg to stand on; you’re just trying to make the real world fit your political desires.

            ” You would defend an Islamic suicide bomber if he believed in AGW.”

            Good lord, even MORE straw man argumentation! You are a hopeless idiot. I am done with you.

      • John Thompson

        They didn’t mention forward movement speed.
        It’s always been known that the slower a tropical system goes, the more rain it dumps.
        I’m right in the middle of where Harvey hit (though I only got 28 inches of rain).
        Not far from me they got 38 inches.
        But it was over many days.
        This was one of the slowest moving systems on record.
        Old rule of thumb is to divide 100 by the forward movement speed in mph – 10 mph = 10 inches, 5 mph = 20 inches.
        Harvey came to a complete stop and then did a loop to the East!
        So in about 48 hours it moved about 100 miles – you would normally expect around 50 inches of rain from that – and that’s exactly what some people got.
        That they don’t even mention the forward speed means they are being deceptive.

        • Chris Crawford

          No, the analysis did not ask whether AGW caused the slow speed of movement; it analyzed the probability that this amount of rainfall would have fallen in the absence of AGW.

          Here is the paper:
          http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9ef2

          I suggest that you read it before accusing its authors of deception.

          • John Thompson

            They ignored the most important detail.
            Propaganda.

          • Chris Crawford

            And did you have anything substantial to say?

          • socalpa

            Obviously ,he did . You are just unwilling to accept it .

      • david russell

        Correction: It showed that warmer waters provided more power to Harvey, but mis-attributed warmer waters to AGW, which cannot be the reason because CO2 IR doesn’t warm the oceans meaningfully, if at all.

        • halush

          Why do you continue to state this lie David?

          CO2 does cause the temperature of the oceans to be higher than without. That you don’t understand the science does not change this fact.

        • Chris Crawford

          I challenge you to provide evidence to support your claim that the IR from CO2 in the atmosphere does not warm the oceans. You cannot.

          • david russell

            Go here and check out the 4th or 5th chart on the right “Ocean temperature profile, day and night.”

            You’ll see: 1) the top 1mm (the ocean skin) is colder than the layers below day and night, but at night he next layer (the mixed layer) has no temperature gradient. CO2 IR is active 24/7 even when the sun goes down. But as you can see, there’s no warming at night … at all.

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

          • Chris Crawford

            Good lord, what a nitwit you are! The surface of the ocean is both radiating and absorbing IR. You are completely ignoring the fact that the surface of the ocean is also radiating heat. The IR bounced by the CO2 reduces the amount of cooling.

          • david russell

            You aren’t focusing on what I asked you to focus on. Enlarge the chart and view the “night time” temperature profile below the surface. It’s a straight vertical line. That means there’s no warming from the CO2 radiating into the ocean at night.

            Look, you challenged me. I met the challenge. Now are you going to man up and admit it , or not?

          • Chris Crawford

            The lack of a thermal gradient does not in any way suggest that the ocean does not receive heat from the atmosphere. You keep ignoring the fact that the ocean radiates more heat at night than it receives from the atmosphere.

            So you’re the one who owes me an admission of error — which of course you will NEVER do, no matter how many times I try to explain basic thermodynamics to you.

            But let me ask you: how many courses have you taken on thermodynamics?

          • david russell

            Equivocation, pal. The relevant point is that there’s no net heat added by CO2 IR…. at night (and therefore by day).

            Everything radiates IR. But we don’t say that icebergs warm the oceans. Your understanding of thermodynamics reminds be of the difference between knowledge and wisdom:

            Knowledge is asserting that tomatoes are fruits.
            Wisdom is not putting tomatoes into a fruit salad.

          • Chris Crawford

            “there’s no net heat added by CO2 IR”

            That’s false, and you don’t understand basic thermodynamics. You simply don’t grasp the fundamentals. I have wasted too much time trying to explain simple science to you. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • david russell

            More bluster. You’re outing yourself as a fraud. You haven’t explained anything by the way. You’ve merely embarrassed yourself.

          • david russell

            I think I’ve demonstrated that I do have good reasons, scientific ones, for my assertions.

            No one asserts that the CO2 IR warms the oceans below the 1mm ocean skin. The sun on the other hand can penetrate up to 200m, although most if its energy is delivered in 5-10m. All of the thermal processes at the ocean air surface serve to cool the oceans…. except insolation.

          • evenminded

            All scientists that understand climate know why the GHE causes the oceans to warm David.

            Your statements to the contrary are inane.

          • Chris Crawford

            “I’ve demonstrated that I do have good reasons, scientific ones, for my assertions.”

            No, you have demonstrated towering ignorance of basic principles of thermodynamics, along with astounding intellectual arrogance. In ten minutes I could teach a ten-year old more about science than you know.

          • david russell

            Now you’re merely lying. You’ve provided no assertion about thermodynamics that refutes anything I’ve stated. You are all hat and no cattle.

          • socalpa

            You’d think that by now the alarmists would understand that backradiation violate the second law of thermodynamics .
            .
            Keep up the good fight !

          • david russell

            I don’t believe the alarmists believe their own malarkey. It’s always been about power. Climate alarmism is a politicians best dream ever. Socialists only want to control the means of production. Climate alarmists want to control everything, including life itself. In the name of alarmism you could justify euthanasia, human sterilization, outlawing jet travel, air conditioning, heating in the winter, vacations, eating meat. At least we’ d all be equal — equally poor and equally miserable.

          • socalpa

            They don’t even acknowledge the fact that atmospheric compression due to gravity accounts for all of the surface warming .
            .
            Ridiculous !

          • david russell

            I’ve read some stuff by Charles Anderson on this approach. It seems to be largely ignored. Too bad.

          • socalpa

            I’m not familiar with him .
            .
            But this paper proves that the temperature comes only from the ideal gas law .
            .
            http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
            .

          • david russell

            Wow!!!!!

          • socalpa

            Same impostor david, ,but I think i’ll leave this one !
            .
            .The creep ROO2 I humiliated for claiming Cooling produced the high internal temps of gas giants and stars looking for revenge ..
            .
            The trolls are all on full tilt .

          • evenminded

            Are struggling to understand the science behind the Kelvin-Helmoholtz mechanism socky?

          • halush

            I know right ?

            .

            Who would have thought that something as simple as the ideal gas law could explain something as complicated as planetary surface temperature so accurately ?
            .
            These scientists have no clue what they are talking about !

          • socalpa

            I know right ?
            .
            Who would have thought that something as simple as the ideal gas law could explain something as complicated as planetary surface temperature so accurately ?
            .
            These scientists have no clue what they are talking about !

          • socalpa

            david , you are responding to an impostor, likely candidate ,the desperate serial impostor ROO2 ..

          • socalpa

            Mods , impersonator ..

            New profile , 3 comments . joined May 31 ,2018.
            .
            Here is my profile for proof of impersonation ..

            https://disqus.com/by/socalpa/

            Joined Apr 5, 2012

          • david russell

            Net/net: You’re just a blowhard. I’m no more arrogant with you than I would be talking to a chipmonk. I’m merely surprised at how little you know.

          • david russell

            I believe you. You could probably teach a 10 year old everything you know — about everything, perhaps over cookies and milk.

          • david russell

            Here’s more: the penetration of CO2 IR (15 micron) in water (about 10 microns):

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_absorption_by_water#/media/File:Absorption_spectrum_of_liquid_water.png

          • Chris Crawford

            That’s an especially stupid argument, Mr. Russell. 15 micron photons don’t penetrate far into ocean water because they are ABSORBED by it quickly. Are you possessed of enough intelligence to understand that when water absorbs photons, it gains heat?

          • david russell

            It may gain heat, but: a) heat rises, so said energy goes right back out; and b) the chart I asked you to look at shows that DAY and NIGHT, the ocean skin is colder than that waters below, and as we know cold objects can’t warm hot objects. The ocean skin is 1/2 to 1mm thick. 10 microns is just the tippy-top part of that.

            The oceans skin is cold because at the ocean/air interface is where all the [cooling] evaporation happened. They atmospheric IR may be (probably is) increasing said evaporation, and thus cooling.

            Now there’s a line of though that as the air warms (from whatever reason) this slows conductive cooling. This is a plausible story (but a story is all it as, because to my knowledge there’s no peer-reviewed science quantifying this. No matter. I believe the Lansner and Pederson paper eliminates this notion. Any warmer air over the oceans is a result of the ocean warming the air and however you slice and dice, AGW has got nothing to do with OCH build up

            The final piece of the case is that there is no peer-reviewed science demonstrating the r-square factor correlating global CO2 levels and OHC levels. No correlation mean no causation.

            The icing on the cake is the point that the distribution of added OHC differs ocean by ocean, which would make no sense if GHGs were responsible.

          • Chris Crawford

            My god, your ignorance continues to astound me!
            “heat rises, so said energy goes right back out;”

            What are the three primary means of heat transfer? Once you’ve figured that out, apply that lesson to your statement about heat rising, and then explain how stupid it is.

            “we know cold objects can’t warm hot objects”
            Uh-oh! You’d better go tell the world that the manufacturers of heat pumps are committing fraud!

            By the way, that paper by Lansner and Pederson was published in the journal “Energy and Environment”. Obviously you don’t know that this journal is a political journal, not a scientific one, and papers published in it have no credibility in the scientific community. No serious scientist would want his name to appear in that journal.

            “No correlation mean no causation.”
            So now you are claiming that the earth is not warming. You are pretty far out in Cloud-Cuckoo Land.

          • david russell

            I covered them all — conduction, convection and radiation. You’re beginning to sound a little unhinged.

            For someone who claims to know thermodynamics, you’re close to outing this as untrue. While all objects radiate, heat flows only in the direction of hot to cold.

            Now you’re reverting to ad hominems. I provide a scientific paper and you attack the publisher. Not cool. Not reasoned. Not scientific. Your opinion notwithstanding. Next you’ll be telling me that I’m wrong because I own an oil company. Maybe you and CB should get a room.

            My claim was NOT that the earth is not warming. This is the second time you’ve attributed things to me that I never said. Stop it. What I said (and supported by Lansner and Pederson, 2018) is that the 450 temperature sites that are isolated from ocean influence show NO WARMING TREND for the past 110 years, ending 2010.

            All you’ve provided is bluster.

          • Robert

            “socalpa david russell
            6 hours ago
            They don’t even acknowledge the fact that atmospheric compression due to gravity accounts for all of the surface warming .
            .
            Ridiculous !

            1
            Reply

            Avatar
            david russell socalpa
            5 hours ago
            I’ve read some stuff by Charles Anderson on this approach. It seems to be largely ignored. Too bad.

            Reply”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3911070486

          • socalpa

            You are aware both the david russell and socalpa id s you are posting are by the impostor ROO2 ?
            .
            Want proof ?
            .
            Just ask !

          • Robert

            Guess it is hard to tell the difference between parody and idiocy.

          • socalpa

            The impostor is now using your ID , I couldn’t agree more !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • ROO2

            You are aware both the david russell and socalpa id s you are posting are by the impostor ROO2 ?
            .
            Want proof ?
            .
            Just ask !

            Yes, please post the proof to substantiate your evidence free allegations. I, for one, will be most interested to see such ‘proof’.

    • FishOutofWater00 .

      It wasn’t a stronger hurricane because it had very little time to intensify under low shear conditions. The tropical wave that formed Harvey tracked all the way from Africa through most of the Caribbean under strong wind shear. It rapidly intensified when atmospheric dynamics became favorable.

      • Uncle Buck

        Well, I appreciate the comment, and certainly don’t disagree, but I don’t buy the link to AGW. This is an extraordinary claim. We don’t need AGW to explain it. It feels like we’ve leapt over the science and math except the parts that reinforce the theory. If the heating was as large, widespread and unique as claimed, we would be seeing a great number more unusual events, and that just isnt true. The energy goes somewhere.

        • John Thompson

          The flooding on the major rivers in the area hit by Harvey was much worse in 1913.
          Don’t know how they would pin that on Global Warming.
          The shape of the Gulf and the weather patterns (convergence of northerly/westerly systems with all the moisture coming up from the Gulf from the South/Southeast) means it is not uncommon here.
          Further north the same geography and weather patterns create Tornado Alley.
          But don’t let anyone fool you, life expectancy in Texas is at the US median and the cost of living here is low – so these events are not all that major when it comes to what they actually cost in loss of life or driving up the costs of owning property or structures.

          • Chris Crawford

            Gee, do you think that maybe the lousy flood control measures in 1913 might have had something to do with that?

            ” life expectancy in Texas is at the US median”

            That depends on who you are.

            https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-has-highest-maternal-mortality-rate-developed-world-why-n791671

            I’m not claiming that Texas is inferior to the rest of the country. I’m claiming instead that there are no free lunches. Texas has no income tax, but it does have a sales tax. I live in Oregon, which has no sales tax, but does have an income tax. What you gain in one area you lose in another.

          • John Thompson

            That was a flood far higher than a 500 year event and it happened just 105 years ago.
            While there are more dams now, there is more development now, leading to much more and faster runoff.
            BTW, since you brought it up, Forbes and Wallet hub both show Oregon to have a higher total tax burden than Texas. And as far as life expectancy for the state, that includes everyone – not just one group that is worse or better.

          • Chris Crawford

            “That was a flood far higher than a 500 year event and it happened just 105 years ago.”

            You don’t know what “500-year event” means. Go look it up.

            “While there are more dams now, there is more development now, leading to much more and faster runoff.”

            Which is more than compensated for by all the flood control measures, which consist of a great deal more than dams. Go look up “flood control”.

            ” Oregon to have a higher total tax burden than Texas.”

            Yes, and Oregon has better services than Texas. Do you really believe in free lunches?

            “as far as life expectancy for the state, that includes everyone – not just one group that is worse or better.”

            Yes, the rich get great medical care, and the poor just die.

    • Oortcloud

      You’re perfectly correct. take a look at this page (https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/) where it states:

      ” Thus the historical tropical storm count record does not provide
      compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase.”

      As for how fast the storms massed we have this new study:

      http://kaltesonne.de/hurrikane-kommen-heute-wegen-atlantischem-ozeanzyklus-schneller-auf-touren-als-noch-vor-30-jahren/

      • Uncle Buck

        Thanks for the excellent links. Open minds, skepticism and new ideas lead to good science. Groupthink, ad homenim attacks, and censorship yield the opposite.

        • Oortcloud

          You’re welcome.

    • david russell

      Trenberth has drunk the AGW Kool-Aid. He’s the one who famously wrote something like “we can’t find the warming and it’s a travesty we can’t.” That’s why I call him Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth.

  • windy2

    The consensus is still a 2%-11% increase in hurricane intensity with a decrease in frequency. We may yet learn that intensity increase is only 2% but frequency is reduced by 10%, which may end up being a net positive outcome for future hurricanes.

  • socalpa

    This article can only be described as another desperate attempt to attribute something ,anything negative to elevated CO2 .
    .
    In this case ,an attempt to capitalize on public fear of severe weather events , in this example one of three large hurricanes to strike the U.S after a 12 year absence of cat 3+ ,the longest in recorded history .
    .
    The fact is that NOAA has found no detectable effect of CO2 on tropical cyclone activity. .
    .
    And ,the public should also be made aware that contrary to the predictions of Mr.Trendberth, made publicly in 2005 after Katrina (which claims resulted in the resignation of NOAA hurricanes specialist Dr.Chris Landsea from the IPCC) , global hurricanes activity declined to a near 40 year low all categories from 1997 -2015 during the “hottest decades ever”

    http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_major_freq.png

    • classicalmusiclover

      It would seem from socalpa’s comment–which is nearly identical to comments he has posted on dozens of climate blogs, sometimes repeatedly on even the same article–that he did not bother to read much of the above article.

      He also engages in the juvenile tactics of distorting the name of a respected scientist (Trenberth to “Trendberth”), accusing the scientist of lying on the basis of one skeptic getting upset with him, and misrepresenting a NOAA report that actually supported Trenberth’s view by refusing to include the full context of the statement about “no detectable effect.”

      He compounds his errors by hand-flapping about a graph produced by “skeptical” meteorologist Ryan Maue (whose views have been championed by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Steyn). while failing to notice the distinct rising trend in the intensity of individual hurricanes charted by the lower line on the graph–a situation that directly reflects the emergent current understanding of hurricane behavior in the face of a warming climate.

      Nothing socalpa posts is new. Nothing socalpa posts is honest.

      • david russell

        I view “Travesty” Trenberth with great skepticism. If the article is an accurate description of his paper, the paper is based on a lie as I have demonstrated elsewhere on this thread.

      • socalpa

        Lies and requests for tribal support .
        .
        Readers should know I have caught this poster lying online multiple times .
        .
        Proofs on request .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Socalpa’s most pathetic pleas for tribal support concern the hapless and ethically compromised climate misinformer Willie Soon, whom he thinks has no conflicts of interest and no ethical concerns. Not only that but socalpa thinks that Soon’s claim that the 20th century was not very warm has never been refuted, that Soon is right when he says that sea ice is bad for polar bears, and that he is spot-on when he parrots the political claims of Christopher Monckton.

          Naturally, the “lies” he claims proof of are my accurate descriptions of Soon’s haplessness.

          • socalpa

            More pathetic lies and appeals for tribal support ?
            .
            My history is open ,for a reason .. Any readers can check back in my history by clicking on my name and see for themselves all the above are lies .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Please, readers, read socalpa’s comment history. The devious distortions and incompetent misinterpretations of published science and spammed scripts will leap out at you.

        • evenminded

          You lie as well you hypocritical imbecile.

          You lied about the Smithsonian sending out Soon’s papers to multiple journals simultaneously.

          You’re an idiot socky.

  • CB

    This isn’t new information. I’m not entirely sure why some people here don’t seem to be aware of it… Could it be that they really don’t know? …or are they paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of fossil fuel?

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/images/ocean-heat-content.gif

    • socalpa

      That’s odd ! The article addresses sea surface temps , but since you posted this graph ,I note NOAA neglected to post the conversion to degrees C on the right , showed heat content in joules on both ..
      .
      You do know the conversion of joules to degrees C 1955 to 2010 in the top 2,000 ms of the oceans = a whopping 0.09C ? 9/100ths of a degree C ?

      • CB

        “You do know the conversion of joules”

        I do! I also know you’re well-known for lying about climate change.

        If you aren’t paid for that, why are you lying?

        What do you get out of it?

        “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

        • socalpa

          I have never lied about climate change . I have caught you lying multiple times ,however . You have also been caught using both your accounts to upvote yourself and others to game the Disqus best order.
          .
          Now ,try explaining why NOAA would produce a graph without the conversion to degrees C as shown in the Levitus table ?

          • david russell

            she’s for sure a liar.

          • CB

            “try explaining why NOAA would produce a graph without the conversion to degrees C”

            …because energy is conserved, not temperature. Relying on temperature when ice is melting gives a misleading picture of how much warming is actually occurring.

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

          • david russell

            CB just made up “because energy is conserved, not temperature” which is rather a nonsense claim to begin with.

            The problem with temperature is that the ocean has different temperatures everywhere. Most of the ocean is 4C — very, very cold, but at the bottom.

          • halush

            There is no scientific reason why AGW would cause the bottom of the oceans to warm since 1955 David.

            Get a clue.

          • socalpa

            The question was , why would NOAA conceal the actual temp change that the Joules of OHC were based on ?
            .
            The obvious answer is that the joules measurement looks more ominous ,and scary .
            .
            The 0.09C ( 9/100ths ) temperature is not scary at all , and hurts the alarmist agenda .
            .
            I already showed you the claims of CO2 driving Arctic ice increase and decrease were false . Antarctic sea ice extent increased since 1979 ,the opposite of predictions ..
            .
            Want the links ?

          • evenminded

            Actually the more interesting question is, why are you such a scientifically incompetent and mathematically illiterate moron?

      • david russell

        Are you sure? I thought .09C was for the first 700m. For 2000 m it was more like .05C. Correct me if I’m wrong.

        • halush

          LOL. You deniers better be sure to get your irrelevant facts straight. Why is it that the scientifically incompetent find it surprising that the depths will not warm as much as the surface due to AGW?

          Do you know that the ocean surface has warmed by ~0.6C since 1955?

          Do you know that the correlation between temperature and CO2 has an r^2 value of 0.879179?

        • socalpa

          Yeah ,double checked . Levitus is 0.09C 1955 -2010 .
          .
          Balmaseda and Trendberth broke out 0-700ms at 0.03C and 0.06C 700 ms -2000ms for the hiatus period ..
          .
          You sure stirred up a hornets nest on this thread !

    • david russell

      For hurricanes it’s only down to about 26m that matters as for heat content. That’s where an active hurricane draws all of its energy from, according the Mr Hurricane, William Gray.

      • CB

        I would ask anyone who is neither a liar nor mentally ill to talk over the people stating falsehoods.

        There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

        Bury them.

        “I do own an oil company”

        -David Russell

        disqus.com/home/discussion/phillydotcom/penn_state_climatologist_criticizes_terrifying_ny_mag_climate_change_story_that_went_viral/#comment-3411697250

        “Powerful coal, oil, and gas interests are trying to confuse us all about global warming and renewable energy. Not with facts or reasoned argument — but with disinformation.”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-facts-and-fossil-fuel-industry-disinformation-tactics.html

        • david russell

          The only liar here is NOT CB, but she’s the most CONSISTENT and PROLIX liar.

          I actually believe she’s demented and possibly demented. But folks can decide for themselves. She’s been posting the same nonsense for years.

          I never lie.

          • halush

            I never lie.

            It’s clear you are the one that is demented. You lie frequently David.

          • CB

            “You lie frequently David.”

            Of course he does. He’s well-known for it. I would suggest not engaging with liars and attention trolls, though. Downvote them and talk over them. They cannot exist without that oxygen.

            Here’s a topic for a frame shift: Why are they lying? In David’s case, he claims to make money off of fossil fuel, but is that his only motivation?

            Why is he lying about something that’s endangering his own life?

            “[I] live in Miami, and voted for Trump”

            -David Russell

            disqus.com/home/discussion/thehill-v4/conservatives_fear_epa_chief_going_soft_on_climate_science/#comment-3237134070

            “Flooding is the New Normal in Miami. In Miami, sea-level rise is not a problem for future generations. It’s a present-day reality.”

            http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2017/02/flooding-is-the-new-normal-in-miami

          • david russell

            I’ve blocked Halush because he’s somewhat of a loon. For example he can’t identify a single lie of mine, but I’ve identified many of his. Of course, he merely says the same thing about me, and is prepared to do this over hundreds of posts without let up.

            So I’ve dismissed him.

          • halush

            Poor David, you been caught lying once again.

            Of course you lied about the fact that there is a correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

            And you lied about the fact that you understand science.

            And you lied about ever identifying a single comment of mine that is a lie.

          • evenminded

            Yes David, we know that every time someone proves that you have lied or proves that you don’t know what you are talking about you end up blocking them. You’re like a petulant child covering his ears and singing “la la la la la, I can’t hear you”. It’s your last defense after you’ve been beaten so badly. It’s rather pathetic.

          • david russell

            You are Halush, as I’ve always known. I blocked you last year. Somehow you got around that. Easily fixed. I’m blocking you again.

          • evenminded

            Poor David. Like I said, all you can do in the face of being shown to be wrong is to block those that know more than you.

            When are you going to start holding all of your inane positions to yourself David?

          • socalpa

            Your stalker has arrived ,and is posting from both identities . halush AND evenminded. !
            .
            Both of them ,over the brink !
            .
            Nice work !

          • david russell

            I’ve blocked them both. Somehow Evenminded overcame my blocking him last year. So I had to do it to him again.

          • evenminded

            Have you realized that you lied about the Smithsonian submitting Soon’s papers to multiple journals simultaneously?

          • socalpa

            The loon is now impersonating you .. could also be the serial impostor ROO2 .
            .
            I shall investigate further ..You have driven them all quite mad !
            .
            Funny as hell !

          • Chris Crawford

            Having dealt with climate science deniers for many years, I can state that they all share two prominent characteristics:
            1. They are ignorant of the science.
            2. They are political conservatives.

            While there are some leftist anti-scientific myths (such as those regarding nuclear power and GMOs), the right seems to have made an intensive effort to deny science. Chris Mooney wrote an entire book about it some years ago.

          • halush

            Ask David if there is a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature.

          • CB

            “Ask David if there is a positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature.”

            I believe Mr. Russell is on record as saying there is a positive correlation between the rise in CO₂ and atmospheric temperature. He has also claimed that this heat energy cannot pass between the atmosphere and the sea… as if he lived in a world where cold beer never warms and hot coffee never cools… It’s good for a larf, at least…

            http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png

          • halush

            Why don’t you ask him and see what he thinks this week?

            The r^2 value for the correlation between CO2 and surface temperature is ~0.88.

          • CB

            “Why don’t you ask him and see what he thinks this week?”

            I’m not going to ask him because he’s a pathological liar, a common attention troll, and a complete waste of time.

            I’d rather talk to fun people like you! 😀

            …so what did you do with Jim K?

            Is the body in the basement or what?

            I haven’t seen him around in a while…

          • david russell

            Your above expresses your buffoonish self-puffery. You challenged me and got your head handed back to you.

          • socalpa

            Flagged for targeting harassment of poster and other posters..
            .
            CB writes ;
            .
            “Downvote them and talk over them. They cannot exist without that oxygen” .
            .
            Fascists always turn to censorship ,and worse ,when losing support .

            .

          • Chris Crawford

            Well, Mr. Russell, I won’t call you a liar, but I have demonstrated on a number of cases that the statements you have made are false. Just a few minutes ago you made the false statement that infrared radiation from atmospheric CO2 does not warm the ocean. I challenged you to support your falsehood with evidence. Of course, you will not be able to do so.

          • halush

            Anyone that claims that they have never lied in their lifetime is obviously a liar.

          • david russell

            I not only could. I did. You owe me an apology.

            1. CO2 IR only penetrates 10 microns, perhaps 10% of the ocean skin, which is colder than the waters below (remember the temperature profile chart) and therefore cannot warm them.

            2. The mixed layer, just below the skin, shows zilch warming at night (in the chart) showing that although the air radiates IR to the ocean surface all the time, when the sun goes down, none of it gets below the 1mm ocean skin

            3. The air is warmed by the oceans and not vice versa. If the air was warming the oceans, then why do the 450 land temperature stations show no warming trend from 1900 to 2010 (Lansner and Pederson, 2018)?

          • Chris Crawford

            1. Idiot — the fact that water absorbs IR means that the IR adds heat to it!

            2. The surface of the ocean would cool even MORE if there weren’t incoming IR.

            3. The atmosphere does not warm the oceans; it contains a tiny fraction of the earth’s surface heat content. Air temperatures are much more volatile than ocean temperatures because its heat capacity is so much lower. Of course, you don’t know anything about heat capacity, so none of this will make sense to you.

            Why do you argue about topics you know nothing about?

          • david russell

            Idiot: Here is the first sentence in Wikipedia under “Heat”:

            In thermodynamics, heat is a type of energy transfer in which energy flows from a warmer substance or object to a colder one.

            To your 3 points, reflect on the Wiki quote.

            1. Irrelevant. the coldest object in the world “adds” heat to the hottest object, even miles away if nothing in between blocks radiation.

            2. See 1, above

            3. Well, gee, thanks That’s what I’ve been saying all along. The atmosphere doesn’t warm the oceans. Case closed. You lose by scoring a touchdown on my side of the field.

        • david russell

          The Union of Concerned Scientists rather sounds like “Soccer Moms for Family values.” Here’s another perspective I found on the internet in 25 seconds:

          [quote]
          The Union of Concerned Scientists is a left-wing advocacy organization that spreads unscientific alarmism about environment and energy topics. It is currently bragging about being a major architect and proponent of using the federal RICO Act against executives at fossil fuel companies and nonprofit think tanks, such as The Heartland Institute.
          Despite the impression given by its name and the image the way in which the media portrays it, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is not a professional scientific organization; in fact, for a $25.00 donation, you can also become a “concerned scientist.” Though founded in 1969 by faculty, including some scientists, and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, UCS’ mission from the beginning has never been the pursuit of knowledge through scientific discovery. It has instead pursued left-wing advocacy on technology, environmental, and energy issues—regardless of what the scientific data have shown.
          [end quote]

          • Chris Crawford

            Mr. Russell, are you seriously arguing that fossil fuel companies have never attempted to influence the public regarding the science of climate change?

          • david russell

            Did I say that? I don’t remember saying that. Hey, I didn’t actually say that.

            The silly CB challenged what hurricane expert, William Gray, told me directly by blabbing on about coal companies and that I owned an oil company.

            Does any of that have anything to do with my assertion? No.

            Why don’t you ignore CB. Reading her stuff will rot your brain. She’s already totally lost to the dark side and unsalvageable.

          • Chris Crawford

            “Did I say that? I don’t remember saying that. Hey, I didn’t actually say that.”

            No, you attacked UCS for stating that:
            ‘”Powerful coal, oil, and gas interests are trying to confuse us all about global warming and renewable energy.”

            Sheesh, what an idiot you are!

          • david russell

            Correction: She posted this blather to me in direct response to my William Gray remark.

            You ought to try to be more honest. You, too 9.8m/ss (and whoever “guest is” — I’m thinking Halush).

          • Robert

            Also, in far less…
            http://leftexposed.org/about/

            A self-interested, biased site that you didn’t bother to cite.
            Good going….. not even acceptable by middle school standards of scholarship.

          • david russell

            I realize, Robert, that you like to be told what to do. So: Buzz off.

          • Robert

            Ah, more effort at personal attack than a substantive response.
            Thanks.

          • david russell

            Poor Robert. You didn’t read what YOUR link said in effect about my link, to wit their purpose is to oppose leftist efforts to tell the rest of us HOW TO LEAD OUR LIVES. I also oppose this. You should too, but apparently not.

            Therefore I concluded that you want someone to tell you what to do.

            I didn’t mean to attack you. You effectively insulted yourself by assuming people should be told what to do and how to lead their own lives by nameless, self-appointed life experts.

          • Robert

            Nice effort circumnavigating the point:a biased, self-interested resource that you didn’t bother to cite.
            I linked to your uncited source’s About page. Your source’s statement of purpose.

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of “..unscientific alarmism..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “..pursued left-wing advocacy ..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “…regardless of what the scientific data have shown”?

            Or did you just accept those claims because they fit your perspective?

            Good going….. not doing a bit of due diligence to check if your resource would meet a middle school level of evaluation, or consciously not citing it because you knew. Neither one meets standards of scholarship.

          • david russell

            Your post is so garbled I can’t tell WTF you’re talking about.

            I’ll presume you’re upset “Left Outed” claim “alarmism is unscientific.” Well, of course it is. Any kind of alarmism is unscientific. Alarmism is advocacy.

            The actual data show that such global warming as we’ve experienced since the end of the LIA has been an unmitigated boon to humanity. The earth is literally much greener today than 200 years ago. Crop yields are at record highs in part due to the extra atmospheric CO2 (read: plant food). Deserts are blooming.

            Climate science (a.k.a, AGW is gonna cause disasters) is total horse manure. It’s history of failure is so abysmal than only intellectuals and lefties would believe it.

            I’m way past middle school. Climate science scholarship is an obscene joke. Now that Trump is President I expect many of climate pseudo-scientists will be looking to become Uber drivers.

          • socalpa

            Many are getting passports to France ..
            .
            They know ..the jig is up !

          • classicalmusiclover

            “Many are getting passports to France ..”
            –Who? Which university research programs are disbanding or defunding their climate research units?

          • socalpa

            Here is one article , very funny too ! The French scientists are in a rage over Macrons move to recruit U.S scientists , and give them higher pay !

            Enjoy !;

            http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/french-president-s-climate-talent-search-nabs-18-foreign-scientists

            .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Your link doesn’t indicate French scientists being in a rage.

            Celebrating the loss of some of our best scientists to a different country seems a rather peculiar thing to do.

          • socalpa

            Sure it does , read harder .
            .
            No loss , plenty where those came from . just check out the numbers in the March for Science -Budgets !
            .
            We should export 90% of them to deserving countries that are low on grant hungry climate change academics !
            .
            After all ,the science is settled ,isn’t it ?
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Robert

            Since socal pa pointed out there was a parody account , I had to check to make sure this came from the real account.
            “…an unmitigated boon to humanity.”
            “I’m way past middle school. Climate science scholarship is an obscene joke. Now that Trump …”

          • david russell

            Like I said before, you don’t have anything to contribute. Here you seem to think that quoting what I have posted is somehow enlightening or relevant. Since I posted it, it’s not news to me. Apparently you and Mike Richardson and Popcorn Joe are unaware of the plain truth of my remarks. Such warming as we’ve had since the end of the LIA has been an unmitigated boon for humanity. Coming out of the LIA there were fewer than a billion humans alive Now there are almost 7 billion of us and we 7 billion are collectively better off in just about every respect today than those 1 billon of our forebears — better fed, longer living, healthier, and so forth. These are things everyone knows but you have to disregard what you know in order to be a climate alarmist.

            What you may not know is that the entire edifice of AGW alarmism is built on lies and half-truths. The only ‘science’ is the half-truth of radiative forcing and that can only demonstrate a 1C response to 2X CO2, which is hardly worth worrying about. Beyond that, the rest is just made up — positive feedback (unproved and unobserved), predictions of disasters (that are always ‘down the road’), claims of causation (without demonstrating correlation).

            I say that the physics of “2X Co2 = 1C” is a half-truth, because it’s not universally accepted. Moreover, it’s just theoretical. Radiative forcing occurs at the top of the atmosphere (it’s the energy imbalance at TOA). None of the over 100 GCMs agree even as to what that imbalance is. Moreover, there’s a much simpler explanation for any TOA energy imbalance, to wit energy sinks like the oceans absorbing more incoming insolation than they release.

            Finally there’s a much better theory than GHSs explaining the surface temperature of planets with sufficiently dense atmospheres — gravitational auto-compression. It accurately quantifies the surface temperature of all such planets (and moons) in our solar system without any reference to GHGs.

            As for Trump, if you don’t think that Trump’s going to cut the funding for climate alarmism you’ve got another think coming.

          • Robert

            “Finally there’s a much better theory than GHGs explaining the surface
            temperature of planets with sufficiently dense atmospheres —
            gravitational auto-compression.”

            Please explain how you think that the force of gravity can continually add energy to a system. Do you believe in perpetual motion machines too?

          • david russell
          • Robert

            Where does this paper state that gravity can continually add energy to a system?

          • david russell

            Compress a gas and it heats up. You obviously don’t understand the Ideal Gas Law. It’s the basis on how a diesel engine works without sparkplugs. It’s largely the basis on how air conditioning and refrigeration work. It’s rather basic science.

            Did your read the article? The ideal gas law explains the surface temperature of every planet or moon in our solar system (except Mars — air too thin) with NO REFERENCE to GHGs.

            Ooops.

          • Robert

            Yes, I do understand the ideal gas law. I did read the article. All it does is explains that the ideal gas law is valid. That’s obvious. If you give me the pressure, density, and molar mass of an ideal gas, then I can give you its temperature at any location in the universe.

            Air conditioning and refrigeration work on a cycle and require continuous energy input in order to work. Gravity is not a source of continuous energy input.

            This paper offers zero explanation as to why planets are warmer than their effective radiating temperature.

          • david russell

            So one again you chose ignorance over enlightenment. The sun is the ultimate energy source, of course. GHG’s are relevant only to the extent the change the parameters in the article (e.g., CO2 is denser than air).

            The point you miss is that the components to calculate the surface temperature of all these planets (and moons) make no reference to GHGs.

          • Robert

            Yes, no kidding, the sun is the energy source, and without the greenhouse effect the surface could not be 288K. If it was 288K then it would emit more energy to space than it would receive from the sun. That means that in order to be warmer than 255K, there must be some other energy source. You are claiming that energy source is gravity, which is nonsense. Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.

            You miss the point. This paper calculates the temperature of a gas based on its pressure, density, and molar mass without any reference to any energy input to the system, including the sun.

            All this paper does is to validate the ideal gas law.

          • david russell

            [more on the below]

            Essentially the energy that warms the surface temperature reflects the [gravitational] potential energy of air parcels at altitude being converted to kinetic energy (heat) as these parcels fall to the surface. It’s all an artifact of convection and the lapse rate.

            Now read the article and become enlightened

          • Robert

            That’s a zero sum game. For every parcel that falls and increases in temperature there is a parcel that rises and decreases in temperature. It’s an adiabatic process, which means that no heat is gained or lost.

            A planet without a greenhouse effect will cool to its radiative equilibrium temperature. This paper does not refute that basic physics.

          • david russell

            The parcels that fall heat up The ones that rise cool down. Your comment about adiabatic is without relevance. The point is that you don’t need any GHGs to explain the surface temperature. If as you say, one has the components to use the Ideal Gas Law, you can compute the temperature of any planet (except Mars). You haven’t engaged intellectually with why this doesn’t work on Mars — the air is too thin for convection to work — the same is true in our stratosphere.

          • Robert

            You do need GHGs to explain the surface temperature. Without GHGs the sun only provides enough energy to warm the surface to 255K.

            The ideal gas law works just as well on Mars as it does on any other planet.

            You must be joking if you actually think otherwise.

          • Robert

            I’m liking that a fake account is all sciencey.

          • Robert

            So, did gravity become stronger?

            Where does your single paper address the observed increase in temperature?
            Acidification?

          • david russell

            http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf

            This paper addresses the surface temperature of every planet with an atmosphere greater than .1 bar.
            Here’s a thought question: Why isn’t Mars hot, rather like Venus, adjusted for surface insolation. They both have about the same percentage CO2 in their atmosphere’s. I aver that Venus has a much lower degree of surface insolation than Mars. How do you address this issue? I’ll stand by.

          • Robert

            They don’t have the same amount of CO2 in their atmosphere David, and Mars is quite a bit farther from the sun than Venus.

            This is not difficult to understand.

          • david russell

            One again, you are being disingenuous. I told you that Mars gets more surface insolation than Venus (and it’s for the very simple reason that Venus is surrounded by clouds, whereas Mars is not).

            And I never said Mars has more CO2, but rather than they have about the same percentage CO2 in their atmospheres.

            The ugly truth is that Venus is so hot because of the tremendous pressure (auto-compression, remember?), despite only getting a few W/M2 of surface insolation.

          • Robert

            I’m not being disingenuous, Mars is understood.

            http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4374

            Less CO2 than Venus and less insolation make for a vastly reduced greenhouse effect. It’s not difficult to understand.

          • david russell

            Where does the air conditioning manual say that you have to plug in the unit to the wall socket? The sun is the wall socket here.

          • Robert

            The sun only provides enough energy to cause the surface to be 255K without the greenhouse effect.

            Where is your energy source that accounts for the extra 33K?

          • Robert

            Usually on the final page… and in the troubleshooting guide.
            And of course , the sun isn’t discounted as the radiation source. It is the false claims about variations driving the recent warming.

            Just as your single paper doesn’t address the same.

          • Robert

            “..is a half-truth, because it’s not universally accepted. ”
            As is “…an unmitigated boon to humanity.”
            “I’m way past middle school. Climate science scholarship is an obscene joke. Now that Trump …” then.

            But the main point stays;12 hours ago
            Nice effort circumnavigating the point:a biased, self-interested resource that you didn’t bother to cite.
            I linked to your uncited source’s About page. Your source’s statement of purpose.

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of “..unscientific alarmism..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “..pursued left-wing advocacy ..”?

            Did you look to see how they supported their claim of
            “…regardless of what the scientific data have shown”?

            Or did you just accept those claims because they fit your perspective?

            Good going….. not doing a bit of due diligence to check if your resource would meet a middle school level of evaluation, or consciously not citing it because you knew. Neither one meets standards of scholarship.

          • Robert

            “I’ll presume you’re upset “Left Outed” claims “alarmism is unscientific.” ”

            The concern was clearly stated.

            Good going….. not doing a bit of due diligence to check if your resource would meet a middle school level of evaluation, or consciously not citing it because you knew. Neither one meets standards of scholarship.
            And you redoubled your effort.

            Thanks.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Robert’s post was very clear and showed your lack of critical thinking skills in buying into a politically-overcharged smear piece just because it fit your views.

            Either you have a short attention span and intense reading comprehension issues, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

            Maybe it’s both.

          • david russell

            As Richard Lindsen said about so called climate alarmism:

            “The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.”

          • Robert

            And, yet again, what is missing is the supporting evidence.

            This time: “… false and/or misleading claims…”

            And, yet again, a citation…

            Thanks!

          • david russell

            What a dope you are. Go back to middle school where your development got arrested. Geez.

          • Robert

            And now, just argument by personal attack.
            Sorta like playground behavior, not how science works.

          • david russell

            You don’t deserve more than personal attacks. You don’t have much to say and what you do say you express poorly.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Projection.

          • david russell

            Now you’re attempting to joke. Your above is patently untrue. I have a lot to say and it’s factual. In the current context my claim was that Bill Gray told me that it’s heat content of the first 26 m in the oceans the power hurricanes. To call that begging the question or to call it projection just outs you as an ignoramus.

          • Robert

            The wealth of information available in every library, yet “..Bill Gray told me..”

            Might want to take http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/09/entertainment/la-ca-stephen-ambrose-20100509 to heart.

          • david russell

            I don’t read the LA Times. But you’re suggesting I do speaks volumes about you.

            Why are you pointing me to a book review about Eisenhower, anyway?

          • Robert

            Well, to start with, it is more than ” a book review about Eisenhower, “, and that topic relates directly to your claim.

            Nice to see you think a source you’re not acquitted with is ripe for attack .
            And you might find the level of grammar used there of value.

          • david russell

            Well, it’s described as a book review. I read the first paragraph. Nothing there of relevance. You merely tried to waste my time. I didn’t fall for it. If you’ve got a relevant point, spit it out. Argument by link is so tiresome.

          • Robert

            Read on… get to the bits about Ambrose’ s scholarship.

          • david russell

            Why would I want to waste my time further on this? If you have a point, spit it out in your own words.

          • david russell

            Climate science work about as well as political science.

          • Robert

            And now just random assertions…..
            You’ve done a fine job of showing, to recycle a phrase, there is no ‘there’ in climate science denialism.
            Thanks

          • david russell

            I’ve pretty much wiped you out. Have you comprehended that gravitational auto-compression powered by the sun explains the surface temperature perfectly for all planets and moons in our solar system (except Mars) yet?

            Once you do, you’ll change your tune and be enlightened. Climate science is pseudo-science, as I have demonstrated, scientifically.

          • Robert

            I’m liking that you think one paper, from a year ago, somehow validates a counterclaim about the global research done over the past nearly two centuries.
            Doing so, plus adding in the “.. pretty much wiped you out”, insulting, and near total lack of critical thinking skills evidenced by hiding your source while quoting biased quoting that resource, really shows the level of intellectual honesty and rigor it takes to remain true to science claims brought forward primarily by politically and financially motivated organizations.

          • david russell

            Yes, precisely. All it took was a little child to point out the Emperor had no clothes. And your point is ludicrous. The Ideal Gas Law is nothing new.

            Or are you asserting that the Ideal Gas Law was thought up by the evil coal companies to fool all of us. Climate scientists have been fooling themselves and ignoring basic science known for centuries. You said it yourself.

            Look, you’ve had your eyes opened and it’s hard to accept you’ve been wrong all this time. My recommendation is that you withdraw from the field of battle and contemplate what I’ve revealed hereon. Then when you’ ve adjusted, drop the Robert handle and come over and help me destroy all these goofball climate pseudo-scientists.

          • Robert

            That’s right, the ideal gas law is nothing new. It explains the temperature of ideal gases anywhere in the universe, including on planetary surfaces.

            What it does not explain is why a given surface is hotter than what would be dictated by radiative equilibirum with the sun. Without the insulating effect of GHGs, where are you claiming this extra continuous input of energy is coming from?

          • david russell

            Of course it does — gravitational compression heats up air at altitude as it falls to the surface, converting [gravitational] potential energy into kinetic energy (heat). Then this [now] hot air rises due to convection and cools. Repeat ad infinitum.

            Where the air is too thin for convection (like in the stratosphere and on Mars) convection stalls. So the auto-compression even explains Mars.

          • Robert

            No it does not provide a continuous source of energy. The internal energy gained by the parcels of air that are falling is balanced by the internal energy lost by the parcels of air that are rising. There is no net energy input due to gravity. This is basic physics.

            Are you still confused about the fact that the ideal gas law works on Mars as well?

          • david russell

            The continuous source of energy is the sun. You don’t think for a second that GHG’s provide a source of energy do you? Bwahahahahaha.

            I’ve made your point, namely that rising air cools and falling air heats. Duh!!! We know this because it’s cooler as you go up. Once a pilot of a flight I was on told us that it was -60 degrees outside. Brrrrr.

          • Robert

            No, GHG’s provide insulation. Without the insulating effects of GHGs the surface temperature can only be 255K.

            That’s all the sun alone cane do. Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.

          • socalpa

            ” Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.”
            .
            Oh ? Waterfalls and hydro electrics don’t work ?
            .
            Gravity is not driving the fusion in the Sun continuously ?
            .
            Billions of tons of atmosphere don’t rise by convection and absorption of surface heat reducing density to the stratosphere and are then cooled , fall and are recompressed by gravity ?
            .
            Where do you get such nonsense ? “skepticalscience” ?

          • Robert

            You really have no idea what you are talking about.

            “Billions of tons of atmosphere don’t rise by convection”

            This is an increase in gravitational energy.

            “and are then cooled , fall and are recompressed by gravity”

            This is a decrease in gravitational energy.

            The net is zero. The center of mass of the atmosphere is not changing. This is basic high school physics.

          • socalpa

            You have no idea what you are talking about !
            .
            Robert (which Robert TBD) wrote ;

            ” Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.”.
            .
            Gravity is the source of the pressure ,density and temps of the atmosphere (with varying solar contribution) ,thus creating the conditions (constantly) and differentials needed to produce and maintain convection .
            .
            Gravity continuously produces energy in the climate system ..
            .
            Really ,where do you get such nonsense ?

          • Robert

            I wrote that gravity is not a continuous source of energy. The statement was made in the context of the temperature of the Earth’s surface.

            In the atmosphere, any increase in gravitational energy due to a parcel of air rising is balanced by a decrease in potential energy due to a parcel of air falling. Or did you think that all of the air can continuously fall?

            The only significant continuous source of energy to the Earth is the sun.

            Apparently this basic fact is too difficult for you to grasp.

          • socalpa

            The basic fact is that gravity is continuously driving the circulation of the atmosphere by creating pressure and temp differentials . producing energy in the system .
            .
            Gravity will continue to do so . whether even if the sun goes out .as long as there is a gaseous atmosphere . .

          • Robert

            No, gravity is not what is driving the circulation of the atmosphere. The sun is. Gravity does not create pressure and temperature differentials, the sun does. Gravity does not produce energy in the system.

            You definitely have no idea what you are talking about.

          • socalpa

            ” Or did you think that all of the air can continuously fall?”
            .
            As a matter of fact , all matter in a gravitational field is continuously falling toward the center mass . In this case ,the Earths center . .
            .
            So , I dub thee .. Dumber Robert , impostor .
            .
            Have fun ,moron !

          • Robert

            The first moment of the mass of the atmosphere is not changing in any significant manner.

            Again, if you think that it does then go ahead and tell me how much energy gravity provides a 1kg parcel of air if it rises from the surface to 1km in altitude and then drops back to the surface.

            How much energy does gravity produce in that process?

          • socalpa

            FO troll .
            .
            Another flag for your collection , moron .
            .
            Now , go learns some science .start by Googling Galileo ,then Newton .
            .

          • Anaussiereturned

            And the troll hoists up his skirts and runs for the hills.

          • Robert

            A flag for what?

            Explaining the science of gravity to you?

            Was this question offensive to you? How much energy does gravity provides a 1kg parcel of air if it rises from the surface to 1km in altitude and then drops back to the surface?

          • Robert

            “As a matter of fact , all matter in a gravitational field is continuously falling toward the center mass”

            Except for all of that air that you said was rising, right?

          • socalpa

            FO troll .
            .
            Learn some basic science .

          • Anaussiereturned

            LOL

            Soccy is never funnier than when he realises that he has been trapped into claiming two completely contradictory statements are correct.

            :-))

          • Robert

            You seem to have difficulty accepting the fact that you have no clue what you are talking about.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Someone–socalpa–has never read skepticalscience.

            But he dutifully heeds the warnings of his thought leaders to fear and shun it.

          • Robert

            “..contemplate what I’ve revealed hereon.”
            That would be one paper.

            One one year old paper

            One paper you claim disproves virtually all the near two centuries of global research done on climate science.

            One one year old paper that doesn’t even address the issue of the current observed rise in temperature, ocean acidification, ….

          • Popcorn Joe

            He’s doing his job and has no new arguments, so it’s the same old stuff by all of them.

          • socalpa

            “One paper” disproves 2 centuries of research ( 6 researchers to ~ 1950 BTW ) .
            .
            You do know “one paper” overturned a 200 year understanding of Gravity ? Einstein ring a bell ?
            .
            “One paper” overturned a century of geological science claiming the continents were “Fixed” ? Took 60 years to accept it , but that is why there is a Wegener Institute .
            .
            “One paper” overturned the theory that Dinosaurs died off over 10s of millions of years ? Alvarez crumd that play !
            .
            That is how science advances . .. painful for those in love with a hypothesis ,

          • classicalmusiclover

            So whom are you comparing to EInstein, Wegener. and Alvarez?

            How did Alvarez’s discovery prevail over alternative explanations for the one mass extinction NOT predominantly marked by greenhouse warming? Were the paleontologists and geologists with alternative theories termed “liars,” like they would be in socalpa’s world?

            OK, then how large was the community of paleo-geologists a hundred years ago? What kinds of technologies provided empirical evidence to support Wegener’s theory? What role do these technologies play in modern climate science?

            Consider the possibility that anthropogenic global warming is supported by the weight of evidence, not “schemes,” not “grant-grubbing,” not people “in love with a hypothesis.”

          • Robert

            Well said!

          • socalpa

            “Well said” ?
            .
            I suppose if you consider red herring ,deflection and pedantry a proper response .
            .
            Which Robert are you today ? Have you flagged your impostor yet ?
            .
            Or are you posting from 2 accounts ?

          • classicalmusiclover

            It would take a raving ignoramus to dismiss detail and precision of language as “pedantry.”

          • socalpa

            Quite a collection of red herring and deflection !
            .
            Doesn’t matter how many physicists there were when Einstein published .Nor does it matter how many geologists and paleontologists there were when Wegener or Alvarez published .
            .
            The evidence proved they were correct , and the body of research ,wrong .
            ..
            The implication that “one paper” cannot overturn centuries of science is a fallacy ,as my post shows ..
            .
            .

          • classicalmusiclover

            So, answer the question.

            Who is the Wegener, Einstein, or Alvarez of today? Which paper has disproven all of climate science? Certainly not the paper David is flogging.

            You are right that evidence matters. And, so far, AGW has all the evidence on its side. Barring the discovery of some hitherto unknown forcing, it remains the most robust explanation.

            (and actually, as a point of detail, the Alvarezes’ work is not necessarily the last word on the end-Cretaceous extinction event).

          • Robert

            I’m liking that you think one paper, from a year ago, somehow validates a counterclaim about the global research done over the past nearly two centuries.
            Doing so, plus adding in the “.. pretty much wiped you out”, insulting, and near total lack of critical thinking skills evidenced by hiding your source while quoting biased quoting that resource, really shows the level of intellectual honesty and rigor it takes to remain true to science claims brought forward primarily by politically and financially motivated organizations.

          • socalpa

            What babble ! Who are you responding to ?
            .
            I showed that “one paper” overturned centuries of research in the past , I cited no current paper .
            .
            Nor did I ever write “pretty much wiped you out”
            .
            Which Robert ID are you posting from ? Are you confusing them ?
            .
            Maybe you need to sober up ?

          • classicalmusiclover

            If you cited no current paper, then doesn’t your entire commentary here boil down to, “we must accept any paper published by any crank as true, pending its possible vindication at some future date, particularly if it contradicts the mainstream view and even if it has obvious flaws and overlooks obvious lines of evidence?”

          • Robert

            Actually, I was replying as though your post was from david russell. Hard to tell the differences due to the derpiness level. Sorry if that confusion caused you duress.

            By the way, the “one paper” argument only works when there are following papers replicating the conclusion.
            One reason why there are over a dozen hockey sticks, for example; and over the years , only a few scattered papers that come to non-co2 as cause of warming conclusions.

          • socalpa

            Before I reply , which Robert are you ?
            .
            There are 2 on this comment board .

          • Robert

            You already replied….

          • classicalmusiclover

            So, which is the paper that has overturned 200 years of research?

            You haven’t cited it.

          • Robert

            You may not have noticed that it wasn’t my account that queried the gravity conjecture your brought forward. But that you think a single paper is proof enough… not to mention missing the first problem w what isn’t even a hypothesis being brought forward says more than enough about the thinking and rigor coming from this tent of the climate science denialist camp.

          • david russell

            Actually I don’t pay too much attention. There are quite a few of you Chicken-Littles out there and all chickens look alike to me.

            A single paper is all that’s required. Science isn’t a democracy. Besides, the Ideal Gas Law is centuries old.

            So now who is the denier? You’re denying the Ideal Gas Law. Like Brer Rabbit you just can’t get away from the tar baby of your mistaken beliefs.

          • Robert

            No, I don’t deny the ideal gas law. I am quite aware that the ideal gas law works quite well for ideal gases throughout the universe.

            Apparently, you think that it breaks down on Mars and in our stratosphere.

            It doesn’t.

          • david russell

            Now you’re being disingenuous (I suppose that’s your penultimate refuge. Next you’ll be accusing me of DK-Effect, the actual last refuge someone losing the argument). The article doesn’t say the Ideal Gas Law beaks down on Mars. You know that. Stop digging.

          • Robert

            You claimed that it didn’t work on Mars.

            “If as you say, one has the components to use the Ideal Gas Law, you can compute the temperature of any planet (except Mars). You haven’t engaged intellectually with why this doesn’t work on Mars — the air is too thin for convection to work — the same is true in our stratosphere.”

            All this paper is doing is showing that the ideal gas law works throughout the solar system. If it is showing that it failed on Mars, then it used poor data.

            The paper does not even consider the effects of the sun on surface temperature. It’s basically showing a tautology. We already knew that the ideal gas law would work on all of these planets. It even works at the low pressures where you are implying that it doesn’t.

          • david russell

            If I claimed that the ideal gas law doesn’t work on Mars, then I mis-spoke. The article certainly doesn’t make such a claim.

            The rest of your post goes completely off the reservation. There’s nothing wrong with our data about Mars.

            A lot in science is rather tautological (What is mass? — that which responds to a force What is a force — that which causes motion in mass). But that’s more philosophical argument for a different venue and time.

            It doesn’t show the effects of the sun on the surface because it doesn’t need to.

            I get quite a chuckle out of your in effect suggestion that the entirety of climate science is trying to explain a tautology. The temperature of the surface of Earth can be calculated without having a variable for insolation. Why explain “the unnecessary to explain?”

          • Robert

            Apparently the article does claim that Mars does not fit the ideal gas law, which means that the author did not use valid data.

            The data for Mars certainly does fit the ideal gas law.

            http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmmars.htm

            Explaining planetary surface temperature requires thermodynamics and an energy balance. It is certainly not tautological. Claiming that the ideal gas law works on planets in the solar system is tautological given that it is widely accepted as a “law” throughout the known universe.

            If the paper does not account for the sun, then it is not predictive. All it has done is to show that the IGL works on planets, but used bad data for Mars.

          • david russell

            Frankly the above lost me. Are you saying that the auto-compression explains every atmosphere containing planet’s surface temperature, even Mars. If so, great. Even better.

            Therefore thermodynamics are totally unnecessary to explain the basic surface temperature of [any] such planet —- in the case of earth, the 288K. Now we have variations around this value, largely explicable in terms of the cycles of the earth’s heat sinks, mainly the oceans, as well as changes in albedo, mainly clouds (and these 2 things are interrelated).

            Does thermodynamics come into calculating these finer points. Not to my knowledge. The oceans are warmed by the sun, not GHGs. And cloud formation is not well understood scientifically AT ALL. So all this thermodynamics talk is mostly a waste of effort. Furthermore is sounds an awful lot like ANTI-thermodynamics (cold things warming hot things — the cold air warming the hot oceans, the coldest air (at TOA) warming the surface).

          • Robert

            No, I’m saying that auto-compression doesn’t explain the temperature of ANY planet. Auto-compression is not a source of energy when the center of mass of the atmosphere does not change.

            I am saying that the IGL works everywhere in the known universe for ideal gasses and that this paper provides results that are in no way surprising (except for the error on Mars) and in no way explain planetary temperature.

            Thermodynamics is ENTIRELY necessary for explaining the surface temperature of planets.

            in the case of earth, the 288K

            OK, let’s see you explain why the surface of the Earth is 288K without using thermodynamics.

          • Robert

            What an odd claim
            “A single paper is all that’s required”
            Especially given it doesn’t address the current observations

          • david russell

            It explains the current observations almost perfectly. It’s the GHG theory which is incompatible with observations — either there are no viable observations (like the energy imbalance TOA, for which there’s just no agreement among 126 GCMs) or the data don’t correlated well with the theory.

          • Robert

            It explains that the ideal gas law works perfectly.

            Who would have thought?

          • Robert

            Says some random poster on the intertubes…

            Thanks

          • david russell

            Actually you proved it yourself. You calculated that replacing all the airs CO2 with N2 will have zilch effect on surface temps.

            Thanks for proving that AGW is total horse pucky.

          • Robert

            Post support for “You calculated that…”

            And remember, you are just some random poster on the intertubes making claims about science that isn’t held up well in the actual science.

            Thanks

          • ROO2

            Have you comprehended that gravitational auto-compression powered by the sun explains the surface temperature perfectly for all planets

            Pwhahahaha. Still not understanding elementary science I see david, I’ll leave you with your perpetually warm car tyres. LOL

          • david russell

            I’ve now intuited that you, Halush, and Evenminded are all the same person. I’ll give you a bit of rope so you can hang yourself, but my patience is thin.

            Car tires (and fire extinguishers) are not warm because they are not BEING compressed. When they were BEING COMPRESSED, they were hot. You know this. I know this. Stop being disingenuous.

            I frankly had your point in mind when I first contemplated this auto-compression explanation. Then I thought it through. If the sun went out, the auto-compression would ceases. As long as the sun provides energy and the atmosphere is capable of material convection, auto-compression will continue.

          • Robert

            The error in your thinking is that the sun does not provide enough energy to maintain the surface temperature at 288K.

            If you take a tire with pressurized air in it and place it in an enclosure exchanging radiation with it, can its temperature be higher than the radiative equilibrium temperature?

          • david russell

            The energy comes from the atmosphere’s potential gravitational energy at attitude getting converted to kinetic energy under pressure at the surface.

          • Robert

            Potential energy is not a source of energy. The center of mass of the atmosphere is not changing. Hence the change in potnetial energy of the atmosphere is zero. For every rising parcel there is a falling parcel.

            The compression of the atmosphere was accomplished long ago. Gravity is not supplying energy to the atmosphere.

            I note that you avoided addressing the question on the tire.

          • david russell

            Potential energy is energy. What is your point? A brick on top of the Empire State building has the potential energy to crush your skill if it falls on your head.

          • Robert

            The point is that the potential energy of the atmosphere as a whole is not changing, and that means it is not a source of energy.

            The energy balance is simple.

            Energy in from the sun
            minus energy radiated out to space
            equals
            change in internal energy
            plus change in potential energy

            The last two are not changing if the system is not increasing or decreasing in temperature

          • david russell

            Oh for goodness sake. What nonsense. The atmosphere is not a homogenous block. Furthermore to state that the Empire State building’s potential energy as a whole is not changing is no consolation when the tower on top breaks off and skewers you to oblivion.

            The equation implied by your post (the Global Energy Budget) is basically correct. I would state it: energy in = energy out (plus or minus the effects of heat sinks). So what?

          • Robert

            It makes no difference if the atmosphere is a homogeneous block or not. The atmosphere has mass, and it has a center of mass. There is not part of the atmosphere that is breaking off and dropping that does not have an equally massive part that is rising to balance it.

            This is how science works. The thermodynamics is clear.

            Yes, the global energy budget is basically correct and it shows that the change in potential energy of the atmosphere is not a source of energy to the system. As I said before. That is progress if you agree.

          • david russell

            You know what you say above is just totally false (or irrelevant). Any physical system has a center of mass. And you can define “System” in multiple ways. If you define the climate system as the air you get one value. If you define it as the air and the oceans, you get another. And you can limit “the air” to the troposphere. And so on. And so on

            The global energy budget shows no such thing. It’s very close to a tautology itself. It’s not even obviously about thermodynamics. Is it about entropy? Is it about “heat flows from hot to cold?”

          • Robert

            Everything that I stated above is true. Which statement are you claiming is false?

            The global energy budget certainly does show that the potential energy is not a source of energy to the system. What don’t you understand about the fact that the potential energy of the atmosphere is not changing?

          • david russell

            I’ll not repear myself.

            Nothing in the global energy budget is changing. So what?

            There is no net source of energy in the GEB. It balances….well, almost….all except maybe .5W/M2.

            So here’s a thought that may break through:

            1. The Ideal Gas Law works everywhere.

            2. If there were no GHGs in our air, the Ideal Gas Law would still work.

            3. Which of the parameters in the ideal gas law wold change if say we replaced the 4 molecules in10,000 that are CO2 with say N2?

            4. Leave the other factors the same.

            I’ll stand by for your answer.

          • Robert

            Repeat yourself? You never indicated which of my statements you think is false.

            So what? It shows that the only source of energy to the system is the sun.

            The sun certainly is a source of energy for the GEB. You’ve jumped the shark.

            1. Yes, the ideal gas law does work everywhere, which is why the paper you posted is a nothingburger.

            2. Clearly.

            3. The molar mass would change slightly (practically nil), and the density would change from ~29 kg/m^3 to ~25.6 kg/m^3.

            4. Pressure would be the same as it is governed by gravity and the mass of the atmosphere.

          • david russell

            So the surface temperature would be practically the same wit or without atmospheric CO2.

            Case closed. Climate science is malarkey. QED.

            Thanks for finding the typo. I identified all of your statements as wrong or irrelevant. This is evident from my first paragraph above.

            The sun is the ultimate energy source. I’ve said as much multiple times.

          • Robert

            No, the surface temperature would be 255K without CO2. Plug the numbers into the IGL.

            You clearly don’t understand climate science.

            So, which statement is wrong, and which are irrelevant, and why? This is how a discussion works. Claiming something is wrong without explaining why is not productive.

            I just addressed your points 1-4 above. They show that the temperature would be 255K.

            The sun is the ultimate energy source. Gravity is not a source of energy. QED

          • david russell

            Now you are saying that the ideal gas law is invadid. You are such a doofus.

            Bwahahahaa.

          • Robert

            No, the ideal gas law is valid. I never stated otherwise.

            Molar mass is ~29 kg/mol
            Pressure is 101 kPa
            R = 8.314

            with CO2 density is ~1.225 kg/m^3 and without CO2 the denisty would be ~1.384 kg/m^3.

            The ideal gas law still works.

          • Robert

            Sorry, I had to correct my numbers. Forgot to invert.

          • david russell

            Your numbers show that replacing all the air CO2 with N2 will not move the surface temperature needle.

            Thanks for proving AGW is pseudo science.

          • Robert

            Apparently you don’t know how to calculate the IGL.

            My numbers show that with CO2 T=288K and without T=255K.

          • david russell

            You have already forgotten what you yourself proved, to wit based on the ideal gas law which as you aver works universally, replacing all the CO2 would not make a measureable difference in the surface temperature…

          • Robert

            Are you joking or are you just incapable of using the ideal gas law?

            P = 101.3 kPa
            M = 29 kg/mol
            rho = 1.384 kg/m^3
            R = 8.314 (appropriate units)

            Go ahead, calculate what the IGL says the temperature will be.

            Here’s a hint: it’s 255K.

          • david russell

            IGL?? We don’t need that, what er it is.. The Ideal Gas Law suffices to explain the surface temperture of every planet or moon with an atmosphere.

          • Robert

            IGL = Ideal Gas Law

            Wasn’t that obvious?

          • david russell

            At the time, no it wasn’t obvious. But no matter. The only variables needed to calculate the surface temperature of any planet or moon with an atmosphere are: 1) molar mass; 2) surface pressure; c) atmospheric density. Replacing 4 molecules per 10,000 of CO2 with 4 molecules of N2, won’t move the needle.

          • Robert

            Yes, it will obviously move the needle. Plug in the numbers.

            P = 101.3 kPa
            M = 29 kg/mol
            rho = 1.384 kg/m^3
            R = 8.314 (appropriate units)

            Go ahead, calculate what the IGL says the temperature will be.

            Here’s a hint: it’s 255K.

          • ROO2

            Your numbers show that replacing all the air CO2 with N2 will not move the surface temperature needle.

            I’m confused. Perhaps you could point out where Professor Dessler is going wrong?

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PAbm1u1IVg

          • david russell

            Professor Dessler doesn’t know about the Ideal Gas Law? Why don’t you forward this to him?:

            http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf

          • ROO2

            Wow, you mean if you have all the parameters which define the surface temperature of a planet, you can calculate the surface temperature of a planet?

            I’m sure Prof Dessler will be aware of that, as would anyone who has studied science. I’m not sure he would have read your pay to publish dross journal though, perhaps you could e-mail it to him? He might need a laugh, you never know.

          • david russell

            Well, if Dessler understands Robert Holmes paper, he should brush up his resume and see if there are any remaining Uber driver positions open nearby.

            The fact that Holmes’ paper is published in a high-school year-book doesn’t detract from its veracity. Indeed, it’s really not publishable material. It’s text-book science.

            Any high school graduate could have written it, and any high-school graduate can follow the math. You have to be a highly trained climate pseudo-scientist, like Dessler and Trenberth to be able to ignore text-book 101 level science and build a house of cards like AGW theory.

          • ROO2

            Wow, you mean if you have all the parameters which define the surface temperature of a planet, you can calculate the surface temperature of a planet?

            Try reading with comprehension.

            The factors which effect the above include solar insolation and the amount of greenhouse gases that are in the atmosphere.

            This is high school stuff that you do not comprehend.

          • Robert

            No one in climate science ignores the ideal gas law. However, you are avoiding running the numbers.

            Do you need a calculator?

          • ROO2

            The fact that Holmes’ paper is published in a high-school year-book…

            will not stop you trying to claim that hundreds of years of established science are wrong.

            All because of your ‘anything but my tailpipe’ meme.

          • david russell

            The ideal gas law is text book science known for hundreds of years. Is that what you mean?

          • Robert

            It is. Do you know how to use it?

            P = 101.3 kPa
            M = 29 kg/mol
            rho = 1.384 kg/m^3
            R = 8.314 (appropriate units)

            T = ?

          • david russell

            Your value for rho is wrong. Air’s value is 1.225. N2’s value is 1.251. CO2’s value is 1.56.

            It’s implausible that exchanging 4 1.56’s molecules out of 10,000 with 4 1.251’s will move 1.225 for all 10,000 to 1.384.

          • Robert

            No, my value for rho is entirely correct.

            Air is 1.225 at a temperature of 288K and pressure of 101 kPa.

            The temperature will not be 288K if CO2 is removed.

            The density will be 1.384 kg/m^2 if the CO2 is removed and the temperature will be 255K. The density of the atmosphere will also increase if you don’t change its constituents at all but move the Earth into the orbit of Mars.

          • david russell

            That’s circular.

          • Robert

            Yes, your claim that the temperature will remain at 288K is certainly circular.

            If the Earth’s atmosphere remained unchanged, what would happen to the density if it were moved into the orbit of Mars?

          • david russell

            The formula (formula #5) in the article has T on the left side of the equation, not the right

            To put it more clearly, the article calculates the Surface Temperature solely in terms of surface pressure, molar mass and density.

            You can’t plug in for T on the left side and use the correct values on the right side while maintaining equality.

            You are quite a dunce.

          • Robert

            The formula can be manipulated in any manner necessary. It’s basic algebra.

            So, what would the surface pressure, molar mass, and density be for the Earth if it were moved into the orbit of Mars?

          • david russell

            The answer depends only on what would happen to: a) molar mass; b) density, and c) pressure.

            I don’t know what would happen to those 3 things in your hpyothetical, but if the Ideal Gas Law is correct, those are the only variables that matter.

          • Robert

            a) The molar mass would not change
            b) The density would increase as it would if one were to remove all of the CO2
            c) pressure would remain the same

            The fact that you don’t know what would happen if the Earth’s orbit changes is the point. You also don’t know what would happen to the density if the amount of CO2 changes.

          • david russell

            Your point a-c are correct. The change in density. though, would be immaterial of course because both N2 is about as dense as the air, and because 4 molecules out of 10,000 just isn’t material.

            So therefore you must admit that removing CO2 from the air for N2 wouldn’t change the surface temperature.

            I admitted that I have no idea what would happen were we to move the Earth to Venus’s orbit. Some scientists think that Venus used to be like earth. Who knows? Who cares?

          • Robert

            “The change in density. though, would be immaterial of course because both N2 is about as dense as the air, and because 4 molecules out of 10,000 just isn’t material.”

            Why does the density change if you move the Earth to the orbit of Mars?

            Are you honestly claiming that you don’t understand that the temperature of Earth would be lower if it was at the location of Mars?

          • david russell

            I’m ignoring your middle statement. There are only 3 things you need to calculate the temperature of any planet with an atmosphere. I can’t tell you what those values would be under some theoretical, counterfactual condition. But I could calculate the temperature given those 3 factors.

          • Robert

            Why are you ignoring the middle statement? That illustrates your error in thinking.

            You seem to think that if the molar mass is the same then the density must be the same. That clearly is wrong. The density is independent of the molar mass in the ideal gas law.

          • david russell

            No that statement is just stupid. It demonstrates you are not listening.

          • Robert

            So explain the physics that you are using to claim that the density does not change.

            That physics must also apply to the Earth’s orbit changing and to a change in forcing from the sun.

          • Robert

            “I can’t tell you what those values would be under some theoretical, counterfactual condition.”

            And yet you are claiming that you can tell me what those values would be under the theoretical counterfactual condition where CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.

          • david russell

            Yes, precisely. It’s simple math. Actually you can approximated it in your head. At least I can.

          • Robert

            The molar mass is simple math. The density is not.

            That you think you know the density means that you are fooling yourself.

            What happens to the density if you don’t change the gases in the atmosphere but you increase the solar forcing?

          • david russell

            Look, you can’t even get the sign of the change right. What a do-do.

          • Robert

            You might not be able to understand it, but I certainly do.

            If you understood the physics at play here then you wouldn’t have to ignore the moving orbit or changing solar forcing questions.

            What physics are you using to claim that the density does not change?

          • Robert

            “The change in density. though, would be immaterial of course because both N2 is about as dense as the air, and because 4 molecules out of 10,000 just isn’t material.”

            Wait, I missed that on the first pass. So you are claiming that you believe that the ideal gas law indicates that the Earth would be 288K if it were moved into the position of Mars? Is that what you are claiming?

          • david russell

            I’m claiming that if you could tell me what the values of the 3 relevant parameters in Holmes’ formula #5, I can tell you what the surface temperature of Earth would be wherever it was located in the solar system.

            That conclusion follows from Holmes’s paper.

          • Robert

            Yes, and I told you what those 3 values would be if CO2 were removed from the atmosphere.

            P = 101.3 kPa
            M = 29 kg/mol
            rho = 1.384 kg/m^3

          • david russell

            You replace 4 heavy molecule with 4 lighter molecules and the density and pressure go up? What’s life like for you in the 10th dimension?

          • Robert

            The pressure remains the same.

            The density will go up due to the thermodynamic properties of the atmosphere changing. This is well-known and understood physics.

            Let’s recast your statement:
            “You don’t replace any molecules but you change the solar forcing and the density goes up? What’s life like for you in the 10th dimension?”

          • david russell

            More circular reasoning. More counterfactual examples.

            I’m going the gym. I’ve left you bloody enough for now.

          • Robert

            Who knows what you are talking about?

            You obviously don’t understand the physics here.

          • Robert

            Well I’ve wasted some time browsing through your comment history. It’s filled with nonsense. But interestingly, at one point in time you did actually understand that if the greenhouse effect were turned off then the surface would be 255K. So, you really are confused. What you are claiming today contradicts what you claimed two weeks ago.

          • david russell

            When I learn new stuff, I may change my mind, no?

            There’s been a lot of new reseach lately, including Christy et al (2018), Lansner aND Pederson, among others. The foundations of the AGW BS are crumbling.

          • Robert

            So, the ideal gas law is new to you?

            If you are just learning about this, then have you perhaps considered the possibility that you don’t fully understand it yet?

            I mean, if you understood it then the questions relating to the orbit and to solar forcing should not have thrown you for such a loop.

          • david russell

            If it makes you happy to believe I only found out about the Ideal Gas Law recently, that’s ok by me.

            Your questions didn’t throw me for a loop. Why would you think that? My response was always, tell me the values for the 3 parameters and I’ll tell you the surface temperature. I don’t need to know anything about insolation or GHGs to do so.

            You seem to be making a point that if the sun shone brighter the surface temperature of earth would be hotter. That sounds logical. It would also show up in one or more of the 3 variables. Besides, insolation is a REAL source of energy. More energy, more warming. Pretty obvious. GHG’s not so much. IF GHG’s were the only explanation of surface temperature, It would be hard to argue this point.

          • Robert

            Sorry for the snark, but you are the one that is resisting learning about something that you don’t fully understand.

            My questions have thrown you for a loop. If they did not then you could provide answers. Knowing the 3 parameters tells you the temperature of an ideal gas anywhere in the universe. However, in order to understand if a change in something will cause a change in temperature you have to know how that change will affect the 3 parameters. That’s what has thrown you for a loop. You can’t seem to figure out how moving the Earth’s orbit or changing the solar insolation will change the density. It’s really not that difficult, but you seem incapable of figuring it out.

            Yes, insolation is a source of energy, and changing the radiative properties of the atmosphere or surface will also affect the temperature of the surface. This is all basic thermodynamics.

          • david russell

            But I did provide answers: to wit, tell me the value of the 3 parameters and I’ll tell you the surface temperature. I’ve no problem with your point about insolation, which is real energy.

            My quibble (really more like a nuclear missile against your position) is that you’ve increased the density in your rendition of things, which requires that the surface of the Earth be colder than 255K, not warmer.

          • Robert

            “But I did provide answers: to wit, tell me the value of the 3 parameters and I’ll tell you the surface temperature.”

            Given that the ideal gas law is established physics, that is akin to saying, “Tell me what a thermometer on the surface reads, and I’ll tell you the temperature.”

            Yes, no kidding. The ideal gas law can give you one parameter if you know the other three. The question is, how do the other three change when you change the properties of the system.

            “My quibble (really more like a nuclear missile against your position) is
            that you’ve increased the density in your rendition of things, which
            requires that the surface of the Earth be colder than 255K, not warmer.”

            What? The density that I provided for the no CO2 case gives a temperature of 255K. Would you like the arithmetic?

            (101.3 x 29 )/(8.314 x 1.384) = 255

          • david russell

            I’ve rarely seen such a patently circular argument. And succinct, too.

            And it’s completely wrong even by your own perspective, as CO2 is just one of many GHGs.

          • Robert

            Yeah, no kidding! That’s your argument. It’s entirely circular. That’s why you can’t understand what happens with the orbit change.

            CO2 is one of many, but it’s the most important one given the fact that without it the water vapor in the air would condense out. It is established science that without the CO2 the temperature of the surface would plummet.

          • david russell

            Wrong again. Water vapor is the most important GHG. Moreover no one knows what the GHE of CO2 is as a percentage of the whole. The IPCC says 9-26%. That means they haven’t a clue.

          • Robert

            Do you ever attempt to understand the context of a statement. The reason that the non-condensing CO2 is more important than the condensing water vapor is due to the fact that without CO2 the temperature would drop and water vapor would condense out of the atmosphere. I do believe that is what I stated. Let me check. Yep, there it is right there, “without it the water vapor in the air would condense out”.

            You don’t really understand much about climate science.

          • david russell

            Nice dodge. Not entirely implausible. But if CO2 were the only other GHG, you might very well still have snow-ball earth. Putatively CO2 today is 3-4C of the GHE, and 255K + 3/4K is still freezing — way below.

            This will have to be my last post for at least until Thursday as I have an all day seminar tomorrow.

            I will make one final point. F.K Reinhart (2017) wrote that the MOST warming doubling CO2 could produce was .24C. And of course it might be less. His is the lowest I’ve seen in a while but lower estimates of CS (ie, temp response to 2x CO2) are coming out all the time now.

            The temperature record gets changed retroactively it seems every few years, typically showing more AGW.

            The whole notion of radiative forcing from GHGs is without empirical verification (we can’t get an accurate reading of the TOA temperature imbalance — the radiative forcing). All we seem to have is a record of OHC changes since about 2004 when ARGO went into effect, and there’s no reason to thing that has ANYTHING to do with GHGs or radiative forcing due to GHGs.

            All that GHGs putatively do is delay the exit of IR (by micro seconds?, certainly not longer than 1 second) but that would be a one-off phenomenon. If there is a continuous imbalance, it’s much more likely to be the action of heat sinks like the ocean absorbing more insolation (because of less cloud cover than usual). And why is up to 98% of the ARGO reported uptake of OCH concentrated in the Southern Hemisphere where only 2/3 of the land and 10% of humans live?

          • Robert

            Grow up. My comment was not a dodge. This is standard climate science. I’m not stating anything controversial here.

            Without any CO2 in the atmosphere we would have a snowball Earth. This is not controversial.

            “Putatively CO2 today is 3-4C of the GHE”

            This is absolute nonsense. No CO2 means no water vapor, which means that the entire GHE collapses.

            I’m done wasting my time with you. You don’t understand science and you have no ability to learn how to understand science.

          • david russell

            The IPCC says 9-26% is CO2’s contribution to the GHE. Assuming the total is 33C, then 9% is just under 3C. 26% is just over 8.5C. You need 18C to get above freezing (18 + 255 = 273K = 0C).

          • Robert

            What don’t you understand about the fact that water vapor condenses out of the atmosphere?

          • david russell

            Water evaporates, then rises, then cools, then precipitates, then falls back to earth. Repeat, repeat, repeat. The amount of precipitable water seems to remain the same on an annual basis through thick and thin as far back as we’ve been able to measure it.

          • Robert

            The amount of water vapor that is held by the atmosphere depends on its temperature. Take away CO2 and the temperatures drops. The temperature drops, and the water vapor drops. This is not controversial. It’s been studied. It causes a snowball earth.

          • david russell

            You are correct. I don’t deny this. But if you take away water vapor and leave just the current level of CO2, you still get snowball earth. The way out is to have multiples of the current level of CO2 — in order to get 255K up to 273K = 0C. At 1C per 2x CO2, that’s 18 doublings.

            400ppm
            800
            1600
            3200
            6400
            12,800

            Oops we’re already above the max anyone claims and we’ve only doubled 6 times.

          • Robert

            “You are correct. I don’t deny this.”

            OK, good.

            “But if you take away water vapor and leave just the current level of CO2, you still get snowball earth.”

            OK. So what? This is tangential to the discussion.

            I have no clue what the rest of your comment is about. Are you trying to argue about where the 255K number comes from? If so, it comes from assuming that there is no greenhouse effect in the sense that GHGs and clouds cannot trap longwave radiation. It also assumes that albedo remains the same.

            If you want to discuss taking away only CO2 and keeping the water vapor suspended in the atmosphere out of its natural state then that is something different entirely. It ignores the fact that water vapor is a feedback.

          • ROO2

            david repeatedly changes his mind to peddle his ‘anything but my tailpipe’ meme.

            He’s been caught out lying so many times by so many people, it’s all rather tedious and boring now – much like david’s sad retired existence.

          • david russell

            Density is mass per unit volume. Presumably thermodynamic doesn’t create any mass. So for surface air density to go up like you’re suggesting, the Volume has to go down (per same units of mass). For the volume to go down, the temperature has to go down, because gas molecules occupy less volume the colder they get.

            Therefore what you MUST be saying is that thermodynamics makes the surface of the atmosphere cooler than it would otherwise be, and because of thermodynamics of the Earth’s atmosphere, the surface should be cooler than 255K

            You obviously haven’t thought this through.

          • Robert

            “So for surface air density to go up, the Volume has to go down (per same units of mass). For the volume to go down, the temperature has to go down, because gas molecules occupy less volume the colder they get.”

            Very good. That is exactly what will happen if you move the Earth to Mars’ orbit or take the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

            I have thought this through. At one point in time you did as well because you stated that the surface would be 255K if GHGs were removed.

          • david russell

            Forget about Mars orbit. You raised the density for the case of remaining in earth orbit and just swapping all the CO2 in the air with N2. That’s nuts.

            If CO2 (and other GHGs) are supposed to warm the surface, then the density has to go down at the surface. Hot molecules fill more volume than cold ones, so hot molecules have lower density, not higher.

          • Robert

            You should probably delete more of you posts. Many of them are wrong.

          • david russell

            Vacuous, bumptious and gratuitous blather.

          • Robert

            Yes, you have plenty of those too. You should delete them as well.

          • david russell

            Your floundering. Give it up. Admit defeat. Declare victory. Just stop trying to out argue me. You don’t have the knowledge or intellectual equipment to do so.

          • Robert

            Clearly you are projecting.

            You seem to think that since the molar mass is the same then the density is the same too. That is wrong.

            You seem to be beginning to realize that fact.

            If the Earth were moved to Mars’ orbit then the pressure and molar mass would be the same.

            Why do you think that the density would be the same too?

          • david russell

            Look, Daffy, forget about moving the Earth. Leave it where it is and just replace the 4 CO2 molecules per 10,000 with 4 N2 molecules. What happens to the temperature? Zilch. Case closed. You’re toast. Your position is toast. AGW is toast. QED.

          • Robert

            The temperature drops to 255K. That is well-known physics.

            The fact that the molar mass does not change does not mean that the density will not change. You are obviously confusing the two quantities.

          • david russell

            That’s what is claimed but in this discussion that’s what’s being challenged — with text-book physics. Climate science is pseudo-science. It’s claims carry no water.

          • Robert

            That molar mass and density are independent quantities in the ideal gas law is clear.

            If you don’t understand that then you are very confused.

          • david russell

            Blah, blah. blah. You are embarrassing yourself. Stop it.

          • Robert

            “Blah, blah, blah.”

            What kind of childish nonsense is that?

            If you are going to give up the argument then fine.

          • david russell

            I am actually saying that all the 3 parameters hardly change by replacing 4 molecules in every 10,000 with 4 other molecules that are slightly lighter. And furthermore, any such immaterial changes would be in the opposite direction as you claim.

          • Robert

            What physics are you using to claim that the density of the atmosphere does not change?

            Note that it cannot be the same argument that you are using for the molar mass not changing.

          • david russell

            If you believe (as you assert you do) that the Ideal Gas formula is correct, then you must aver the logical veracity of formula #5 in the article, which expresses temperature in terms of 3 variable (only) that mention neither insolation nor GHGs. Therefore the ONLY effect of removing all the CO2 in the air and replacing it with N2 is that the temperature at the surface would remain essentially the same.

          • Robert

            The ideal gas law is correct.

            Your claim, “the ONLY effect of removing all the CO2 in the air and replacing it with N2 is that the temperature at the surface would remain essentially the same” is obviously wrong.

            Is the only effect of moving the Earth into the obit of Mars that the temperature at the surface would remain essentially the same?

            Of course not.

          • david russell

            I don’t know what formula you are using, but from the article the earth’s atmosphere is calculated by his formula (formula #5) to be 287.2K

            That’s:

            101 / (8.314 x (1.255/28.9656))

            The difference between 28.9656 and 29 (your value is immaterial. It’s wrong, but still immaterial (N2 is less dense than CO2).

            The big whopper is your rho value.

          • Robert

            I asked you to use the ideal gas law. That is the only formula we are considering here.

            You used the density with CO2.

            I asked you to use the density without CO2, which would be 1.384 kg/m^3.

            What is the temperature at that density?

          • ROO2

            The ideal gas law is text book science known for hundreds of years. Is that what you mean?

            Exactly. If you know the parameters, you can calculate the temperature of a gas.

            Be that pressure, volume, moles of gas, or density, these are all factors that are related to the temperature of a gas.

            Your ‘pay to publish’ paper is saying that knowing the physical characteristics that are related to temperature you can calculate the temperature of a gas using an established law, but then completely ignore the physical reason why that gas is that temperature.

            It’s idiot fodder, but you seem hooked.

          • James Owens

            Idiot fodder … I’ll have to remember that …

          • Anaussiereturned

            Science Publishing Group?
            Really, David?

            “Perhaps like many of you, my email is besieged with offers by the so-called SPG to publish my papers. This appears (99.99%) to be a scam, allegedly based in New York, but the broken English suggests its foreign. As best as I can tell, it is merely a website which has numerous “pages”, 100+ of which have been given a journal name. Someone pays them $400 or so to get a paper “published” in one of their “journals.” Peer review consists of having someone read the paper and comment. I pointed out that my field is Ecology & Ethology, which none of their “journals” covers. They wrote back offering to create that journal and make me editor in chief. Tempting? Anyway, I hope that everyone is letting their students know about this so that none of them get suckered. Same with colleagues in 3rd world countries that aren’t up to speed on legitimate publication practices.

            Here is one of their adds.

            Dear Professor,

            Science Publishing Group is an independent international publisher of 100+ open access, online, peer-reviewed journals which have almost 10 proposed special issues and 10 going-to-be-published books, covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

            Nowadays, we are actively providing a fast publication:

            1. Authors can get the review result that whether the paper can be published or not within 15 days;

            2. Accepted papers can be published within 25 days.

            SciencePG publish papers in a wide range of categories, such as: Biology and Life Sciences, Physics; Chemistry & Materials; Computer Science & Communications; Mathematics & Statistics; Medicine, Health & Food Science; Energy & Environmental Science and all other categories. You can pay visit to our website to have a look: http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/home/index.aspx

            If you are interested in publishing your papers within a short time, we sincerely invite you to submit your papers through our system: http://submission.sciencepublishinggroup.com/login.aspx

            Any questions, please feel free to contact us by: service@sciencepublishinggroup.com

            Please spread the word

            Stephen Stringham”
            https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_students_being_warned_about_Science_Publishing_Group

          • david russell

            Does your rather long rant identify a single error in the paper? Oh? No it doesn’t.

            As I’ve pointed out to others hereon, it’s essentially text-book science, which is rarely published by the major journals, which DOES NOT mean there’s anything wrong with it, only that they prefer to publish original research.

          • Anaussiereturned

            I was commenting on the source, not the material.

            The fact that this is the only place it could get published tells us all we need to know about the material.

          • david russell

            Ok. So you don’t need to know the truth of claims. You really only need to know what the high priests tell you is the truth. You probably worked for Torquemada in a previous life.

          • Anaussiereturned

            Obvious flail is obvious.

          • david russell

            That’s just the implication of what you yourself said. And you were wrong about that CO2 is perfectly well mixed…..and that I could not support my claim.

          • Mike Richardson

            It’s the kind of publisher supporting those who feel oppressed and censored by peer review.

          • ROO2

            1. The Ideal Gas Law works everywhere.

            It doesn’t. It is based on assumptions like the molecules have no volume and there are no attractive forces between the gas molecules. Reality is different, particularly under higher pressures.

            2. If there were no GHGs in our air, the Ideal Gas Law would still work.

            Yes.

            3. Which of the parameters in the ideal gas law wold change if say we replaced the 4 molecules in 10,000 that are CO2 with say N2?

            There would be a large reduction in T, a small reduction in V, as the atmosphere considerable cooled.

          • david russell

            No one asked you. It was Robert who claimed this, and I’m using his own claims against him.

            From memory, the 3 parameters needed to compute T are density, molecular mass, and surface pressure. None of the them would change materially if you were to replace the 4 CO2 molecule per 10,000 with N2.

            So your 1st point is irrelevant, your 2nd is my point, and your 3rd point is wrong.

          • ROO2

            Boring. If your replaced the GHGs with N2 the 255K effective temperature that Earth radiates to space would no longer be the upper cold atmosphere but be the surface – 255K is a tad chilly for an average surface temperature.

          • Robert

            So far, all you are doing is to show that you don’t know how to use the ideal gas law.

          • david russell

            I didn’t write this:
            http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf

            It’s his analysis that’s at issue and I’m just the bearer of bad tidings for you and your alarmist ilk.

          • Robert

            He did not analyze what would happen with no CO2.

            The ideal gas law does not invalidate climate science.

            Have you run the numbers I provided yet?

          • socalpa

            Oh ?
            .
            What Force caused the interior temperatures of Jupiter (37,000 F) ?
            .
            What Forced caused the temps and density in inner Saturn (21,000F) ?
            .
            What Force caused the density and temps required to create nuclear reactions in the Sun ?

          • Robert

            Sorry, but the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism is not presently occurring on Earth.

            Is that a fact that you were unaware of?

            The discussion is on the potential energy of the Earth’s atmosphere. Changing significantly with respect to say the amount of solar insolation received or not?

          • socalpa

            You mean G is not compressing the atmosphere on Earth ?
            .
            G is a constant , or has that changed ? Mass of the planet change ?
            .
            You trot out Kelvin Helmholtz ? A 150 year old hypothesis which attempted ,and failed , to explain the temps of the Sun ?
            .

          • Robert

            I mean exactly what I stated. The gravitational potential energy of the atmosphere is not changing (to any significant degree). Is that not an obvious statement? Is the center of mass the atmosphere changing significanlty?

            G or g? The earth’s gravitational field is constantly changing, although not significantly. The planet loses mass to space at a very slow rate. Do you have a point with these questions?

            Kelvin-Helmholtz is the mechanism that does have an effect on the temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn. Why do you want me to explain the temperature of the sun to you when the discussion is on the “auto-compression” of the atmosphere?

            Is there some point that you are trying to make here, because if so, it has escaped me.

          • socalpa

            What determines the density and pressure of the atmosphere at sea level ?
            ..
            Kelvin Helmholtz (Cooling causes internal temps of Sun and gas giants) does not match the data on Sol ,Saturn ,Uranus ,Neptune) , Gravitational compression causes the high temps in the Sun and gas giant interiors .

          • Robert

            The pressure at sea level is determined by gravity and the mass of the atmosphere. The density at sea level can be approximated using the ideal gas law along with the molar mass of the atmosphere ~29 kg/mol, the pressure ~101 kPa, and the temperature ~288K.

            I never claimed that KH matches the temperature on the Sun. I do not know where you are getting your information on Jupiter and Saturn, but my understanding is that the KH mechanism does have a significant contribution to their temperatures. If you have a scientific publication that is contrary to this, then I would be interested in reading it. The KH mechanism is about gravitational compression. It occurs as the celestial body cools. I don’t believe I stated otherwise. As for the sun, nuclear reactions play a significant role.

            Again, do you have some point with all of this? The discussion is on the auto-compression of Earth’s atmosphere. KH plays essentially no role in that.

          • socalpa

            Since you admit that G produces density and pressure as a constant . and admit this also sets temps .. It is clearly not an energy in, energy out proposition ..
            .
            The gas giants get a tiny fraction of incoming energy , and their interiors are so hot from gravitational compression ,they emit more energy than they receive .
            .
            KF proposed compression due to cooling , cooling from what temp ,to what temp ? 160 year old hypothesis ,pre Einstein ,pre quantum ,pre nuclear science ,trotted out because of a match on Jupiters radiation out put ,which was unknown 160 years ago.
            .
            The point is , CO2 does not ,and never has ,caused Earths surface temps .

          • Robert

            I never stated that gravity produces the density. You are confused. I stated that gravity produces the pressure.

            Temperature certainly is an energy in, energy out proposition. Earth, with the same atmosphere it has now, would be cooler if it resided in the orbit of Mars. That simple fact can be gleaned from thermodynamics, which of course is an “energy in, energy out proposition”.

            Your second bullet is describing the KH mechanism. What’s your point? The KH mechanism is not a significant source of energy on Earth.

            You seem very confused about how the KH mechanism operates. Is the word “cooling” what is causing your confusion?

            Your last point is false. Without the CO2 in our atmosphere the surface would be 33K cooler (keeping other mechanisms held fixed).

            Sorry, but you are clearly very confused about the science of planetary temperature.

          • ROO2

            I’ve now intuited that you, Halush, and Evenminded are all the same person.

            Given evenminded lives in another country to me with 6 hours difference in time zone, I would suggest your intuition is as defective as your understanding of science.

            Car tires (and fire extinguishers) are not warm because they are not BEING compressed.

            You mean like the atmosphere at the surface of the planet where atmospheric pressure is 985hPa? It fluctuates around this value but is not ever increasing.

            As you rightly point out auto-compression provides no net energy to the system. It will provide a slight increase and decrease in temperature when surface pressure fluctuates around 985hPa, but that is it.

            It provide no net energy, and therefore does not explain surface temperatures as you indicate. If you think is magically amplifies the energy received from the Sun, I’d advise you go an read the law of thermodynamics with comprehension.

            I’m surprised you are still attempting to peddle such Derp in pursuit of your ‘anything but my tailpipe’ meme.

          • david russell

            The possibility that you are not Evenminded is the only thing stopping me from blocking you.

            The atmosphere is a dynamic system. Air molecules within it are constantly undergoing compression and decompression. The least compression is happening TOA. The most compression is happening at the surface. Mystery solved.

            We also know that the sun provides no net energy to the system either. Well, maybe a little bit because of the heat sinks. But we can’t measure that accurately at the TOA. We can infer it by the OCH variation in the oceans though…. about .5W/M2.

          • ROO2

            Air molecules within it are constantly undergoing compression and decompression.

            Yes, around a fixed atmospheric surface pressure, thereby supplying no net energy,

            The least compression is happening TOA. The most compression is happening at the surface.

            You think the TOA and the surface is constantly reducing in volume?

            I think somebody might have noticed if the Earth has suddenly growing in mass, no?

          • Anaussiereturned

            “Car tires (and fire extinguishers) are not warm because they are not BEING compressed.”

            LOL

            So your contention is that the Earth’s atmosphere is currently experiencing increasing pressure and is slowly being crushed to the point where pressure is constantly increasing and therefore producing heat?
            So, David, how much has the atmosphere compressed in order to generate this heat?
            In cubic metres how much has the atmosphere been compressed since the mid Eighties and where is the evidence of increased barometric pressure over the Earth surface?

            Ahahahahaha!

          • david russell

            I’ve made my position crystal clear, but ears out there seem quite block. Perhaps too much ear wax.

            Once again. The atmosphere is a dynamic system. Rising air parcels cool and ultimately fall, are recompressed (re-heated) and the cycle is continuous. Thus the troposphere is segregated by temperature/pressure with the highest temperatures/pressures at surface, and the lesser temps/pressures higher up.

            You’re pretending to be obtuse. That’s risky because few people can distinguish between someone pretending to be obtuse and actually obtuse people. It’s kind of like pretending to be rude.

          • Anaussiereturned

            So compression causes warming but decompression does not cause cooling.

            LOL

          • david russell

            So it’s not pretending with you. You really are obtuse. Compression causes warming. That’s why the surface is warm. Decompression causes cooling. That’s why is cool the higher you go up from the surface.

            Now annoy someone else.

          • Anaussiereturned

            LOL

            So decompression only causes cooling sometimes?

            Ahahahaha.

          • david russell

            You are dismissed as to big a fool to waste my time with.

          • Elizabeth Whitehouse

            Would that be Richard Lindsen, the professional handyman from Nijmegen, or the one from Medina,Ohio who passed away in 2014? I can’t find any others.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Where did you get that blather, David, riddled as it is with begging-the-question and other fallacies?

            Could it be some right wing-nut blog with no connection to the truth, perhaps?

          • david russell

            You don’t know what “begging the question” means. And you ought to learn to count. I only made one point at the top of this subthread, which was clear and 100% correct, namely that CB was responding to a point I made about what William Gray — about where hurricanes get their power (which he said to me directly).

            Then I chided those who failed to realized they all had misunderstood (really: deliberately distorted) that point.

            Chris Crawfiish, and others have tried to confuse the issue subsequently, but the fact remains that this is about my original response to CB pointing out the it’s only the heat of the first 26m deep from which hurricanes draw their power, according to William Gray — a clear, concise, declarative that begs no question nor make any fallacy

          • classicalmusiclover

            “Begging the question” is argument based on loaded statements, where the implication of the loaded statement pushes rejection or acceptance of the argument without reference to the factual and logical basis of the argument. A common example is the reference to mainstream climate scientists as “alarmists” or “warmists” or “rent-seekers.” Another example is puerile distortions of people’s names, like substituting “Crawfish” for Crawford or “Trendberth” for Trenberth.

            But, to the point, your disparagement of the UCS on the basis of a smear piece on an ideologically-overheated right wing blog combined begging the question with a fallacious ad hominem.

            And you compound this with the fallacious appeal to authority implicit in your focus on William Gray, who became a darling of the Heartland Institute because of his dismissiveness of AGW and his evidence-free insistence that the prevalance of scientists who supported AGW was a product of grant grubbing and part of a one-world government conspiracy.

            Indeed, it is typical of you that the person you trusted most was an extreme outlier and crank.

            I believe that you did have a personal conversation with him, because you seem to wholeheartedly endorse every position the Heartland Institute has taken on this and other science issues, including its transparently inept evasion of its role in pushing overt misinformation that favors ff industry propaganda.

          • david russell

            So I was right. You have no clue what ‘begging the question’ means. Neither does Popcorn Joe. One would think you dodos would have the sense to look the term up before pontificating about it:
            [Wikipeda definition]
            To beg a question means to assume the conclusion of an argument—a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy, in which an arguer includes the conclusion to be proven within a premise of the argument, often in an indirect way such that its presence within the premise is hidden or at least not easily apparent.
            [end]

            So name calling is not begging the question. Geez. How do you even get out of bed in the morning?

            Now you double down and show you don’t know what “appeal to authority’ means. You are quite the comedy act. If you knew enough to profile William Gray, you would know that he was known as Mr. Hurricane — the go-to guy on such matters. Why does it even occur to you and your ilk to challenge such a simple claim as the one I provided from Professor Gray? It makes you sound quite deranged.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Well, that is pretty inept, David.

            Calling a mainstream climate scientist an “alarmist” is begging the question because it suggests that claims made by alarmists are to be regarded as overheated or exaggerated, possibly politically motivated and not to taken seriously.

            Climate science dismissives use these kind of characterizations (and others like “CAGW”) so fluently that they don’t even know they are predetermining their arguments.

            Calling Kevin Trenberth “Trendberth” is begging the question by suggesting that he manipulates data and is not to be trusted.

            The late William Gray was respected during his career, but in retirement he threw his lot in with the Heartland Institute and pushed a lot of nonsense denying an anthropogenic effect on climate. This undercuts the validity of using him as an expert authority.

          • david russell

            You just can’t stop digging, can you?

            FWIW, I never called Trenberth Trendberth.

            Your point about William Gray is totally worthless and irrelevant. I quoted Gray on what he was arguably the world’s leading expert on — hurricanes, not global warming.

          • david russell

            I merely Googled “Union of Concerned Scientists”. Isn’t that obvious?

            I got the biggest chuckle out of learning than anyone can become “a concerned scientist” if they can cough up a $25 donation.

          • classicalmusiclover

            That’s a ridiculous and inept spin on a non-profit website.

            The authors of their articles are who counts.

            And, yes, it is rather obvious that your knowledge of non-climate-dismissive sources of information is woefully inept.

          • david russell

            There are many, many similar descriptions on the Internet about UOCS. The one I picked was just the first one I thought looked interesting. Frankly I agree with you that it’s the science articles that count…. and the data. But in the current circumstance all CB provided was a generally claim attributed to no one in particular and no science article specifically. So this point of yours is moot.

        • socalpa

          Flagged for personal attack .encouraging others to attack .
          /
          CB wrote ;
          ..
          “I would ask anyone who is neither a liar nor mentally ill to talk over the people stating falsehoods.

          There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

          Bury them.”

        • Mike Richardson

          Well, your good advice must have struck a nerve, CB, from the reaction below. LOL. They really don’t like the prospect of being ignored or downvoted, but it’s probably the best way to deal with partisan science deniers.

          • socalpa

            And yet another brown shirt in a green jacket chimes in .?
            .
            Like the calls for censorship on the Discover comments ,do you ?
            .
            Your uncle Josef would be so proud of you !

          • Mike Richardson

            LOL! Godwin’s law in force now. Funny how hyperpartisans hypocritically compare others to fascists, when reality it is the far right ideology which motivates so much climate change denial. N@zi comparisons earn you another downvote, of course. 😀

          • socalpa

            You do know who Uncle Josef was ,right ? Or are you as ignorant of history as you are about climate science ?
            .
            Why are you supporting the deletion by downvoting of skeptical posters ?
            .
            Censorship = Fascism .

          • Mike Richardson

            Brownshirts were N@zis, a brand of fascist. You’re projecting your own historical confusion on others if you suggest they were affiliated with Joseph Stalin, though it is admittedly unclear what you’re trying to say. And I’ve every right to vote up, down, or not at all, depending on whether or not I like a post. Or is freedom of expression a one-way thing for you?

          • socalpa

            Whether they wear brown shirts ,or caps with red stars . a fascist is a fascist is a fascist . Censorship of opposition .
            .
            CB sees co ordinated downvoting of skeptical posters .
            .
            You don’t fool anyone.

          • Mike Richardson

            Your refusal to acknowledge your own demonstrated ignorance of history is noted, as is your hypocrisy in calling for your own right of free speech expression, while opposing the right of others to vote for or against posts as they choose. YOU are not fooling anyone (except maybe yourself, but from what I’ve seen, that’s not very hard to do).

          • socalpa

            What a pathetic reply .
            .
            The organized targeting of other posters for harassment and/or downvoting is a terms of service violation ..
            .
            Go ahead , deny your inner fascist . plain as day ,for all to see .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Your definition of fascism is adorably incompetent.

          • socalpa

            Spoken like a true fascist !

          • Anaussiereturned

            Spoken like a true moron.

          • socalpa

            And ,yet another budding fascist chimes in !
            .
            Eco Socialist = Fascist . Green the new brown shirt or red cap !

          • Anaussiereturned

            “Eco Socialist = Fascist”

            Really, Soccy?

            Why don’t you expand on this claim?
            What are the overlaps between that believes that environmental protection and socially progressive public policies are important; and a person who supports a political system that espouses extreme nationalism, persecution of minorities and the pursuit of racial purity?

            For once in your miserable excuse for a life why don’t you take the time to actually attempt to justify one of your stupid claims?

          • socalpa

            Quit sniveling , left ,or right , fascism is fascism .
            .
            How did Gypsys ,Muslims and Jews fare under Stalin ? .
            .
            “Socially progressive” = means of production ,owned and controlled by the State .
            .
            You watermelons fool no one .

          • Anaussiereturned

            A. Stalin was not a communist. He was an evil demagogue.

            B. “Socially progressive” does not mean what you say it does. That is is marxist communism.

          • socalpa

            You Eco Socialists fool no one ..
            .
            Union of Soviet Socialist Republics . Socialism gave Stalin the power to be an evil demagogue ,you fool and useful idiot you ..
            .
            National Socialism gave Hitler the power to be an evil demagogue.
            .
            “Socialism” is the false promise of benefit to the population , a pretense to seize complete control of the means of production .
            .
            Now , explain why you call the former hero of the Left , an “evil demagogue” , watermelon ?

          • classicalmusiclover

            National Socialism in Germany and Soviet Socialism were ideological opposites.

            Nazism was unequivocally right wing. Communism was unequivocally left wing.

            Your grasp of history is incompetent.

          • socalpa

            Your lack critical thinking puts you beyond incompetent .. oblivious to reality .
            .
            The slogans were different ,the tactics and results the same …
            .
            A government apparatus free to oppress , jail or kill political opponents ..
            ..

          • classicalmusiclover

            Projection. It is you who are demonstrating ignorance of ideologies and how extremism can be and was rooted in polar opposites.

          • socalpa

            The government structures produced by National Socialism and Soviet Socialism produced the same results , because they both require central government control and enforcement .
            .
            The conditions for extremist dictatorship , oppression and murder of millions .
            .
            Fascism is as fascism does . Bolshevik or Nazi .
            .
            Absolute power is the goal .
            .
            How many millions did that other hero of the left “chairman” Mao murder in his cultural revolution ? 60 million ?
            .
            Tell us “history professor” … . .
            .

          • classicalmusiclover

            All ideologies taken to extremes bend toward authoritarianism and even totalitarianism. Even opposite ideologies like communism and fascism.

            The term “privatization” was coined to describe the Nazi government’s partnership with big business, with a devolution from national control to private-secor control. Ludwig von Mises–hero to many right-libertarians–was proud of his service to Engelbert Dollfuss’s fascist regime and even after his emigration to the US described fascism as a superior form of government to democracy.

            Doubling down on an ignorant bogus definition of fascism doesn’t make it magically true. The historical fascists were the result of YOUR own right-wing, pseudo-libertarian ideology taken to an ungodly extreme.

            Words have meaning; contexts count. The chief warnings to heed about the historical fascists are how they came to power–what social forces they marshaled, which groups they appealed to, which populations they overtly and self-consciously demonized, what kind of ideas they sought to discredit.

            Mao Tse-Dong is not a “hero” to the modern left; neither is Stalin.

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            ..
            “The chief warnings to heed about the historical Communists is are how they came to power–what social forces they marshaled, which groups they appealed to, which populations they overtly and self-consciously demonized, what kind of ideas they sought to discredit.”..
            .
            And Mao Tse Dong and Stalin are not heroes to the modern left .. lately .

          • classicalmusiclover

            You will find that the overt targets of the communists were capitalists, colonialists, monarchists, land-owners, and social conservatives, whereas the targets of the fascists were liberals, leftists, the free press, Jews, feminists, and trade unions.

            The fact that anti-Semitism was (and still is) strong in Russia should not obscure the fact that many Jewish intellectuals welcomed joining the communists as a way of throwing off the autocratic and chauvinistic yoke of the Tsars. And for the first 10 years of the Soviet state, there were indeed freedoms unknown during the Tsarist years.

            As soon as the crimes of Stalin and Mao became widely known here in America (in the ’50s and the ’70s, respectively) their veneration by the left, such as it was, evaporated.

            So stick your “HoHos” up your rear end.

            Repeating simple-minded slogans as you do does little to impress anyone outside your own tiny, science-denying-and-smearing tribe of Trump/Delingpole acolytes.

          • socalpa

            Bullshit ,start to finish .The Left venerated Mao and Stalin into the 90s when their crimes could no longer be denied I was on college campuses in the 60s and 70s , the Mao, Che Castro and a few Stalin pictures were everywhere . .
            .
            Their targets included intellectuals as well ,any potential threat ,political or religious . so buzz off ,Bolshevik .
            .
            The radical left wears Green now , same tactics ,same goals .

          • classicalmusiclover

            More hand-flapping and doubled-down ignorance from the haplessly history-illiterate socalpa. Arguing from anecdote is fallacious.

            Comparing mainstream climate scientists to Bolshevik’s is no less moronic than comparing them to fascists. Let me know when scientists are presenting their political views in their peer-reviewed papers.

            AGW is the product of evidence, not the “radical left.”

          • classicalmusiclover

            Poor socalpa: doesn’t know what fascism is–partly because he supports it unflinchingly in its modern guise.

          • classicalmusiclover

            “You watermelons”

            It is rather obvious how much you admire and wish to emulate Delingpole. Too bad he is such a dishonest and viciously ignorant tool

          • Mike Richardson

            He’s exhibiting some very impoverished thought processes, as well as the limited and politically charged rhetoric of a true ideologue. Rather ironic, in one who labels everyone with who he disagrees a fascist.

          • classicalmusiclover

            He’s actually garbling an attempt to parrot Christopher Monckton’s political views, which were for socalpa most recently expressed in an interview with Willie Soon posted at CFACT. Soon deferred to Monckton on politics and to Crockford on polar bears, including her claim that sea ice was bad for them. It’s a confused back-story, but typical of the pretzels into which socalpa routinely twists himself.

          • david russell

            There is no such law. You can call that Russell’s Law if you like, which also isn’t a law.

          • classicalmusiclover

            There is no such thing as “Godwin’s law?”

            Gawd, you’re ignorant.

          • CB

            “your good advice must have struck a nerve, CB, from the reaction below. LOL.”

            lol! Indeed!

            At one point, one could find people who were actually ignorant of the science, but I think all of those people are gone now. I also think most of the paid liars are gone now! What you have currently are simply people who are lying for attention. The more vile and ridiculous the lie, the better. I wouldn’t put it past David to be fully making up his entire character. It may all be a ridiculous cartoon he’s created for people to look at…

            I would still suggest interaction with Climate Deniers who are new, and who have not yet established they are acting in bad faith. Neither David, nor “SocalPa” fall into that category.

            “Recent studies have shown a link between ocean surface temperatures and tropical storm intensity – warmer waters fuel more energetic storms.”

            oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/hurricanes.html

          • Mike Richardson

            True enough, CB. I think I’m about done with socalpa, since all he’s doing now is calling folks fascists for voting against his silly remarks. The other guy also bit off more than he can chew, from what I’ve seen. They’ll probably go the way of the BBQ Man and Ol’Wilson before long, and no one will miss their politically motivated rhetoric.

            By the way, good topical link. I see NOAA data cherry-picked from some of the usual suspects (particularly the satellite data), but they always ignore that NOAA has consistently provided good data showing how the oceans and the rest of the planet are warming as a result of human activity.

          • socalpa

            You like NOAA ? Then , you’re going to LOVE this !
            .
            GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

            NOAA
            ..
            1. Summary Statement
            .
            “Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

            Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?.”
            .
            “Our main conclusions are”: (excerpted ) .;
            .
            ” It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”. .

            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

            .

            Got that ? No detection of an impact of ghgs .
            .
            Stay tuned .

          • classicalmusiclover

            The dishonest socalpa only included the first sentence from the

            “Premature to conclude” means that research is ongoing and does not presume that there will be no detection of an already existent impact of ghgs. Indeed, it means nearly the opposite, as the rest of the statement strong suggests:

            “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
            Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC mid-range scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
            There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.
            Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center by the end of the 21st century. There is already medium confidence for a detectable human contribution to past observed increases in heavy precipitation in general over global land regions and the United States, although this increase has not been formally detected for hurricane precipitation alone.
            Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.”

          • socalpa

            “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable ”
            .
            Get that ?
            .
            “May have ” includes , may not have . .
            .
            “Not yet detectable” .. means ..Not Detected .
            .
            Better take an English language refresher course ,”professor” musiclover .

          • socalpa

            Speculative … spam .

          • Robert

            Well, give him a 1/2 point for actually linking to the source… carefull editing and rhetoric helps hilite the level or honesty it takes to bring forward the argument.

            And, as Pynchon put it: “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

          • socalpa

            Good point !
            .
            The answer to question 1 was clear , no impact of anthro ghgs on global tropical cyclone activity has been detected as of 4/25/2018 .
            .
            You responded ,as did CML that question 2 proposes it may be by late 21st century .
            .
            What period is the article above ,and the paper linked describing ?
            .
            Current ?
            .
            Future ?

          • Robert

            Don’t exaggerate: 1/2 a point. And that was because you modus operandi is to sorta quote and not cite.

            And, since you keep bringing it up:
            The review source you cite was published and updated before the paper this article is discussing was published.

            Ignoring the 2nd question on your source was not too smart since it only hilited that there was a consensus that the effect shown in the paper this article is about would show up. Just so happens the effect was shown to be already in evidence.

          • socalpa

            “would show up” ?
            .
            Yes , by late in the 21st century .
            .
            As to Trendeberths claims it has shown up already based on one hurricane ,in one basin ,and in 1 season .. an anecdote .
            .
            He has made such claims before .Dr.Chris Landsea of NOAA called him out on this claim . I will link it later in a post I plan for the top .
            .
            But go right ahead and cling to your hope Trendberth is right this time ..

          • Robert

            Gee, let’s see…
            Published scientist with a long documented history of demonstrated expertise
            OR
            random anonymous poster in comment threads who tries everyday to disprove what nearly two hundred years of research explaines not only the how and why but has also projected accurately what we’re observing daily.
            The same random anonymous poster who tries namecalling and cherrypicking to accomplish that.

            Thanks.

          • socalpa

            Well , another way of looking at it is;
            .
            Gee ,let’s see NOAA report covering one hundred fifty years of global data ,including fifty years of modern data on global tropical cyclone activity . .
            .
            OR
            .
            A researcher (Trenberth) claiming one study , of one hurricane ,in one basin ,in one season shows an AGW link.A researcher who claimed in 2004 that climate science had determined AGW was responsible for or contributed to recent hurricanes and was predicting more frequent and stronger hurricanes would continue . A false claim that led to the resignation of Dr. Landsea ,NOAA hurricane expert , from the IPCC in protest .
            .
            Subsequent data showed tropical cyclones ,all categories , DECLINED during the following decade .( graph linked above) .
            .
            I will be posting Dr.Landseas’ letter on this issue at the top ,later .along with some more info on Trendberths “expertise” .
            .
            Stay tuned , and BTW , which Robert are you today ?

          • Robert

            Thanks for demonstrating that actually citing a source was a one-off because that showed how you cherry-picked , thereby yet again showing how attempting to support climate science denialism requires deceptive behavior not acceptable on a middleschool paper.

            Forecasters predict a near- or above-normal 2018 Atlantic hurricane season
            New satellite data and model upgrades to give forecasts a boost

            “NOAA’s forecasters predict a 70-percent likelihood of 10 to 16 named storms (winds of 39 mph or higher), of which 5 to 9 could become hurricanes (winds of 74 mph or higher), including 1 to 4 major hurricanes (category 3, 4 or 5; with winds of 111 mph or higher). An average hurricane season produces 12 named storms, of which 6 become hurricanes, including 3 major hurricanes.

            Hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms.
            Hurricane season probability and numbers of named storms. (NOAA)
            Download Image
            The possibility of a weak El Nino developing, along with near-average sea surface temperatures across the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea, are two of the factors driving this outlook. These factors are set upon a backdrop of atmospheric and oceanic conditions that are conducive to hurricane development and have been producing stronger Atlantic hurricane seasons since 1995.”
            http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/forecasters-predict-near-or-above-normal-2018-atlantic-hurricane-season

          • socalpa

            Uh , Robert ? , You did notice the title of the article ?
            .
            Human-caused climate change is “supercharging” hurricanes, raising the risk of major damage
            .
            “IS ” “supercharging”… not going to….. supercharge hurricanes ?
            .
            So , why are you replying with late 21st century and late 2018 predictions ?
            .
            Did they teach you the difference in present tense vs future tense in middle school last year ? Maybe they will next year !
            .
            I posted the NOAA 4/25/2018 update that reports no detectable impact of ghgs on tropical cyclone activity .
            .
            The modern record ( 1970 -2018) of global tropical cyclone activity showing a declining trend last decades .
            .
            Two upper ocean data sets showing no “supercharging” occurring past decades .
            .
            Would you like me to repost here ?.

          • Robert

            Your source?:
            “The modern record ( 1970 -2018) of global tropical cyclone activity showing a declining trend last decades .”

          • socalpa
          • Robert

            You’d think someone so quick to yell “spam” would be a bit more reticent than to repeatedly post unattributed graphs….
            Four times….

          • socalpa

            Didn’t read the top of the graphs ? Dr.Ryan Maue ..
            .
            Three different data sets ..
            .
            What a dummy !

          • Robert

            Again:
            Paper ?
            Journal?

          • socalpa

            Asked an answered .

          • socalpa
          • Robert

            You’d think someone so quick to yell “spam” would be a bit more reticent than to repeatedly post the same unattributed graph….

          • socalpa
          • Robert

            Really, from ‘the world is cooling dot com?’

          • socalpa

            No . Dr. Ryan Maue .
            .
            Click on it ,enlarge ,and read across the top,,,,dummy.

          • Robert

            “Extreme Weather” Page | Watts Up With That?
            Watts Up With That? › reference-pages

            1425 × 737 – Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present. Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate .com – Click the pic to view at source.
            Look at the trends in extreme weather & see the state of the …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/04/05

            750 × 381 – Apr 5, 2017 – Next — The last four decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency. 12-month running …
            What you need to know about hurricanes and their trends – …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/09/14

            1200 × 610 – Sep 14, 2017 – “In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has …
            Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected …

          • socalpa

            I didn’t see any of that on the top of the graph ..
            .
            Are you trying to say something ? ..

          • Robert

            Thanks.

            “Extreme Weather” Page | Watts Up With That?
            Watts Up With That? › reference-pages

            1425 × 737 – Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present. Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate .com – Click the pic to view at source.
            Look at the trends in extreme weather & see the state of the …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/04/05

            750 × 381 – Apr 5, 2017 – Next — The last four decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency. 12-month running …
            What you need to know about hurricanes and their trends – …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/09/14

            1200 × 610 – Sep 14, 2017 – “In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has …
            Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected …

          • socalpa

            Try to use your words now ..
            .
            Resist the compulsion to copy/paste and spam .
            .
            Are you trying to claim the linked graphs are wrong on global tropical cyclone frequency or trend ?
            .
            If so , based on what information ,data or source ?

          • Robert

            Think hard. Why are your sources consistently coming from places that that argue counter to what is not only near unanimous consensus on, but also have a near two centuries of research support?
            Or that you have to cherry pick ?

            And why so compelled to argue science on a comment thread?

          • socalpa

            What “sources” are you talking about ?
            .
            I provided links to the following pages and data .
            .
            NOAA global tropical cyclone report updated 4/25/2018 .
            .
            Woofortrees Hadsst3 global ocean surface temp data ..
            .
            The global Ace page of Dr. Ryan Maue listing the hurricane activity since 1970 .
            .
            Why do you find it necessary to lie about what I write ?

          • Robert

            Again:
            Paper ?
            Journal?

            Nope….
            Thanks.

          • Robert

            “Extreme Weather” Page | Watts Up With That?
            Watts Up With That? › reference-pages

            1425 × 737 – Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present. Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate .com – Click the pic to view at source.
            Look at the trends in extreme weather & see the state of the …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/04/05

            750 × 381 – Apr 5, 2017 – Next — The last four decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency. 12-month running …
            What you need to know about hurricanes and their trends – …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/09/14

            1200 × 610 – Sep 14, 2017 – “In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has …
            Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected …

          • socalpa
          • Robert

            Yes, what paper was this published in?
            Why does my sesrch for the image bring up a series of cs denial is sites?
            When did ACE become a metric applicable for this discussion?

            “Any questions ?”

          • socalpa

            I assumed you would be competent enough to read the top of the graphics which name the source ..

            My mistake ! Dr Ryan Maue
            .
            Questions ? Yes , why isn’t global ACE trend , tropical cyclone counts ,all categories … not “metrics applicable” for this discussion ?
            http://wx.graphics/tropical/
            .
            http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_annual_ace.png

          • Robert

            Thanks for missing 2/3 the questions… especially the 2/3 that puts your response in full light.

            a day ago
            Yes, what paper was this published in?
            Why does my search for the image bring up a series of cs denialist sites?

          • socalpa

            Maybe you should try looking up Dr. Ryan Maue ? Weatherbell analytics ?
            .
            2/3 rd of what questions ?.
            .
            The graphs are not from a paper , it is the data on global ACE . There are a list of peer reviewed papers on the bottom left some mentioning the historically low ACE .
            .
            Do you have any evidence Dr.Maues data is wrong ?
            .
            Or are you just whining because you don’t like the data ? ..
            .

          • Robert

            “The graphs are not from a paper”

          • socalpa

            “The graphs are not from a paper”
            .
            And ….. ?

          • Robert

            This thread started w you cherry picking a review that was published before the paper this article was written and is now you defending some random blog post.

            So, basically you showing low levels of both intelectual rigor and intellectual honesty.

            So, again; thanks for demonstrating what it takes to argue, what it takes to maintain a position that is counter to what there is not only near unanimous consensus on, but also a near two centuries of research supporting.

          • socalpa

            “now you defending some random blog post.”.
            .
            Are you referring to Dr.Maues data on tropical cyclone activity ?
            .
            The sources and methodologies listed on the left side of the page ..
            .
            Do you have any evidence global cyclone activity has increased since 1992 ,not declined as Dr.Maue shows ?
            .
            Just post it .

          • Robert

            Again, if your source is accurate, then you should be able to cite a journal published paper as evidence rather than a source that is more often cited by cs denialist posters .

            You havent.

            Why?

            “Extreme Weather” Page | Watts Up With That?
            Watts Up With That? › reference-pages

            1425 × 737 – Global Hurricane Frequency – 1978 to Present. Ryan N. Maue PhD – PoliClimate .com – Click the pic to view at source.
            Look at the trends in extreme weather & see the state of the …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/04/05

            750 × 381 – Apr 5, 2017 – Next — The last four decades of Global Tropical Storm and Hurricane frequency. 12-month running …
            What you need to know about hurricanes and their trends – …
            Fabius Maximus website › 2017/09/14

            1200 × 610 – Sep 14, 2017 – “In contrast to that study, as shown here, the global frequency of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has …
            Is there global cooling? The answer might not be what you expected …

          • socalpa

            “Again, if your source is accurate, then you should be able to cite a journal published paper as evidence “.
            .
            If you question the accuracy of Dr.Maues tropical cyclone data , you could ,and should , provide data that contradicts his findings .
            .
            You have had days to do this ,and have not ..
            .
            Why not ?
            ..
            The fact that you found the graphs were published elsewhere has no bearing on the accuracy of the data … I did not link to those sites .
            .
            So , just show what leads you to conclude his graph falsely represents the record of global and basin and hemispheric tropical cyclone activity .
            .
            What are you whining and waiting for ?

          • Robert

            Again, if your source is accurate, then you should be able to cite a journal published paper as evidence.

            Tell us why you’ve working so hard to not do so.

          • Robert

            So you are perfectly OK with citing a source that not only is unpublished, but more often cited by denialist blogs, right?

            Sounds like a bit of obliviousness about seeking quality sources -a skill routinely achieved by the average sith grader.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Maue, R. N. 2011 Recent historically low global tropical cyclone activity. Geophys. Res. Letters

            http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.364.1274&rep=rep1&type=pdf

            The updates are just extensions to make the data current.

          • Robert

            And from posting highly cherry picked bits of a NOAA review, we now are treated to unattributed graphs…

            Thanks for continuing the demonstration of the low level of intellectual rigor required to promote a cs denialist position.

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Klotzbach, Philip J., and Christopher W. Landsea 2015. “Extremely intense hurricanes: revisiting Webster et al.(2005) after 10 years.” Journal of Climate https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3bc29377125aad26e073f301fbc012f1b8091ea05e7503bd667592cb1da694ec.jpg

          • Robert

            Yup, your counter to a paper published in May, was the “… NOAA 4/25/2018 update…” thank you. That is what you’ve been told now for days now.

          • socalpa

            So ,answer the question asked .
            .
            Does one hurricane , in one season ,in one basin overturn the conclusion from NOAAs 150 years of global data ,and 40 years of modern data ?

          • Robert

            Of course, we wouldn’t expect you to understand what the argument is here, would we?

          • Robert

            Sure. Good idea. Then we can again point to your egregiously obvious cherry picking and excision of facts.

            “Would you like me to repost here ?.”

          • socalpa

            Go ahead , I would enjoy showing how you lie and misrepresent the science ,and my posts again .
            .
            Ready when you are ,whichever Robert you are today .

          • Robert

            Confused much?

          • Damn Nitpicker

            Trenberth … no “d”

          • socalpa

            As promised , the information on the “expertise” of mr.Trenberth posted at the top ..
            .
            Click newest … and enjoy ..no need to thank me …just …pass it on !

          • CB

            “all he’s doing now is calling folks fascists for voting against his silly remarks”

            …as if he were entitled to attention… poor dear… To be fair, the correlation between sea surface temperature and hurricane strength/number isn’t always the clearest! …but there’s another factor which ties AGW to hurricane damage and that’s sea level rise. It’s a much stronger signal.

            climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/12_15_seaLevel_left.gif

          • socalpa

            Wow ! A whopping 2. 9 inches (75mm) … since 1950 !
            .
            A tsunami !
            .
            How much more damage did that 2 inches cause and in which storms ?

          • ROO2

            They’ll probably go the way of the BBQ Man

            Is Magneto boy and his votebot still active?

          • Mike Richardson

            Well, BBQ Man got scarce when the moderator told him to quit pushing his “magnetic forcings” pseudoscience nonsense or quit posting. The other guy got himself banned from this blog outright, and can be found whining about it on D-Brief in the “Eurovision … Happiness…” article from about 1 2 days ago, if you need some free entertainment.

          • socalpa

            GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory

            NOAA

            .

            updated 4/25/18
            ..
            1. Summary Statement
            .
            “Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

            Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?.”
            .
            “Our main conclusions are”: (excerpted ) .;
            .
            ” It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”. .

            https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

            .
            Woops !

          • classicalmusiclover

            No “woops!”

            Why did socalpa omit the following, which changes the meaning of the first sentence?

            “That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
            Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC mid-range scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
            There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclones globally–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones. However, there is at present only low confidence that such an increase in very intense storms will occur in the Atlantic basin.
            Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content. Models project an increase on the order of 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center by the end of the 21st century. There is already medium confidence for a detectable human contribution to past observed increases in heavy precipitation in general over global land regions and the United States, although this increase has not been formally detected for hurricane precipitation alone.
            Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.”

          • Mike Richardson

            Wow, it’s like he’s being deliberately dishonest or something! 😮

          • socalpa

            “Wow” !
            .
            Does it ? Care to explain ?

          • socalpa

            It does not “change the meaning of the first sentence “.
            .
            It states that no impact has been detected ..
            .
            Too bad the article and alarmists believe an impact of CO2 has been detected ..
            .
            May be detectable in the future .. means not detectable … now .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Absolutely incorrect.

            Taking the first sentence out of context is cherry-picking, and especially dishonest when the context shows high confidence in the emerging connection between storm strength and a warming climate.

          • Robert

            Not to mention the review article being cited by soxalpa was published (and updated) before the paper this article is based on was ailable.a

          • Robert

            Even better is how socalpa changes CB’s “talk over” to ” harassment ” in an effort to say there’s a TOS violation.

          • socalpa

            As usual , you forget to mention ;
            ..

            “There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

            Bury them.” ..
            .
            CBs inner fascist ,and yours , on plain display ,Eco -Socialist .

          • Robert

            Yup, that would be the “talk over”.

            And nice touch, that last bit, btw.

          • socalpa

            Have you noted your Id is being used by an impostor yet ?
            .
            Who are you ?

          • socalpa

            “Nice touch” ,upvoting your impostor upthread ..
            .
            Frauds of a feather ,upvote each other !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Robert

            Interesting you have spent time reviewing upvotes..
            Some us use the time to read the science.

          • socalpa

            And ,some of us like to expose impostors ,fraud and liars .
            .
            I see my post left a welt !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Robert

            At one point, this thread actually had some content….

            4 days ago
            Even better is how socalpa changes CB’s “talk over” to ” harassment ” in an effort to say there’s a TOS violation.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3911490118

          • socalpa

            I left a big ,ugly red welt .
            ,

          • Robert

            This thread actually had some content…. At one point….

            4 days ago
            Even better is how socalpa changes CB’s “talk over” to ” harassment ” in an effort to say there’s a TOS violation.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3911490118

          • socalpa

            CB;
            “There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

            Bury them.”.
            .
            Which Robert are you today ?

          • Robert

            This thread actually had some content…. At one point….

            4 days ago
            Even better is how socalpa changes CB’s “talk over” to ” harassment ” in an effort to say there’s a TOS violation.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3911490118

          • Robert

            Actually, all you’ve left is evidence of thinking using a language of violence was a ‘winning’ argument.

          • socalpa

            CB;
            “There’s absolutely no reason to allow these people oxygen.

            Bury them.”.

          • Robert

            4 days ago
            Even better is how socalpa changes CB’s “talk over” to ” harassment ” in an effort to say there’s a TOS violation.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3911490118

          • classicalmusiclover

            Historically, fascism and socialism are opposite ideologies. Your conflating them is another sign of your historical illiteracy. Stop listening to the demented misinformer Monckon and you might begin to understand the things you read.

          • socalpa

            A fascist is … as a fascist … does . .
            .
            Brown shirt , or red jacket . censorship in common . .
            Don’t deny your inner fascist , set it free .. like …CB !

          • classicalmusiclover

            I am an anti-fascist, dimwit.

            The Nazis and communists were polar opposites.

            Learn some history, even though reading a book that challenged your predetermined views might seem to you as pleasant as driving an ice pick into your eye.

          • socalpa

            Keep telling yourself that , comrade .
            .
            “The Nazis and communists were polar opposites” .
            .
            Same goals ,same tactics …

          • classicalmusiclover

            “Same goals, same tactics.”

            Actually, the communists did not have as their goals the empowering of corporations, reducing taxes, mandating gun ownership, criminalizing communism and socialism, attacking religious minorities, taking women out of the work-force, and eliminating labor unions.

            All ideologies bend toward authoritarianism and even totalitarianism if taken to extremes.

            The ideologies in question were opposites.

          • Mike Richardson

            Pretty funny coming from the folks who like to call their opponents “snowflakes,” right? But these ideologues think that freedom of speech means you must listen to them, and never contradict them with scientific fact, or downvote a ridiculous comment they make. Such a grandiose sense of entitlement.

          • socalpa

            Are you aware an impostor is using your ID to reply to me up thread ?
            .
            Is this you ?

            https://disqus.com/by/disqus_HSTKY8l33l/

            .

    • socalpa

      Just thought I should add that in addition to concealing the deg C conversion which shows temps in the top 2,000 ms of the global oceans rose only 0.09C 1955 -2010 .
      .
      The upper layers of the global oceans cooled between 2004 -2014 per Cheng et al 2015 ..during the “hottest decades ever ‘

      and highest CO2 in 800,000 years at least ‘
      .
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585812/figure/f2/?report=objectonly

    • socalpa

      Mods , please note CB upvoted own post seeking to game Disqus Best order ..
      .
      CB is also seeking/organizing blanket downvoting of skeptical posters to cause deletion by spam reporting .,
      .
      Censorship of opposition should not be tolerated on Discover .

      • socalpa

        Mods , please disregard my prior message ..
        .
        I decided to upvote her comment too since I’ve realized I am wrong .,
        .
        Sorry that I suggested you censor CB’s right to upvote her own posts .

        • socalpa

          Mods ,
          .
          Impostor , flagged and reported ,adding false upvote from puppet accounts .
          .
          Show the utter desperation of climate alarmists as their religion collapses !

          • evenminded

            Mods ,
            .
            I ‘m out of sorts tonight .
            .
            That should be obvious from my inability to punctuate sentences properly .
            .
            Sorry to be such a bother .
            .
            I’ll pull my self together pone of these days .
            .
            Take care .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Poor socalpa. Still hasn’t figured out the difference between science and religion.

            Or that internet discussions are not measures of the robustness of science.

          • socalpa

            Poor musiclover ..
            .
            Hasn’t figured out that Man Made Climate Change is a religion started in the 60s ..
            .
            The believers blamed human industry for the global cooling of 1945 -1978 .. and the warming from 1978 , and now are preparing to blame the cooling of the next decades on … human CO2 !

          • Anaussiereturned

            “The believers blamed human industry for the global cooling of 1945 -1978 .. and the warming from 1978”

            Hey, Soccy, why don’t you explain to everybody what the effect of post WWII industrial expansion was on the aerosol particulate level in the atmosphere and what this would be expected to produce as far as global temperatures are concerned?

            You could then go on to explain what the clean air legislation passed around the world in the seventies reduced the particulate levels and unmasked the warming effect that CO2 has on the planet.

            On the other hand that would require both a modicum of scientific literacy as well as a scrap of honesty. Both things you have proven again and again that you lack.

          • ROO2

            Such questions are probably best reserved for somebody that knows something about science, not for a young earth climate denier that cannot punctuate a sentence.

          • Anaussiereturned

            No, Soccy gets it.
            He just continues to ignore reality and spread his lies because he’s a sad, old troll with nothing else in his life to occupy his time.

          • socalpa

            Maybe you should explain why the same decline in temps occurred 1880 -1915 ?

            .

            Note , the AMO PDO effects match both periods ..

            .

            You religious zealots are a joke .

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1876/to:1915/plot/esrl-amo/from:1876/to:1915/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1976/plot/esrl-amo/from:1945/to:1976

          • socalpa

            Well ?
            .
            What caused the temps to decline 1880 -1915 ?

          • Anaussiereturned

            I asked first.

            After you have answered that I will explain the science to you (yet again).

          • socalpa

            Ok , the limited production of aerosols in the European Industrial countries ,Japan and the U.S after WWII had Zero impact on global temps 1945 -1978 .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Aerosols had zero impact on global temps?

            Something only someone who didn’t have a clue how different gases work in the atmosphere could say such a thing.

          • socalpa

            The people that blamed aerosols for global cooling in the 70s were unaware of the AMO/PIO phases of the oceans .
            .
            The people who still claim aerosols responsible for cooling 1945 -1978 …are called “deniers”..

            .
            Identify the temp difference and rate between 1875 -1915 and 1945 -1978 . .

            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1876/to:1915/plot/esrl-amo/from:1876/to:1915/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1976/plot/esrl-amo/from:1940/to:1976

          • classicalmusiclover

            Where is the published paper saying that aerosols were not responsible for short-term cooling during the 1970s?

          • socalpa

            Hadcrut4 shows the cooling was from 1945 -1978, not limited to the 1970s .
            .
            Over 3 decades is not “short term” .
            .
            Same temp decline as that from 1875 -1915 .what caused the matching declines ?

          • classicalmusiclover

            The earth’s climate is complex. Who says “matching” declines in one data set have to have matching causes or that if the cause of decline A is forcing X that it can only be forcing X or some combination of forcings in decline B?

            I notice you have not come forward with any study saying that “the aerosols had no impact on temperature” and that scientific claims at the time were incorrect (or, as you often insinuate, dishonest or driven by “religion”)

          • classicalmusiclover

            [Specific research supporting the claim missing]

          • Anaussiereturned

            Oh dear, Soccy once again displays his complete lack of scientific understanding by admitting that he doesn’t know the role played by aerosol particulate in atmosphere.
            Further proof that he is an ignorant troll and not at all interested in the true causes of global warming.

          • socalpa

            I do understand it .
            .
            I asked you to explain how and what source of aerosols caused the cooling (identical cooling) shown in Hadcrut4 1875 -1915 as 1945 -1978 .
            .
            What global environmental rules ended the cooling in 1915 ?
            .
            Another question is what were the aerosol sources causing cooling 1945 -1955 as Europe, UK and Japans industries were smashed and required over a decade to rebuild ?
            .
            C’mon Anass , strut your stuff .

          • Anaussiereturned

            “I do understand it .”

            So you are just telling lies again then.

            “Another question is what were the aerosol sources causing cooling 1945 -1955 as Europe, UK and Japans industries were smashed and required over a decade to rebuild ?”

            Soccy, what do you think was the effect on industrial aerosol output of 6 years of massive armaments production?

            What do you think the was effect on atmospheric aerosol pollution of the wholesale, explosive Demolition of half the cities in Europe?

            What do you think was the effect of the rapid production of the billions of tonnes of concrete which were required to rebuild the shattered infrastructure of Europe and Asia?

            Do you have the vaguest idea as to the effect of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere?

          • socalpa

            What nonsense ! You truly are a desperate denier !
            .
            What was the source of the cooling 1875 – 1915 ?
            .
            What caused it to end ?
            .
            The destruction of the cities by burning produced soot (carbon) and CO2 , you moron , not aerosols .
            .
            Concrete production produces CO2 as well , not aerosols .
            .
            Show us some more examples of your… erudition , Anass !

          • Anaussiereturned

            “What was the source of the cooling 1875 – 1915 ?”

            “The study, by a consortium of 78 authors in 24 countries, said its 2,000 years of data made it harder to discount the impact on higher temperatures of increased greenhouse gases due to human activity.

            “Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend,” the National Science Foundation, one of the study’s sponsors, quoted the report as saying.

            Researchers found that various factors, including fluctuations in the amount and distribution of heat from the Sun and increases in volcanic activity, fed an overall change in temperature patterns.”
            https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-environment-cooling/long-term-global-cooling-ended-in-19th-century-study-idUSBRE93L0SV20130422

          • socalpa

            Going into panic mode ,Anass ?
            .
            The question was not what caused global warming .. the question was what caused the global cooling 1875 -1915 and what ended it ..
            ..
            You claimed aerosols caused the cooling shown in Hadcrut4 1945 -1978 …remember ?
            .
            Same temp change occurred late 19tn century . “Explain”. then we discuss “global warming”/

            ..http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1876/to:1915/plot/esrl-amo/from:1876/to:1915/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1945/to:1976/plot/esrl-amo/from:1940/to:1976

            .

          • Anaussiereturned

            “The question was not what caused global warming .. the question was what caused the global cooling 1875 -1915……..”

            Try reading with comprehension.

            “Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend,”

            ………..”and what ended it”

            “The study, by a consortium of 78 authors in 24 countries, said its 2,000 years of data made it harder to discount the impact on higher temperatures of increased greenhouse gases due to human activity.”

          • Anaussiereturned

            “The destruction of the cities by burning produced soot (carbon) and CO2 , you moron , not aerosols .
            Concrete production produces CO2 as well , not aerosols .”

            Poor Soccy, believes that dropping hundreds of thousands of tonnes of explosives on a city merely “produced soot” and that the clean air acts passed around the world were unnecessary because industrial production of building materials was not producing smog and acid rain.

            He should really be pitied but it has hard to resist the temptation to keep prodding him with the pointy stick of reality.

          • socalpa

            Obvious flail is obvious ..
            .
            What aerosols did WWI explosives produce ,. ?
            .
            What aerosols does concrete production produce ?
            .
            What caused the cooling 1875 -1915 shown in Hadcrut 4 ,and why did it end ?

          • Anaussiereturned

            A) Study some history. Learn which war occurred in the 1940’s.

            B) https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjM98e_oJ3bAhVBRZQKHfQMBFMQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DLOzq7hvXGlU&psig=AOvVaw1jaYhKSEtLpf2vAuPa_SiI&ust=1527213681658185

            C) Fossil fuel combustion produces large amounts of sulfur dioxide, which reacts with water vapor and other gases in the atmosphere to create sulfate aerosols. Biomass burning, a common method of clearing land and consuming farm waste, yields smoke that’s comprised mainly of organic carbon and black carbon.
            Automobiles, incinerators, smelters, and power plants are prolific producers of sulfates, nitrates, black carbon, and other particles. Deforestation, overgrazing, drought, and excessive irrigation can alter the land surface, increasing the rate at which dust aerosols enter the atmosphere. Even indoors, cigarettes, cooking stoves, fireplaces, and candles are sources of aerosols.
            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            What caused the global Cooling ,same rate and range as 1945 -1978 in 1875 -1915 ? What regulations ended it ?
            .
            Which war occurred in the 1870s ? How many electric power plants, factories, cars , farms ?
            .
            Here it is again ;
            .
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/esrl-amo

          • socalpa

            Well ?
            .
            Out with it !

          • classicalmusiclover

            Can’t answer the Aussie’s questions, can you?

          • socalpa

            Still no reply after 20 hours ? Did you receive my answer ?
            .
            Need it again ?
            .
            Did you view the Hadcrut4 data ?

          • Anaussiereturned

            Unlike you, Soccy, I have a life.

            Your answer Just proved the point I made about your honesty and scientific literacy.

            You’re just a troll, and not even a very good one.

          • socalpa

            Go ahead and run !
            .
            I answered your question ,you can’t/won’t answer mine .
            .
            Your claim you will “explain” the aerosol effect , a lie .The science illiterate ,is you .
            ..
            Your claim of “troll” ,obvious projection . . Your whine “I have a life” ,a dodge .
            .
            Bye .

          • classicalmusiclover

            The aerosol effect was a “lie”?

            Produce the paper disproving it then.

            Even if a different cause were definitively demonstrated and the aerosol effect shown to have no impact on temperature (something which would fly in the face of known atmospheric physics), scientists would not describe the superseded explanation as a “lie.”

            It is too bad that you find the normal discourse of scientists too effete and insufficiently like a cage fight for your tastes. No wonder you always try to reduce everything to simple-minded binarisms, getting things haplessly wrong in the process.

          • socalpa

            “Your claim you will “explain” the aerosol effect , a lie “.
            .
            “Lie” refers to Anass’s claim he will explain the aerosol effect ,and then refused to after I answered his question.
            .
            Learn to read with comprehension, then chime in ..

          • classicalmusiclover

            Oh, so you don’t know what the aerosol effect was?

            Your ignorance is not the Aussie’s problem.

            Your tendency to twist people’s screen names (and, in the case of scientists, their real names) into insults shows puerile impulses and poor character.

            Perhaps you are trying too hard to emulate Delingpole, your lying, misinforming hero.

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            I understand the aerosol issue , Anass knows it .. and ran away !
            .
            Your whine … is my wine !

          • Anaussiereturned

            “The study, by a consortium of 78 authors in 24 countries, said its 2,000 years of data made it harder to discount the impact on higher temperatures of increased greenhouse gases due to human activity.

            “Global warming that has occurred since the end of the 19th century reversed a persistent long-term global cooling trend,” the National Science Foundation, one of the study’s sponsors, quoted the report as saying.

            Researchers found that various factors, including fluctuations in the amount and distribution of heat from the Sun and increases in volcanic activity, fed an overall change in temperature patterns.”
            https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

          • socalpa

            Deflection ,Flail …… Fail !
            .
            What caused temps to decline 1875 -1915 .? (while CO2 rose ~ 10% past background ) .
            .
            Why does the decline match 1945 -1978 decline in duration and rate ?

          • Anaussiereturned

            This is neither deflection or flail.

            The fact that you don’t understand the answer is not my fault.

          • socalpa

            It is indeed a deflection ,flail and a Fail .
            .
            Enjoyed your 2007 New Activist article …. Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Anaussiereturned

            I know you won’t have read it, Soccy.

            You are far too frightened of being exposed to facts to do that.

          • socalpa

            I find “facts: as stale as those in the article .. not very appetizing ..
            .
            After you explain what was the source of the cooling 1875 -1915 and why it shows the same rate and range of cooling 1945-1978 ..
            .
            I will introduce you to some peer reviewed 21 st century science ..
            .
            Ready when you are ,Anass .

          • Anaussiereturned

            “I find “facts: as stale as those in the article .. not very appetizing .. ”

            Says the poster who routinely cites papers that have been superseded by the author’s later works in an effort to misinform and deceive.

          • socalpa

            I know why you won’t answer , you don’t want discussion of those pesky 60 – 80 year ocean cycles .. discovered in the 90s .. the ones that match the warm/cool phases in the temp record .. AMO PMO ..even the Arctic sea ice extent reduction recently shown driven by ocean current phase (AMOC) .not CO2 .
            .
            You prefer science from your good old days , before the hiatus was widely known . Before the ignominious collapse of Copenhagen by Climategate / .
            .
            You can claim I seek to deceive all you like .
            .
            The thread speaks for itself ..
            .

            .

          • classicalmusiclover

            ROTFLMAO

            This may be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post. I’ll treasure it for ever.

          • 9.8m/ss

            Hasn’t figured out there aren’t any “mods” either.

          • classicalmusiclover

            He’s been spooked because he keeps getting blocked from discussions for spamming.

        • socalpa

          I see Robert is upvoting his own impostor !
          .
          Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
          .
          The desperation and dishonesty of climate alarmists on full display !
          .
          No better evidence of a lost cause !

          • Anaussiereturned

            Poor, poor Socalpa has yet to figure out that there is more than one person on Earth called Robert.

          • socalpa

            And there are two on this thread !
            .
            Robert 1 . Dumb
            .
            Robert 2 ..Dumber.
            .
            Dumb # 1 changed his logo when he noticed his impostor .

          • Robert

            You mean like the evidence that you have provided that you don’t even understand the basics of gravity?

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! indeed.

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            The Dumb and Dumber show !
            .
            Encore ! Encore !

          • Robert

            Yes, you have proven that you are dumb, dumber, and dumbest.

            Strange how a simple question about gravitational energy has caused you to jump the shark and flip your lid.

          • socalpa

            Aww .. how cute ! The impostor monkey begs for another peanut ?
            .
            Sorry little monkey .. .!
            .
            No peanuts for you !

          • Robert

            Is this how you always act when you are unable to address technical questions?

            Clearly you don’t understand even the most basic science.

    • 9.8m/ss

      There are more possibilities.
      1. They don’t know.
      2. They’re paid to distribute misinformation.
      3. They’re devotees of some ideology that needs to ignore risks to public safety.
      4. They’re expressing devotion to a tribe whose faith demands denial.
      5. They’re researchers who washed out of their chosen field because they couldn’t let go of an obsession with a failed hypothesis. (e.g., Judith Curry.) Or close friends or relatives of such a researcher.

      • socalpa

        Why are you such a blatant political hack and misinformer 9.8 ?
        .
        Another possibility is the reduced or eliminated access to FFs is the real danger … could kill millions to billions that rely on them for heat in winter and transportation of food .
        .
        That is ,you AGW fanatics are the “ganger” ,not FFs .

        • 9.8m/ss

          Do you ever wonder why everyone ignores you?

          • socalpa

            ~ 100 replies on this thread ,so far .. so much for the “everyone ignores you” claim . .
            .
            You’ll write any nonsense rather than reply to the content of my post .Pretty obvious why !

          • classicalmusiclover

            9.8m/ss makes a valid point. The only reason I respond to you is that you are a lying annoyance who can’t resist spamming long-since debunked points, misrepresents science even to the point of claiming that papers argue nearly the opposite of what they do, reads his own fallacious spin into other papers, and gratuitously smears any scientist who has gained prominence through their willingness to offer public explanations of AGW from a non-“skeptic” point of view. Your conspiracy theories, shameless shilling for the ff industry, and general ignorance and idiocy are offenses against common decency and are reflections of the poor state of science education in this country.

            9.8m/ss has long since made hash of you. At this point, he shows more restraint than I, and he has earned it.

          • david russell

            What’s the lie? I don’t see any lies by socalpa. 9.8m/ss makes some good points. But leaves out good points for the other side, like what socalpa states. For sure since 85% of the world’s energy is provided by fossil fuels (an less than 1% by wind/solar combined), it would be catastrophic to ban fossil fuels.

            Another good point might be that the US has reduced it’s own carbon footprint to early 1990 levels essentially thanks to the fossil fuel (natural gas) industry.

            Another good point might be that the extra CO2 emitted by fossil fuels and the longer growing seasons due to GW have resulted in the greening of the planet literally and specifically greater agricultural output, feeding hundreds of millions of humans.

          • LD50

            Look who’s talking. Tell us, again, how high “climate change” is on the list of Americans’ top issues?

      • LD50

        Liar responding ^^^^ to paid troll. How cute.

      • CB

        “They’re researchers who washed out of their chosen field because they couldn’t let go of an obsession with a failed hypothesis. (e.g., Judith Curry.)”

        I can’t remember your position on Ms. Curry! There are people who defend her, but I think she’s straight-up vile.

        She’s too smart to be confused by her own dishonesty. She both knows what she’s saying is untrue, and knows the consequences… just a repulsive human being.

        …and likely a prostitute as well…

        “Judith A. Curry is the chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology… When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry.”

        http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

  • david russell

    Kevin “Travesty” Trenberth is not to be trusted. Ocean Heat Content has pretty much nothing to do with CO2 IR, as CO2 IR cannot penetrate the ocean skin. Au contraire, as the oceans are 1-2C warmer than the air, the oceans heat the air.

    Another study (Lansner and Pederson, 2018) shows that there’s been no warming trend from 1900 to date (2016, as recall) when you consider just the 450 land stations that are isolated from ocean or ocean wind influences.

    Finally the 5000 or so ARGO Buoys show that as must as 98% of the excess heat going into the oceans in recent years has been going into the Southern Hemisphere, which only has 2/3rds of the oceans’ surface. In other words, given that CO2 is a well-mixed gas, you’d expect 2/3rd of the oceans would get 2/3rds of the excess, so something else is going on….. like variations in cloud cover. The oceans are warmed by the sun from above, not GHGs. Variations in OHC are the result of variations in surface insolation, most likely cloud cover.

    Post-finally, it turns out the CO2 is not perfectly well-mixed. Since 90% of humanity lives in the Northern Hemisphere, there’s more human emitted CO2 in the North, further vitiating the idea the CO2 is what’s driving OHC (i.e., you’d expect more than 1/3 of the increase to happen in the north because of greater CO2 in the north).

    So this entire article is a lie (Better: based on a lie — that human GHG emissions produced the increase in OCH).

    • Anaussiereturned

      LOL
      David Russel pretends to do science, again.

      “Post-finally, it turns out the CO2 is not perfectly well-mixed.”

      As usual David posts a completely invented “fact” and then completely fails to support it.

      • david russell

        I don’t have to support every claim I make. If you doubt that CO2 concentrations vary globally and are not in fact perfectly well-mixed, then you are expressing your own ignorance. NASA publishes a CO2 “heat map.” I’m sure you can find it.

        Why would you doubt that CO2 concentrations are greater in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern. 2/3rd of the land and 90% of the people live north of the Equator. Vast parts of the South are unoccupied (e.g., Antarctica…. an entire continent).

        • Anaussiereturned

          “I don’t have to support every claim I make”

          Yes, you do if you want to be taken seriously.
          This, however, does not appear to be your aim.

          • socalpa

            Still waiting for you to explain the cooling shown in Hadcrut 4 1880 -1915 …
            .
            Then explain what “worldwide” environmental laws ended it as Temps spiked till 1945 ..

          • david russell

            I actually just now did support the claim in question. You seem to take claims seriously only if they are uttered by the “authorities.” Why take you seriously, then? Hey, I don’t, ignoramus.

          • Anaussiereturned

            “I actually just now did”

            No, you made another unsupported assertion.

            David, you really should learn the difference.

          • david russell
          • david russell

            Liar

          • Anaussiereturned

            And the denier goes into default “troll mode”.

          • david russell

            You are still a liar. I not only provided you the CO2 heat map, but I did it twice. You could have found it yourself, of course, you twit.

          • Anaussiereturned

            A CO2 heat map got nothing to do with how well CO2 is mixed in the atmosphere?

            David, you obviously don’t understand a thing about this. You really should stop posting and read a book.

          • david russell

            Of course it does. Now you show yourself to be a bald-faced liar.

            More to the point, I said that there were CO2 heat maps and I was criticized for not “backing up my claim.” So I did, by providing a link to such a map (twice). And the criticism of not backing up my claims continued even AFTERWARDS..

            .

          • Anaussiereturned

            Your claim:
            “Since 90% of humanity lives in the Northern Hemisphere, there’s more human emitted CO2 in the North, further vitiating the idea the CO2 is what’s driving OHC (i.e., you’d expect more than 1/3 of the increase to happen in the north because of greater CO2 in the north).”

            From your own link:
            “The map demonstrates how unevenly carbon dioxide is distributed around the world. Far southern latitudes show low carbon dioxide concentrations, for example, whereas southern Africa and northern South America show high concentrations, possibly related to biomass burning, Eldering said. She noted that other satellites had recorded high carbon monoxide levels in those same areas, suggesting that fires were the source of both gases.”
            https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/new-satellite-maps-carbon-dioxide-sources-and-sinks-high-definition

            It seems we have identified the liar and it isn’t me.

          • Anaussiereturned

            “More to the point, I said that there were CO2 heat maps and I was criticized for not “backing up my claim.”

            David, you weren’t criticised on the basis of whether or not such maps exist, you were criticised for inventing conclusions which you claimed could be derived from such maps. Conclusions that are obviously pure fantasy.

          • david russell

            Back up your claim. The CO2 maps I linked to show variations in CO2 ppms (based on color). Furthermore the “hottest” locals are in the Southern hemisphere JUST AS I SAID.

            You are a shameless, bald-faced liar.

          • Anaussiereturned

            David, the map you posted does not show temperature.
            It shows CO2 concentration.

            The authors of the material you posted (Annmarie Eldering, deputy project scientist for OCO-2 at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory) has described what the map shows and explained its significance.

            “The map demonstrates how unevenly carbon dioxide is distributed around the world. Far southern latitudes show low carbon dioxide concentrations, for example, whereas southern Africa and northern South America show high concentrations, possibly related to biomass burning, Eldering said. She noted that other satellites had recorded high carbon monoxide levels in those same areas, suggesting that fires were the source of both gases.”

            Here is a link to the press conference where this map was unveiled.
            You can listen to Elderling’s explanation from the 5 minute point in the video and it runs for approximately a minute and a half.

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

            David, your claims are just false.

          • david russell

            You can’t say my claim is false, as it’s not my claim. You can say I didn’t show temperature and that’s true. Here it is:
            https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=VprMTMUd&id=9A7F4772860F8E2DC0276E24E5DB59970C2CB8E2&thid=OIP.VprMTMUdB_H5Bgxttjw6AAHaFD&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.geocurrents.info%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2014%2f10%2fWorld-Average-Annual-Temperature-Map-1024×698.png&exph=698&expw=1024&q=global+temperature+map&simid=608031616117900449&selectedIndex=17&ajaxhist=0

            Furthermore the relevant part of what my previous heat map shows is the CO2 concentrations over the oceans. OHC is impervious to land CO2.

            We’re still left with: a) up to 98% of the ARGO reported increase in OHC is happening in the Southern Hemisphere with only 58% of the ocean surface; b) only 10% of humanity lives in the Southern hemisphere and their per capita CO2 emissions are much less than those north of the Equator.

            Something else: acreage burned globally has declined 24% 1998-2015. Any CO2 resulting from burning forests (natural or otherwise) is therefore a declining issue.

          • Robert

            You said, “Why would you doubt that CO2 concentrations are greater in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern.”

            Now you are saying, “Furthermore the “hottest” locals are in the Southern hemisphere JUST AS I SAID.”

            The CO2 map that you provided was for ~October. If you look at a winter month then the concentration tends to be higher in the NH. Averaged over the year the CO2 distribution is rather smooth.

            When it is stated that CO2 is “well-mixed” that is not intended to mean perfectly well-mixed such that there is no variation whatsoever. It means that it is well mixed in comparison to condensing gases like water vapor, which show much greater variations over the globe.

          • david russell

            First, you failed to back up your original claim, but furthermore added a new unsubstantiated claim (that CO2 varied by season, and if you considered the whole year there wouldn’t be any difference).

            This refutes both claims, being for the whole year of 2009:

            https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=NGs5jTVz&id=85AD8B4BB0CE83902CFB1DE84FC3E900899B8BA4&thid=OIP.NGs5jTVzIyELHw32NS_PnwHaDj&mediaurl=https%3A%2F%2Finsideclimatenews.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Ficn_full_wrap_wide%2Fpublic%2FPer-Capita-CO2.png%3Fitok%3D_njycWOc&exph=444&expw=924&q=co2+heat+map+by+hemisphere&simid=607989950660415484&selectedindex=7&ajaxhist=0

            So we have shown that: a) the northern hemisphere has more CO2 emissions per capita than the south; b) 90% of humanity lives in the northern hemisphere; and yet c) up to 98% of the increase in OHC happened in recent years (according to ARGO) in the southern hemisphere

          • Robert

            That my claim is true can be easily verified. The link you provided in no way refutes my claim that atmospheric CO2 is smooth when averaged over a year in comparison to over a month.

            I made no claim about where emissions come from. I was commenting on the link that you provided on atmospheric CO2.

            You made the contradictory statements that I quoted above.

            Do you even attempt to fully understand the comments that are made to you?

          • david russell

            You failed to back up any of your related claims.

            All of mine have been documented. Another point I should have made is that it’s the CO2 levels over the oceans that matter, not those over land.

            The overriding inevitable conclusion is that the increase in OCH lends no support to AGW theory. Up to 98% of OHC increases are occurring over 42% of the oceans. A further and more refined analyses (e.g. be specific ocean), might lead to a further basis to doubt the OHC vs CO2 levels theory. And yet another refined could also shed further doubt — analysis of just the top 700m rather than the full 2000m of the ARGO data. Heat rises. It’s doubtful that either sun or atmospheric CO2 has any bearing on OHC below 700m over such a short period.

          • Robert

            I’m on my phone right now. I can back each one of my claims David.

            You posted this:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3912959474

            You contradicted yourself.

          • david russell

            1. I thought you said only an annual chart was relevant. So you don’t accept this chart.
            2. It’s the oceans that matter, not the land. We’re discussion OHC.
            3. I looked up the trends globally in acreage burned annually. It’s down 24% 1998-2015. It also tends to be one-off (you burn down trees to plant crops or build communities only once on given acreage). So if the CO2 levels over southern Africa are a result of [human caused] fires, that factor is going away. It is still true that only 10% of humanity lives in the Southern Hemisphere, and that the per capita CO2 emissions are much less in the Southern Hemisphere (less development).

          • Robert

            1. That is not what I said.
            2. We are discussing your claims about CO2 concentration. You are attempting to change the topic.
            3. This is irrelevant to the discussion.

          • david russell

            1. You said this (which I take to be what I characterized correctly): “The link you provided in no way refutes my claim that atmospheric CO2 is smooth when averaged over a year in comparison to over a month.”

            2. Correction: We are talking about CO2 concentrations over the oceans and the correlation of that with changes in OHC

            3. I never denied that CO2 is mixed by atmospheric turbulence…. only that said mixing was less that total. There seems to be a 20ppm spread based on geography.

          • Robert

            1. This is what I said, and it is true. It is in reference to your issue about CO2 being “perfectly” (your word) well-mixed.

            2. Wrong. I responded to your comment about atmospheric CO2.

            3. No one claims that CO2 is perfectly mixed. If you thought that then you misunderstood.

          • david russell

            1. You have not backed up this claim. I also note that you do not deny that you said this or that my characterization of this was wrong.

            2. The fact remains that my charts show no unusual (extra) CO2 over Southern Hemisphere oceans that would explain why up to 98% of the increase in OHC is happening south of the Equator.

            3. Well then, why are your panties in a wad over this matter? For me it wasn’t even icing on the cake of my position…. more like the cherry on top of the icing.

            OHC increased seem uncorrelated to ocean CO2 levels.

          • Robert

            Sorry to respond again here, but my comment went into moderation because I was correcting typos. Here it is again.

            1. You really are obstinate about accepting facts that oppose your statements. Here, I am now at my computer and will back up my statements.

            – You wrote, “Why would you doubt that CO2 concentrations are greater in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern.”

            Evidence: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3912927204

            – You then posted a plot of CO2 for the month of ~October (more precisely Oct 1 – Nov 11 2014).

            Evidence: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3912959474

            – You then wrote, “Furthermore the “hottest” locals are in the Southern hemisphere JUST AS I SAID.” This is apparently in contradiction to what you previously wrote, which I quoted above.

            Evidence: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3914537342

            – I wrote in response to you, “The CO2 map that you provided was for ~October.”

            Evidence: Provided above.

            – I wrote, “If you look at a winter month then the concentration tends to be higher in the NH.”

            Evidence: http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/v3-01-01-2015-02-15-2015.png

            – I wrote, ” Averaged over the year the CO2 distribution is rather smooth.”

            Evidence: http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/annualchopped.png

            So there you have it. Support for all of my statements.

            2. So what? The distribution of OHC depends on many factors including ocean currents which can bring warm waters from one area and transport them to another.

            3. You are the one that apparently does not understand what “CO2 is well-mixed” means. I am simply trying to educate you on the matter.

          • david russell

            Thank you for the above, but it’s too far into the weeds.

            Your annual smoothed chart STILL shows more CO2 north of the equator, and ESPECIALLY over the oceans. This supports my point that CO2 doesn’t drive OHC, which was always the ‘cherry on top of the cake’ part of my argument, anyway. I’m still troubled by the fact that 90% of humanity lives north of the equator and this ‘per capita’ CO2 emissions chart (which in combination contradict your smoothed annual chart above):
            https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=x8RY6Axy&id=DEF00B1F90AD1EE157FE615087ED31EED222F04B&thid=OIP.x8RY6Axy7XUo_hJkW3aGKAHaFo&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2funstats.un.org%2funsd%2fenvironment%2fimages%2fCO2_emissions_percapita.png&exph=456&expw=600&q=per+capita+co2+emissions+by+region+global&simid=608001203463980272&selectedIndex=29&ajaxhist=0

            But it’s just a minor piece of the puzzle, I’m letting it pass.

            My main point is that the North has only 42% of the world’s oceans by ARGO reports as much as 98% of the recent increase in OHC is happening in the south (with 58% of the ocean surface area as in the north).

            Your point #2 is moot. There’s still (as per your own smoothed chart), more CO2 north than south, and worse: more over the northern oceans than the southern.

            Your point 3 is not even an argument. The point I made is merely true, namely that on a smoothed basis there is more CO2 north than south and especially more north oceans than south oceans. This suggests that OHC build up is inversely correlated to CO2 ppms.

          • Robert

            Do you understand what “well-mixed” means in the context of atmospheric gases?

            Emissions per capita is not equivalent to the CO2 concentration distribution in the atmosphere. Do you understand?

          • david russell

            “Well mixed gas” means “not what CO2 is in our atmosphere.”
            https://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/

            Emissions per capita x number of people in a region = emissions [concentration] in that region.

            If E = [say] 100 units in the north, and 99 units in the south, and if population = 90 in the north and 10 in the south.

            Then 100 * 90 is the concentration in the north and 99 x 10 in the concentration in the south, relatively speaking.

          • Robert

            Sorry, but you are wrong. CO2 is a well-mixed gas, water vapor is not. This is not controversial science. Why are you unable to understand and use terminology that is used in the field?

            The concentration of CO2 in the NH and SH are within a 391-402 ppm range, that’s a 2.8% range.

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142

            Compare that to water vapor and you will understand the difference between well-mixed and not well-mixed.

          • david russell

            Water vapor isn’t claimed to be well-mixed. CO2 it is claimed to be, but isn’t — as all our charts have shown (plus my recent link).

          • Robert

            CO2 is well-mixed. What the charts show is the very definition of a well-mixed trace gas. You clearly don’t understand the terminology. A trace atmospheric gas that is within a 3% range throughout the lower atmosphere is well-mixed. Your inability to accept the terminology notwithstanding.

          • david russell

            The charts show exactly the opposite. The concentrations vary globally by 20ppm or so and over the year even move around from hemisphere to hemisphere. Even when you ‘smooth out’ the year, there’s still a [slightly] higher concentration in the north.

            “Well mixed” isn’t a scientific concept. At best it’s a heuristic.

            And it doesn’t matter. Call it whatever you want. The facts confirm my thesis, not yours.

          • Robert

            Opposite? I don’t think you know what that means. 20ppm out of 400ppm is 5%.

            That’s well-mixed for a trace gas. This is standard terminology.

            https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

            “CO2 concentrations aren’t the same everywhere. In general, CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, mainly because it’s so long lived.”

          • david russell

            Thanks for pointing out how goofy the so-called experts are. “It’s well mixed because it’s long-lived.” (!!!???) What tripe.

          • Robert

            Perhaps if you had some expertise in the field then you would be able to understand the context in which these statements are made.

            Do you always attempt to misinterpret the statements that others make?

          • david russell

            There is no context which lends credence to: “It’s well-mixed because it’s long lived.”

            I’m not misinterpreting the above. It’s what they actually said….. without any more [context].

          • Robert

            The reason that a gas in the atmosphere becomes well mixed is if atmospheric currents have enough time to mix the species in question. Long-lived trace gases become well-mixed due to this mechanism.

            Again, do you always attempt to misinterpret the statements that others make?

            You’ve just done it again here.

          • david russell

            First, this whole discussion is moot. My basic point about 98% of OHC showing up where only 58% of the ocean surface is, is the killer point.

            Second, your above ‘elaboration’ is merely your guess as to what these guys mean.

            Third, your elaboration is still nonsense: It’s the same reasoning as: “IF we had some chicken, we could make chicken and rice, if we had some rice”

          • Robert

            Your point about the ARGO data has been addressed by statements made by the scientists that run the ARGO project.

            The experts on the project understand it better than you do.

            MY elaboration is not a guess. It’s obvious that is what is meant. Are you now trying to claim this mechanism is not obvious after it has been pointed out to you?

            Seriously, why don’t you give the benefit of the doubt and assume that the experts actually know a thing or two about what they are studying? If you actually tried to understand what they are saying then you might actually learn something.

          • david russell

            You are correct. The ARGO spin-doctors have instructed us to “Pay no attention to the man behind the screen (i.e., the data).” Now once someone with half a brain sees through that first non-explanation explanation, next they’ll be telling us that all the buoys were broken. Bwhahahha.

            The data speak for themselves. The Robert E Stevenson (2000) paper makes a confirming statement pertaining to OHC over the entire 20th century (first comes the OHC, then comes the increase in CO2 levels).

          • Robert

            I am correct about the science. You are not.

          • david russell

            You haven’t been correct about the science any time today with me. Now you’re just lying.

          • Robert

            What is your definition of “lying”?

            I believe that everything that I have stated today is true and correct.

            I showed that your statements have been self-contradictory.

            I have provided you with the obvious and scientifically correct statement that long-lived gases become well-mixed due to the action of atmospheric currents.

            I made the scientifically accurate statement that fluctuations over a year are smoother than fluctuations over a month.

            Who is lying?

          • david russell

            Lying is telling a falsehood with the attempt to deceive.

            Here’s what you ACTUALLY wrote: ” Averaged over the year the CO2 distribution is rather smooth.” That’s not quite the same as [just] “smoother.” Furthermore, the “rather smooth” disguised that the north ON A SMOOTHED basis STILL shows more CO2.

            I’ve dispostively proven that CO2 can’t explain the build up in OHC. Your constant denying of my comprehensive proof, either constitutes lying, ineptitude, or intellectual dishonesty on your part. You pick. Multiple selections allowed.

          • Robert

            OK, then I have not lied. I have not made any false statements here, and even if I unknowingly have I certainly had no intention of doing so.

            Hence, I have not lied.

            Are you purposefully trying to misunderstand my statements again?

            You certainly have not proven that the buildup of OHC cannot be explained by CO2. For that you would need expertise that you clearly don’t have.

          • david russell

            Class dismissed.

          • Robert

            What are you talking about?

          • david russell

            We’re done.

          • socalpa

            The freak will be back ..
            .
            He has been socalpa ,,david russel, Robert ,halush/evenminded on these comments .
            .
            Forgot which ID he was posting from , .
            .
            Really off the rails , but fun to watch !

          • Robert

            Is this how you always act when you lose an argument?

          • socalpa

            This is the proper way to treat impostor/stalkers .. ignore them .
            .
            Impostors/stalkers automatically lose the argument , In this case you had already lost to david russell anyway.. . .
            .
            Why are you such a moron ,impostor stalker halush/evenminded/Robert ?

          • Robert

            Is that how it works?

            It seems that you are stalking me. However, I don’t ignore those that are as ignorant as you are. I refute your arguments and pin you to the floor.

            The simple physics of gravitational energy was too difficult for you to handle, and now all that’s left for you is to stalk me.

            Perhaps if you understood physics then the situation would be different.

          • socalpa

            “stalking” you ? Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            No ,moron ,I am exposing you as an impostor/stalker and a dimwitted cretin !
            .
            Why are you such an ignorant sap that you sink to impersonation and stalking ?
            .
            Why so desperate for david russells attention ?
            .
            Readers would like to know !

          • Robert

            Sounds like stalking to me given that you are injecting yourself into conversations you were not a part of and not making any intelligent contributions. But then you never make any intelligent contributions.
            Why are you so obsessed with me anyway?

            Is it because I exposed your ignorance?

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            /
            YOU injected yourself into conversations using multiple IDs to stalk other posters ,and me . .
            .
            Pointing that out to other posters is a courtesy .
            .
            Too bad if you don’t like being exposed as an impostor …
            .
            Now ,FO , Robert/halush/evenminded etc.. grow up , and get lost .

          • Robert

            I see that I am living in your head rent free.

            Have you figured out the change in gravitational energy of a mass that rises from the surface and then descends back down to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Changed Id from evenminded again ?
            .
            What happened ? david Russell block you again poor baby ? Can’t take the rejection ?
            .
            Seek help …sicko ! Now get lost ,and take evenminded/halush/Robert and CML with you !

          • evenminded

            Oh, do you prefer “evenminded”. OK, here you go.

            Wasn’t it you that claimed, “No clearer admission of a lost argument than blocking”? So that would mean that you believe that david russell lost the argument with evenminded. Have you told David yet?

          • david russell

            Yes. Once I win, I move on

          • Robert

            Given that you lost the argument, that must be why you continue to respond.

          • david russell

            Snappy comeback (not)

          • Robert

            QED

          • david russell

            That constitutes lie. It’s false and you’re attempting to deceive.

          • Robert

            You’re rather pathetic.

          • david russell

            No. Just….. right.

          • Robert

            You can’t even come up with a definition of a well-mixed gas.

            That’s pretty pathetic. I think I’ll stick with the experts and let you wallow in your ignorance.

          • david russell

            That’s another lie. Moreover, that’s not material to anything in dispute between us.

          • Robert

            It’s not a lie at all. You have yet to come up with one, and I fully believe that you cannot.

            It is material to the dispute between us because it is a question that was posed to you and you avoided because you have no scientific training or background that would allow you to come up with a rational definition.

            It’s your lack of scientific ability and unawareness of that deficiency that makes you think that you could prove that CO2 has no affect on ocean temperatures when the scientific experts say otherwise. You need to understand what the scientific explanation is first before you can “prove” it is wrong. However, you don’t even understand the terminology or the obvious fact that long-lived gases in the atmosphere will become well-mixed due to the action of atmospheric currents.

            Now that you find yourself unable to address the technical points that have been raised and the questions addressed to you, you resort to calling me a liar and declaring victory. Such antics are rather pathetic and would be expected from a teenager.

          • david russell

            Why do you believe that I can’t come up with a definition? Oh, you don’t have a reason. You can’t state why. If you can’t, then you have no right to believe that….or assert it.

            I’m sure of one thing: That saying a gas is well-mixed because it’s long lived is just silly. Not only are their counter examples to that, but it’s not a rational claim to begin with.

            “You don’t have to be an actor to recognize a bad actor.” Climate science is pseudo-science, and therefore gives real science a black eye. There’s no brag in claiming to ‘understand climate science.’

            Whatever my level of scientific expertise, I kicked your kiester. Your only point was that ‘considered on an annual basis, CO2 distribution global was ‘smoother.’ Smoother, “yes.” Smooth, “no.” And better: ‘smoother, but still with more CO2 levels in the northern hemisphere than the south.’

            What we were discussing was my claim that OHC does not seem to be an artifact of CO2 (AGW). My case rested on many things, the LEAST of which was the distribution of CO2 not being well-mixed.

            You are a hapless schmo if you think showing that CO2 is well-mixed helps your case one iota.

            The critical statistic is that only 58% of the ocean surface globally is in the Southern Hemisphere but up to 98% of the increase in OHC in recent years (according to ARGO) is attributable to the southern waters. The ONLY way you could score a telling counter to this would be to show that this discrepancy were due to differences in the CO2 concentration over the northern vs the southern oceans — that ‘smoother over a yearly basis there were substantially higher GHGs over southern oceans.’ Instead your claim about CO2 being well-mixed drove the last nail into the coffin of your position.

            I got a chuckle out of the so-called experts at ARGO trashing their own data. Some scientists.

          • Robert

            I’ve explained the reason why I believe that you can’t come up with a rational definition. Here it is again, “you have no scientific training or background that would allow you to come up with a rational definition.”

            “That saying a gas is well-mixed because it’s long lived is just silly.”

            Again, you seem to be unable to understand what this statement means. That CO2 is well-mixed is a measured fact. This categorization is comparative. For example, CO2 versus water vapor. CO2 has a concentration that varies at high enough altitude by about 5% around ~400ppm. Water vapor, on the other hand, varies by nearly ~100%, i.e. it can be nearly zero in some locations. The REASON that CO2 is well-mixed in this sense and water vapor is not is due to the ability of atmospheric currents to homogenize the atmosphere over representative time scales. For example, if atmospheric currents were orders of magnitude more vigorous than they are now, then it is possible that water vapor would be well-mixed as well. However, instead of attempting to understand what these statements mean, and in what context they are made, you simply think that they are wrong, probably because you read it on some denialist website somewhere. Such behavior is not productive.

            “Whatever my level of scientific expertise, I kicked your kiester.”

            More childish nonsense. You got stumped by a simple and direct question. This is a pretty pathetic argument tactic.

            “What we were discussing was my claim that OHC does not seem to be an artifact of CO2 (AGW).”

            Again, this is untrue. My original comment made to you was on your claims of CO2 mixing. You are attempting to change the conversation to this, which is fine, but given your inability to understand the simple science behind “CO2 being well-mixed”, it is highly unlikely that you understand the science behind OHC. In fact, I provided a quote from the scientific experts on the topic that supported this opinion.

            “You are a hapless schmo if you think showing that CO2 is well-mixed helps your case one iota.”

            More childish name-calling? Why don’t you grow up and attempt to partake in an adult level discussion?

            “The critical statistic is that only 58% of the ocean surface globally is in the Southern Hemisphere but up to 98% of the increase in OHC in recent years (according to ARGO) is attributable to the southern waters.”

            Critical according to who? Certainly not the expert scientists that run the project. I provided a direct quote from them that renders this claim moot.

            “The ONLY way you could score a telling counter to this would be to show that this discrepancy were due to differences in the CO2
            concentration over the northern vs the southern oceans”

            Actually, the appropriate way to counter this is to point out that it is a red herring. Climate science does not claim that all points on the surface of the globe have temperatures that react directly in concert with the CO2 levels above. Such a position is grossly incorrect and is perhaps something that only a novice would come up with.

          • david russell

            I’m not even reading this above. You lost…totally. Why you’re perseverating about what well-mixed means I can only imagine. Maybe it brain damage from the beating I’ve given you.

          • Robert

            “I’m not even reading this above. You lost…totally.”

            Let me know when you grow up and are ready to have an adult discussion.

          • david russell

            I’ve disposed of you. The fact that you won’t go away says more about you than about me. You’re not man enough to admit defeat. You’re not intellect enough to follow logic. And you don’t have sense enough to focus on the material rather than the irrelevant.

          • Robert

            Again, let me know when you grow up and are ready to have an adult discussion.

          • david russell

            You aren’t capable of an adult discussion. I doubt you ever will be. Of course anything is possible. Pigs may yet fly.

          • Robert

            Given that you are the one that has resorted to calling me a liar and putting your head in the sand and not even reading my responses, it’s quite obvious that it is you that is incapable of an adult discussion.

          • david russell

            You ARE a liar. The one sand on their face is you. I don’t need to read the review once I’ve seen the movie (The good guy [me] won).

            There’s is nothing to discuss unless you want to admit I trounced you.

          • Robert

            I have not lied in my discussions with you and you are unable to point to any comment that I have made that was false with the intent to deceive given that I believe that all of my statements made to you are true.

            Given that your points have been refuted one by one and you are unable to respond, there is nothing to discuss other than your childish antics.

          • david russell

            You above is chock full of lies. So that disposes of your first point. Remind me again, how did you dispose of “58% of the oceans showing up to 98% of the increase in ocean heat content.”? (assume CO2 is well-mixed, bwahahaha).

          • Robert

            Your claims of “lies” is pathetic. Grow up and learn to make a cogent argument.

            Perhaps if you read my comments instead of sticking your head in the sand then you wouldn’t have to be reminded of how your arguments have been dismantled. Here it is again.

            “The ONLY way you could score a telling counter to this would be to show that this discrepancy were due to differences in the CO2 concentration over the northern vs the southern oceans”

            Actually, the appropriate way to counter this is to point out that it is a red herring. Climate science does not claim that all points on the surface of the globe have temperatures that react directly in concert with the CO2 levels above. Such a position is grossly incorrect and is perhaps something that only a novice would come up with.

          • david russell

            I have read your comments. What you actually said was a that ARGO’s Web page trashes it’s 14 years of data as “not long enough to form a meaningful conclusion’. This is almost as funny as ‘CO2 is well mixed because it is long lived.’ And you are chiding me about having an adult conversation while you post this nonsense.

            And your latest is just as hilarious. 98% covers half the globe for God’s sake. Where do you dredge up these comedic arguments? And clearly you just made it up (another lie?).

          • Robert

            You stated previously, “I’m not even reading this above.”

            The statement that I copied above is from the comment that you claimed you did not read.

          • david russell

            Since the discussion is over any comments you submit are moot. No matter. I was right not to read it because it was silly. As for you latest matrial above, it’s not as funny as some of your material. It’s merely vacuous. What does it even mean that they assert they’ve undersampled early on, but later correctly this? Since they also say recent increases in OHC are as high as 98% concentrated in the southern oceans stills, your above quotes are meaningless.

          • Robert

            “Since the discussion is over any comments you submit are moot.”

            I have to wonder how you would respond if someone made such an absurdly illogical comment to you? No matter. You’re the one that made it. It’s both ridiculous and comical. I wonder if you actually believe it.

            Perhaps you should actually take the time to read the papers on this issue. When you come to something that you don’t understand you might have to actually back up and go learn some more basic and fundamental concepts. My quote above is from the experts in the field that run the ARGO project and publish peer-reviewed scientific articles on their work. That quote is from one of those papers.

            Do you even know what climate scientist predict for changes in OHC? If not, then how do you know whether or not the ARGO data is in agreement? The experts state, as quoted in my prior comment, that the ARGO data brings measurements of OHC into better agreement with climate models.

          • david russell

            When the game is over, it’s over. If I’d lost as badly as you, I’d change my name and cease posting until I had better arguments.

            Actually you have no clue whom you’re quoting above. The quotes are unattributed to specific persons.

            The basic concepts here are that CO2 IR cannot warm the oceans, the 20th century spikes in OHC preceded the CO2 increases (Strvenson, 2000), and ARGO data are inconsistent with rises in OHC being caused by CO2.

            THEREFORE, it doesn’t matter what climate science, or climate scietists, or GCMs say. They are all wrong. QED.
            .

          • Robert

            I’m not playing a game. I’m discussing science, which is something that you are no longer able to do given that each of your claims has been refuted.

            “Actually you have no clue whom you’re quoting above.”

            I know exactly what paper I quoted from and who the authors are. Would you like a full citation?

            “The basic concepts here are that CO2 IR cannot warm the oceans”

            This is wrong, plain and simple. I imagine this is another instance of you not understanding the terminology that is used in the field and you probably want to play semantics games with what “warm” means. You might want to actually try to understand the science before you make such foolish statements about it.

            “the 20th century spikes in OHC preceded the CO2 increases”

            Who knows what you are misunderstanding here? Please provide your citation and I will explain. CO2 fluctuations are linked to the uptake of CO2 by the oceans and the seasonal fluctuations of anthropogenic sources. Warmer oceans do not absorb as much CO2 as cooler oceans and this signal can be seen in the CO2 record. That well-understood detail does not change the fact that the oceans are presently a net sink of CO2, and that CO2 increases preceded the recent warming.

            “ARGO data are inconsistent with rises in OHC being caused by CO2”

            According to the experts in the field ARGO data is consistent with rises in OHC being caused by CO2. I’ve already quoted the ARGO scientists on this point. They state that their data is in agreement with climate models.

          • david russell

            Correction: You are playing a game, and it’s not science.

            Furthermore you are lying. The only one of my claims that’s been refuted (sort of) is that there’s more atmospheric CO2 over the northern oceans, than over the southern. That claim is nonetheless true, albeit not as much as I suggested.

            Once again you mis-fire. Your quote remains without attribution to anyone specifically.

            I’ve already gone over why CO2 IR cannot warm the oceans and it amounts to the Oceans are opaque to CO2 IR.

            I do not recall any controversy about “what warm means.” I do know that cold objects (like the air) cannot heat warm objects (like the oceans). Literally the oceans heat the air rather than vice versa because they are 1-2C warmer than the air.

            I’ve provided the citation for 20th century OCH increase coming first and thus not being caused by atmospheric warming —- 3 times now (Robert E Stevenson, 2000).

            Correction: you’ve quoted unnamed sources on the ARGO website. They may or may not even be scientists. And for sure what they say is both nonsense and wrong.

            Correction: not “consistent, but rather “more consistent”, which could mean anything, not very much, or nothing.

            The more you post the sillier you look. I am the master here. You are not even a willing student. Come back when you know more and are more honest. For now, you are dismissed.

          • Robert

            “Correction: You are playing a game, and it’s not science.”

            You really should grow up. These types of comments make you look foolish.

            “Your quote remains without attribution to anyone specifically.”

            I asked if you would like the full citation to the paper. Do you want it, or are you going to continue with your head buried in the sand?

            “I’ve already gone over why CO2 cannot warm the oceans and it amounts to the Oceans are opaque to CO2 IR.”

            Not in any conversation with me. If a material is opaque to electromagnetic radiation, that means that radiation is absorbed by the material. Absorbed radiation acts to increase the energy content of the material. This is rather basic science which again you apparently don’t understand.

            “I do know that cold objects (like the air) cannot heat warm objects (like the oceans)”

            This is the ridiculous semantics argument that I expected you would trot out. Do you also believe that a blanket does not keep you warmer than if you did not have that blanket on a cold night?

            “I’ve provided the citation for 20th century OCH increase coming first
            and thus not being caused by atmospheric warming —- 3 times now
            (Robert E Stevenson, 2000).”

            I have found no peer-reviewed scientific publication by this author in this year. Do you have the name of the journal and the title of the paper?

            “you’ve quoted unnamed sources on the ARGO website”

            I’ve also quoted ARGO scientists directly from their peer-reviewed journal publication. Would you like the full citation?

            “not “consistent, but rather “more consistent”, which could mean anything, not very much, or nothing”

            You should probably read the paper if you want to argue semantics.

            “I am the master here.”

            More childish posturing. You should grow up.

          • david russell

            Since I’ve criticized you now 3 times for your quotes being unattributed, I’ll let you decide whether you want to tell me who wrote them. Frankly I’m just interested in what the data say, and they say that up to 98% of the increase in OHC in recent years is going into the southern oceans that only account for 58% of the ocean surface.

            “not in any conversation with me.” I only said that I’ve made this point hereon. I’m concluding that you didn’t know this fact, then. And if not, then I’m conversing with an amateur, and wasting my time.

            A blanket works by constraining convection. In the atmosphere on earth there is no such blanket. Convection is largely what cools the surface. There is no ‘blanket in the sky.’ The atmosphere is a greenhouse without a roof….. i.e, not a greenhouse at all.

            Tough noogies that you can’t find Stevenson.

            Your quotes are idiotic, no matter who made them.

          • Robert

            “Since I’ve criticized you now 3 times for your quote being unattributed”

            If you are disputing that the quote is being made by the experts, then I am happy to prove you wrong again. Are you disputing that this quote was made by the expert scientists that run the ARGO project?

            “Frankly I’m just interested in what the data say, and they say that up
            to 98% of the increase in OHC in recent years is going into the
            southern oceans than only account for 58% of the ocean surface.”

            Why don’t you read the paper and see what the experts say? Furthermore, why do you think that such an observation is at odds with what climate science states on the matter?

            “I only said that I’ve made this point hereon. I’m concluding that you didn’t know this fact, then.”

            No, I did not know this fact. Primarily because it is not a fact. CO2 certainly does affect the temperature of the oceans. The absorption of longwave radiation from the atmosphere certainly does affect the temperature of the oceans. In fact you stated yourself that without GHGs the temperature of the surface would be 255K.

            “A blanket works by constraining convection.”

            Yes, and GHGs work by constraining radiative heat transfer. Other types of insulation work by constraining conduction. Are analogies between different heat transfer mechanisms confusing to you?

            “In the atmosphere on earth there is no such blanket.”

            You don’t say? Again, is this an intentional attempt on your part to misunderstand the point? Do you honestly not understand the analogies between convection, conduction, and radiative heat transfer? There are entire textbooks written based on such analogies.

            “Tough noogies that you can’t find Stevenson.”

            Given that it’s your unsupported argument it’s tough for you. I will go out on a limb and claim that there is no such peer-reviewed paper in a scientific journal by this author in this year. I have asked you for the citation and you cannot provide it. Contrast this to you, who refuses to ask for my citation, and instead attempt to imply that it doesn’t exist. The thing is that if you go out on a limb and claim I have made up my quote, I will immediately prove you wrong.

          • david russell

            You’ve not proved me wrong once in this discussion, other than to point out that the northern hemisphere concentration of CO2 over the south was less than I thought, but still greater (esp over the oceans).

            I didn’t say who made the claims in your quotes….. only that you never have identified the source. As for me, since they’re idiotic assertions, I’m not interested in who said them. I’m interested in what the data say.

            “Why don’t you read the papers?’ If these papers had said something like “on further analysis we conclude that the southern oceans only account for 58% of the increase (variation?) in OHC, I’m quite sure you would have shared that. You didn’t, so I’m not interested in reading the paper[s?].

            I’ve told you why the data don’t show what the models claim. The models claim OHC tracks CO2 levels (first CO2 changes, then OHC). The ARGO data show otherwise. The Stevenson paper shows otherwise. The correct explanation is that something else is going on and that something is variation in surface insolation, since it’s the sun that heats the oceans (from above).

            The assertion that the colder air heats the warmer oceans is NOT a plausible story, although it is a story. Where’s the data? Where’s the peer-reviewed science that quantifies and measures the amount of CO2 ocean warming? The 126 GCMs can’t even agree on the TOA radiative balance (there’s a good 6W/M2 spread among them). No help there. We have the actual tally of OHC…. but this is only real data since ARGO and even now only down 2000m. But this data is not help because it either begs the question (assumes this is due to something it might or might not be due to) or it’s wrong (because the OHC variations are IN FACT just due to variations in cloud cover …or something else, not GHGs).

            We’ve got Gunnar Myhre’s F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) formula which suggest 2X CO2 = ~1C of warming, which is no big deal, and is consistent with the .85C of warming we’ve had with a 46% increase in CO2 ppms since the 1860s or so. But then that formula is not universally accepted. Reinhart (2017) says 2X CO2 = no more than .24C of warming.

            But whether it’s .24C or 1C or 3C, the amount of warming to date in the atmosphere can’t explain the actual changes in OHC.

          • Robert

            Let’s see if this gets marked as spam again.

            “You’ve not proved me wrong once in this discussion, other than to point out that the northern hemisphere concentration of CO2 over the south was less than I thought”

            You just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Bravo.

            “I didn’t say who made the claims in your quotes….. only that you never have identified the source.”

            I identified the source as the expert scientists that worked and published on the ARGO project. I asked if you would like more specifics. You have not answered but continue to whine about this. If you want to know then ask, if not then drop it.

            “I’m not interested in reading the paper[s?]”

            Yes, it’s clear you’re not interested in learning.

            “I’ve told you why the data don’t show what the models claim.”

            The expert scientists on the topic claim otherwise, as I have quoted.

            “The Stevenson paper shows otherwise.”

            Where does the Stevenson “paper” show otherwise?

            “The assertion that the colder air heats the warmer oceans is a plausible story. Where’s the data? Where’s the peer-reviewed science that quantifies and measures the amount of CO2 ocean warming?”

            I suggest you start with the IPCC reports.

            You said: “We’ve got Gunnar Myhre’s F=5.35 x Ln(C/Co) formula which suggest 2X CO2 = ~1C of warming” and: “I’ve already gone over why CO2 cannot warm the oceans”

            So which is it? CO2 causes warming or not?

            “Reinhart (2017) says”

            Please provide the journal title and citation information for this paper.

            “the amount of warming to date in the atmosphere can’t explain the actual changes in OHC”

            That’s a mangled statement. AGW explains the changes in OHC and the warming in the atmosphere.

          • david russell

            I’m having trouble posting this. This is a 2nd try:

            You’re an idiot. I have not contradicted my self.

            You first identified the quotes as from the ARGO website.

            I’m not whining about your [now 5th] failure to identify your sources. I’m making fun of you.

            Why don’t you read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica? Oh, no interest in learning? Stop playing the fool. I’m not reading a paper you’ve given me no reason to read, and indeed good reason not to read (goofy quotes).

            Good God, you are suggesting I read the Encyclopedia Britannica. Worse: that I read the 10,000 pages of IPCC nonsense. Your looniness knows no bounds.

            F.K Reinhart (2017) is all you need. Go fish.

            Gunnar Myhre is describing radiant forcing from CO2 which occurs TOA. This implies nothing about the oceans. It’s not even clear it implies anything specifically about the atmosphere where we live (the surface, kilometers below).. Also, there are countervailing mechanisms like convection, evaporation, etc.. that kick in. It’s all one big chaotic unpredictable mess.

            Your last comment indicates you haven’t been following along. It’s 100% in error.

            I’m still waiting for peer-reviewed papers showing the correlation between CO2 levels and OHC levels, or that quantify (and measure) the amount of atmospheric CO2 warming there is to the surface (How many W/M2 does the 15 micron band produce, from how far away, and what temperature is said radiation reflecting?). I know. I’m going to have a long wait, because no such papers exist.

          • Robert

            “I have not contradicted my self.”

            You did, and in the same sentence. “You’ve not proved me wrong once in this discussion, other than…” That’s a clear contradiction.

            “You first identified the quotes as from the ARGO website.”

            I made multiple quotes. One from the ARGO website, and one from a journal paper. Would you like the citation?

            “I’m not whining about your [now 5th] failure to identify your sources.”

            It sure looks like you’re still whining. Do you want the citation or not?

            “I’m not reading a paper you’ve given me no reason to read”

            The reason to read the paper is because it contains the ARGO data you are crowing about and is written by the expert scientists that ran the ARGO project.

            “Good God, you are suggesting I read the Encyclopedia Britannica.”

            No, just the papers that address the issue at hand.

            “F.K Reinhart (2017) is all you need. Go fish.”

            There is no peer-reviewed scientific journal paper by that author in 2017.

            “Gunnar Myhre is describing radiant forcing from CO2 which occurs TOA. This implies nothing about the oceans.”

            So what part of the Earth are you claiming that the CO2 will cause to increase in temperature by 1C?

            “Your last comment indicates you haven’t been following along.”

            Oh, I’m following along. It’s very apparent that you don’t understand climate science.

            “I’m still waiting for peer-reviewed papers showing the correlation between CO2 levels and OHC levels”

            Still? When did this come up? Why do you want the correlation between CO2 and OHC. Here’s CO2:
            http://woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12
            and here is OHC:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content#/media/File:Ocean_Heat_Content_(2012).png
            It’s pretty clear there is a strong correlation.

          • david russell

            You are truly an idiot. You don’t know what a contradiction is.

            “I’ve never been outside my hometown except that one time our school went on a field trip to the countryside.” That is not a contradiction, and is exactly parallel to what I said.

            Can you find Reinhart’s paper or not? It sounds like you really can’t use search engines very well.

            As for Gunnar Myhre, I’m not really advocating the 2x CO2 = 1C of warming…. for the very reason that the forcing is TOA, whereas we live 10-18 km below that. Also I find Reinhart’s paper more compelling than Myhre 1998. Reinhart includes 200,000 spectral lines in his analysis, many more than Myhre. He also considers something that Myhre missed, namely the probabilities that a given CO2 molecule will be in ground state or not needs to be factored in to how much IR CO2 can absorb. There’s a lot of negative spin to Reinhart because he makes some simplifying assumptions (which he identifies and furthermore explains would if not made would result in even lower than a .24C maximum response to 2x CO2). And unlike Myhre, Reinhart asserts NOT that the response would actually be .24C for a 2x CO2 increase, but rather that .24C is THE MOST the temperature response could be (it could be much less). If you do locate the paper, its the last paragraph on page 4 that’s key.

            FWIW Myhre has updated his formula somewhat, but not in a material way for the present levels of CO2.

            Woodfortrees is not a scientific peer-reviewed paper. It’s just a graphing site.

          • Robert

            “You don’t know what a contradiction is.”

            I do. This contains one, “You’ve not proved me wrong once in this discussion, other than…”

            So we agree that I proved you wrong.

            “Can you find Reinhart’s paper or not?”

            Is it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal? I have wide access. Can you provide the name of the journal perhaps?

            “Also I find Reinhart’s paper more compelling than Myhre 1998.”

            What journal did this paper appear in?

            “There’s a lot of negative spin to Reinhart because he makes some simplifying assumptions”

            I see. Where does this negative spin appear? Is that in a peer-reviewed scientific paper? Perhaps as a rebuttal?

            “If you do locate the paper”

            I’m sure that I can locate the paper if you can provide the citation information. Please do.

            “Woodfortrees is not a scientific peer-reviewed paper. It’s just a graphing site.”

            It does contain the data for the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you dispute this data? If not, then it is acceptable for our purposes. Do you dispute the OHC data? If not then it too is acceptable. The strong correlation between the two datasets is obvious, is it not?

          • david russell

            You’re being disingenuous. You didn’t like the chart I provided. You said it was only 1 month and one really needed an annual chart. I then provided an annual chart which STILL SHOWED my point, namely that CO2 levels over all in the northern oceans are [slightly] greater than those over the southern oceans.

            Woodfortrees is just irrelevant. I’m not disputing the data (although I could). I’m saying your charts don’t show what I asked you to show.

            Google “F. K. Reinhart (2017).” Geez. And again, who said anything about peer-review? This guy is an expert (a physicist specializing in radiation) with 241 published papers under his belt association with the Swiss National Institute of Technology, the 3rd ranked institutions in geo-sciences world-wide.

          • Robert

            “You’re being disingenuous.”

            I’m not sure what you are referring to.

            “You didn’t like the chart I provided. You said it was only 1 month and one really needed an annual chart.”

            It’s not a matter of like or dislike. I never stated that anything is “needed”. I did state that you contradicted yourself in your statements. You stated both, “Why would you doubt that CO2 concentrations are greater in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern.” and “”Furthermore the “hottest” locals are in the Southern hemisphere JUST AS I SAID.” You do have a knack for contradicting yourself.

            “Woodfortrees is just irrelevant. I’m not disputing the data (although I
            could). I’m saying your charts don’t show what I asked you to show.”

            That’s good you are not disputing the data. It certainly does show a strong correlation between CO2 and OHC. If this is not blatantly obvious to you, then perhaps you don’t understand what correlation means.

            “Google “F. K. Reinhart (2017).” Geez.”

            Just provide the citation. Geez.

            “who said anything about peer-review?”

            I did. If it’s not peer-reviewed, and it is already receiving “negative spin” then there is probably a reason. Are you aware of the reason for this “negative spin”?

          • david russell

            There’s only one thing worth responding to above. The reason for the negative spin is as I said. The motive is to quash a conclusion which collapses AGW theory.

            What’s relevant in the paper is that last paragraph on page 4. I read it to mean that for every ‘free path to extinction’ (which is about 10m at the surface, according to Heinz Hug), only 6% of the IR absorbed is [re-] emitted as a photon. The rest is thermalized (passed on to nearby [99.9 non-GHG] molecules as vibration (heat). Thus the who meme of CO2 ‘capturing photons and beaming them back to the surface’ is moot after about 3 iterations (3 10m layers).

          • Robert

            “The reason for the negative spin is as I said. The motive is to quash a conclusion which collapses AGW theory.”

            So what was the technical objection?

          • david russell

            Reinhart’s assumption of thermal equilibrium for the atmosphere. This wasn’t IMO a well thought out objection, since it only matters if you want to calculate an exact 2X CO2 response (which would be lower than .24C). Getting more accurate than merely setting the max is impractical — – .24C for 2X CO2 is just no big deal.

          • Robert

            “Reinhart’s assumption of thermal equilibrium for the atmosphere”

            Thermal equilibrium? Do you mean he assumed local thermodynamic equilibrium, or global thermodynamic equilibrium? The former is perfectly acceptable, the latter is not.

          • david russell

            Read the paper. Like I said, it’s just a simplifying assumption, which if anything overstates the response to CO2.

            Over geologic time CO2 levels seem totally uncorrelated to temperature levels (if anything CO2 rises 600-800 years AFTER temperature rises, which suggests CO2 emissions are merely an outgassing response of the oceans to higher temps).

            Consider this:

            http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

            300mm years ago temps were about where they are today and CO2 levels too, but 360mm years ago temps again about the same as today, but CO2 levels at 4,400 ppm.

          • Robert

            “Read the paper. Like I said, it’s just a simplifying assumption, which if anything overstates the response to CO2.”

            I haven’t found the paper. What journal is it published in? Again, local thermodynamic equilibrium is not a significant assumption because it is very close to being true and is used extensively in climate science. Hence, my guess is that is not the criticism of this work. However, assuming global equilibrium of the atmosphere would be a gross error as the greenhouse effect depends on the upper atmosphere being cooler than the lower atmosphere.

            “Over geologic time CO2 levels seem totally uncorrelated to temperature level”

            This is untrue. In the past CO2 followed temperature increases due to the oceans heating up from solar cycles and then outgassing CO2. Then when the oceans would cool due to solar cycles the oceans would absorb CO2 and CO2 in the atmosphere would fall. This is well-understood climate science. That is not what is happening today as the oceans and biosphere are a net sink for CO2 and have been for the last 100 years.

          • david russell

            I’ve only found that criticism, so other than that, no one has found any putative error (indeed the criticism is merely that since Reinhart assumes something counterfactual, we can totally ignore his analysis, …. rather than making Reinhart’s own point that his assumption overstates the 2X response).

            As for the geological correlation, you’re making my point, namely: the CO2 rise follows the temp rise and is thus likely an ocean outgassing result of warmer temps, following Henry’s Law).

            Nonetheless, we have 2 periods with the same temperature, but one with today’s CO2 (300mm years ago) and the other with also similar to today’s temps, but 4400 ppm CO2 levels. This by the way is inconsistent with your ‘well-understood solar theory,’ because of course if the sun heated up, the surface temperature would NOT be similar to today 360mm years ago.

            Yes, the oceans have been a major sink and that fact vitiates the idea that the TOA energy imbalance (which no one can agree on the value of) is just an artifact of oceans doing what they do, and not atmospheric CO2 levels. Why have oceans been absorbing more heat? Answer: greater insolation at the surface, probably from reduced cloud cover relative to former periods.

          • david russell

            I googled “F. K. Reinhart 2017” and the first item is his paper:

            http://www.entrelemanetjura.ch/BLOG_WP_351/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017.01-20-FKR-sur-CO2.pdf

          • Robert

            I see. So, was this ever published in a scientific journal?

            I see that the “global equilibrium” assumption was used. Hence, this approach cannot determine the effects of doubling CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere.

          • david russell

            You’re such a fraud. It’s calculating the MOST doubling CO2 can produce. Above a certain altitude CO2 actually cools the atmosphere.
            BTW, William Happer, says that close to the surface only once in a billion absorptions of 15 bandwidth IR by CO2 results in a re-emission. Effectively 100% of absorbed 15 micron IR is thermalized.

            This means that such atmospheric 15 micron band width IR as is measured is merely an artifact of whatever the temperature is of the parcel of air being measured. Effectively, it’s the N2, O2, Argon that are radiating. The heat that gets back to the surface is only 400/1,000,000th coming from CO2 molecules.

          • Robert

            “You’re such a fraud. It’s calculating the MOST doubling CO2 can produce.”

            Obviously it is not calculating the most that doubling can produce because without a temperature gradient in the atmosphere doubling does not produce anything.

            This is well-established science that you claimed to agree with. It’s becoming clear that you really don’t understand this at all.

          • david russell

            To your second point…..

            consider the ~110 W/M2 of CO2 (15 micron) IR in down-welling radiation

            https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=4AJpeJe2&id=E16A52B6C8341E241A5A9E470AD848EF26B588B4&thid=OIP.4AJpeJe24hgpJL_da1DhKAHaF0&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2flidar.ssec.wisc.edu%2fpapers%2fdhd_thes%2fimg47.gif&exph=386&expw=491&q=downwelling+infrared&simid=608016918718316547&selectedIndex=1&ajaxhist=0

            We know that the CO2 molecules are essentially at the same temperature of nearby molecules. If only CO2 can be providing this 110W/M2, so is your position that 110W/m2 of downwelling IR is from the 4 out of 10,000 molecules of CO2? Because if so, then the other nearby molecules which are at the same temperature, must be providing 1mm/400 = 2500X as much down-welling (but not 15 micron) energy, which suggests the atmospheric down-welling IR would be 110 x 2500 = 44,000 W/M2. Not likely.

            So you have a dilemma. If only CO2 can radiate 15 micron IR they can’t be at the same temperature as nearby molecules to be able to radiate 110 W/M2…. .but they are.

            —–

          • Robert

            “To your second point…..

            consider the ~110 W/M2 of CO2 (15 micron) IR in down-welling radiation”

            Yes? This comes from CO2, not oxygen, nitrogen, or argon.

            “We know that the CO2 molecules are essentially at the same temperature of nearby molecules.”

            Molecules don’t have temperature. The correct statement is to say that the CO2 molecules are a component of the distribution of energies in the ensemble of air molecules that they are a part of. That ensemble has a temperature.

            “If only CO2 can be providing this 110W/M2”

            What other gas do you think emits at this frequency?

            “so is your position that 110W/m2 of downwelling IR is from the 4 out of 10,000 molecules of CO2”

            In clear skies, of course it is. What other gas do you think emits at this frequency?

            “Because if so, then the other nearby molecules which are at the same temperature, must be providing 1mm/400 = 2500X as much down-welling (butnot 15 micron) energy”

            No, that’s not how the radiation from gases works. Nitrogen, oxygen, and argon generally emit at shorter wavelengths and over narrower bandwidths. At 288K the amount of energy in the Planck distribution at these wavelengths is very small, to the point of being a negligible contribution of the downwelling radiation from the atmosphere. Would you like me to calculate it for you?

            “So you have a dilemma.”

            No, I don’t have a dilemma. The physics is rather clear on these points. It seems that yet again you don’t understand climate science. In this case you don’t understand how gases radiate.

          • david russell

            “Molecules don’t have temperature?” That’s so cute. So is temperature an emergent phenomenon? How many molecules does it take for temperature to appear?

            Anyway, cute as your point is, the heat from CO2 IR capture is thermalized (essentially 100% in say 3 ‘free-paths-to extinction — 30-35m) and the air doesn’t consist of “hot” CO2 molecules and “cold” non-GHG molecules — this despite that any given molecule can have a distribution of energies at different times. The down-welling radiation from the air to the ground then is coming from “the air”, not just from the GHGs in the air. Where the air is thin (at altitude) CO2 does emit photons it absorbs, but these can’t affect the surface (i.e., can’t run the gauntlet of the CO2 richer air below), and the half that “go up” basically cool the surface by speeding IR radiation to space.

            So I ask [again], “How can 1/2500 of the troposphere produce … what?. 25% of the DWR (110WM2), especially when all the CO2 characteristic 15 micron IR that is this 110W/M2 is thermalized all the way up the tropospheric column until close to the tropopause?

          • Robert

            “”Molecules don’t have temperature?””

            That’s right. When molecules are part of an ensemble, it’s the ensemble that has temperature. Temperature has no meaning at the molecular level, only at the aggregate level.

            “How many molecules does it take for temperature to appear?”

            The more the better. I suggest that you look up “thermodynamic limit” if you want to learn more about this.

            “The down-welling radiation from the air to the ground then is coming from “the air”, not just from the GHGs in the air.”

            This is wrong. Only the GHGs emit longwave radiation. The radiation emitted by oxygen, nitrogen, and argon is generally shortwave radiation and the amount emitted by these gases at 288K is very small. You simply don’t understand the physics at play here. It is a measured fact that oxygen, nitrogen, and argon do not emit 15 micron radiation. So, what gases are you claiming such radiation is emitted by?

            “How can 1/2500 of the troposphere produce … what?. 25% of the DWR
            (110WM2), especially when all the CO2 characteristic 15 micron IR that
            is this 110W/M2 is thermalized all the way up the tropospheric column
            until close to the tropopause?”

            I have answered this question. Unfortunately you are unable to understand the answer. You seem to be making an argument from incredulity. Just because you don’t understand how this is possible does not mean that the physics at play here is not well-known and not controversial.

          • david russell

            Nothing above to respond to. You’re satisfied with the explanation that 1/2500 of the atmosphere is providing 25% of the DWR despite all of this radiation being thermalized all the way up the tropospheric column to the tropopause where none of it can get back to the surface.

            The heat energy in the air is evenly distributed (all small parcels are isothermal) and essentially none of them are emitting 15 micron IR. This I’m cool with, because the inevitable conclusion is that AGW from CO2 IR is a scam.

            The 110W/M2 15 micron DWR from the atmosphere to the surface must be coming out of the 8th dimension. Aliens are causing global warming.

          • Robert

            “You’re satisfied with the explanation that 1/2500 of the atmosphere is
            providing 25% of the DWR”

            I am comfortable with the physics and the observational measurements that confirm the physics. You’re in a tough spot given that you don’t understand the physics and the measurements.

            “despite all of this radiation being thermalized
            all the way up the tropospheric column to the tropopause where none of
            it can get back to the surface.”

            This statement is simply untrue. 100% of the radiation i not being “thermalized”. Again, it appears that you do not understand what this terminology means. CO2 molecules emit 15 micron radiation. The amount of radiation that they emit is dependent on the temperature of the gas that they are a part of. If you don’t understand this simple fact then you should do some research.

            “The heat energy in the air is evenly distributed (all small parcels are
            isothermal) and essentially none of them are emitting 15 micron IR.”

            Again, this is untrue. Air certainly is emitting 15 micron radiation. That is a measured fact.

            “This I’m cool with”

            Why would you be “cool with” something that is proven to be false.

            “The 110W/M2 15 micron DWR from the atmosphere to the surface must be coming out of the 8th dimension.”

            No, it’s coming from the CO2 in the atmosphere in clear sky situations.

          • david russell

            Where’d you find this chestnut: “… without a temperature gradient in the atmosphere doubling does not produce anything.”?

            Well, the atmosphere as you increase altitude consists of a large number of layers each in local thermal equilibrium. If your above statement is true, then within each layer there is no GHE. An infinite number of zero-effects = zero-effect. If your statement is true, then there is no GHE in the real world. Thanks for disproving AGW conclusively (based on your premise). One has to go, no?

          • Robert

            “Where’d you find this chestnut: “… without a temperature gradient in the atmosphere doubling does not produce anything.”?”

            It’s part of my base of scientific knowledge. I understand how the greenhouse effect works. If the atmosphere is as warm at the top as at the bottom, then there is no difference in the amount of radiative flux traveling through the atmosphere and there is no greenhouse effect. Again, I do believe that Pierrehumbert discusses this in his book. Would you like the citation?

            “Well, the atmosphere as you increase altitude consists of a large number
            of layers each in local thermal equilibrium (no temperature gradient)”

            This statement is quite wrong. There certainly is a temperature gradient as you increase in altitude. You apparently don’t understand what local thermodynamic equilibrium means. It has to do with equations of state, which are described for equilibrium, being used in cases where equilibrium does not exist, e.g. when there are temperature gradients.

            “If your above statement is true, then within each layer there is no GHE.”

            My above statement is true, and you apparently don’t understand basic science and perhaps calculus as well. The concept of local thermodynamic equilibrium is generally invoked only when there are temperature gradients. If there were not temperature gradients then such an assumption is unnecessary because there is global equilibrium.

            “An infinite number of zero-effects = zero-effect.”

            Perhaps you should take a course on calculus.

            “If your “chestnut” statement is true, then there is no GHE in the real world.”

            My “chestnut” is certainly true, and there certainly is a GHE in the real world as there certainly is a temperature gradient in the atmosphere in the real world. Your lack of understanding of basic calculus notwithstanding.

          • david russell

            Your above is no answer. Moreover it’s just you asserting your expertise.

            You are misconstruing calculus. Local equilibrium doesn’t require the layers of the atmosphere to be “approaching infinite thinness.” And you didn’t even reflect on my thought experiment about tubes filled with differing ratios of N2 and CO2 heated equally from the base. All you said was ‘it’s not well defined enough.’ It doesn’t have to be perfect to show my points, the most telling of which is “If the high CO2 tubes don’t get warmer, then there can be not GHE effect in reality.”

          • Robert

            “Your above is no answer. Moreover it’s just you asserting your expertise.”

            It is an answer. You asked how I know something that is quite fundamental to me. How do you know 1+1=2? It’s something that you have learned and internalized.

            “You are misconstruing calculus.”

            I am not at all. You are attempting to argue that there is no temperature gradient in the atmosphere by misconstruing calculus. There is obviously a temperature gradient in the atmosphere.

            “Local equilibrium doesn’t require the layers of the atmosphere to be “approaching infinite thinness.””

            Again, you don’t understand what local thermodynamic equilibrium is. I also never claimed that local thermodynamic equilibrium requires “the layers of the atmosphere to be “approaching infinite thinness.”” Such a statement is nonsensical in relation to the term. Again, local thermodynamic equilibrium is the assumption that the equilibrium-based properties (e.g. equations of state, radiative properties, etc.) for a material can also be applied to the material in non-equilibrium situations.

            “And you didn’t even reflect on my thought experiment about tubes filled with differing ratios of N2 and CO2 heated equally from the base. All you said was ‘it’s not well defined enough.'”

            I did reflect on it, and I told you it is not well-defined. Are you interested in having an honest conversation or not? If you want me to analyze your thought experiment, then I have to understand the conditions. As you have stated it, I don’t understand the conditions you are envisioning. Generally gases heated from below will undergo convection. How is it heated from below? What is going on on the top? What is going on on the sides? Without understanding these conditions it is impossible to predict what would happen.

          • david russell

            No one argues whether 1+1 = 2. Another red herring.

            I know there’s a temperature gradient. But you said with thermal equilibrium there couldn’t be a GHE. I showed that if THAT statement were true, then there could be no GHE in any of the stacks of local thermal equilibrium layers of air. Therefore THAT statement is not true.

            My thought experiment what to establish a parcel (inside the tube) more or less at local thermal equilibrium and show there should be a GHE. And if not, then there’s no GHE in the atmosphere as it exists in reality.

            You’ve weaseled on my thought experiment claiming it’s not well-defined. It’s “well enough” defined to conduct the experiment in fact. Since you haven’t raised any specific objection to my thought experiment, I can not respond to you “undefined” objection.

            I actually put together a proposal a few years ago (~ 10 years ago), offering $100,000 to conduct similar experiment and sent it off to 30 climate scientists. I got 6 responses, including from Richard Lindzen who said, “Interesting experiment. Watch out for wing-effects.” However no one took me up on my offer, despite my ceding publication and data rights in advance to anyone who would do the job. No one said “your experiment is not well-defined.”

          • Keith Foster

            You offered $100,000 to someone? What a joke. It would take you 20 years at your job as the bathroom attendant to save up $100,000.

          • david russell

            The cherry claims to know how much money I have. He must have a crystal ball.

            Piece of advice: try not to post. It reveals what a dolt you are. But then again, as a dolt, you won’t take good advice. You’re essentially screwed …. by yourself.

          • Keith Foster

            It doesn’t take a crystal ball to know you have no money, it only requires reading any of your posts to know that everything about you is bankrupt. But I’m sure you’re a bit hit at the NAMBLA meetings.

          • david russell

            The cherry digs his hole deeper and deeper. Here he equivocates …. uses bankrupt in two different senses, like in the following:

            1) Nobody’s perfect
            2) Keith Foster is nobody
            therefore…
            3) Keith Foster is perfect.

          • Robert

            “No one argues whether 1+1 = 2. Another red herring.”

            No one that understands that 1+1+2 argues about it. Just like no one that understands climate science argues against the fact that a temperature gradient in the atmosphere is required for a greenhouse effect. This is not a red herring, it’s an analogy. An analogy is a logical device that you apparently continue to have difficulty with.

            “I know there’s a temperature gradient.”

            That’s good. We both agree that the temperature of the atmosphere is no homogeneous, and therefore not in global equilibrium.

            “But you said with thermal equilibrium there couldn’t be a GHE.”

            Yes, without a temperature gradient in the atmosphere there is not a GHE, positive or negative. This is not something that only I say, but it is also stated by all climate scientists that understand the GHE.

            ” I showed that if THAT statement were true, then there could be no GHE
            in any of the stacks of local thermal equilibrium layers of air”

            You showed no such thing. If anything you have shown and continue to show that you don’t understand what local thermodynamic equilibrium means and you don’t understand basic calculus. Again, the fact that a temperature gradient is required for there to be a GHE is not controversial in the least. This is well-known and understood science.

            “My thought experiment was to establish a parcel (inside the tube) more or less at local thermal equilibrium and show there would be a GHE. Andif not, then there’s no GHE in the atmosphere as it exists in reality.”

            You have not described the conditions for your thought experiment. I asked you several questions about the boundary conditions and you have not provided answers. Again, you do not seem to understand what local thermodynamic equilibrium means. Have you tried looking it up yet?

            “You’ve weaseled on my thought experiment claiming it’s not well-defined.”

            I have not weasled. I have asked you question about the boundary conditions. Why don’t you answer those questions if you want to discuss your thought experiment. I am unable to read your mind, and hence the only way that I can understand what you are picturing is to ask questions. If you refuse to answer then no progress can be made.

            “I actually put together a proposal a few years ago (~ 10 years ago),
            offering $100,000 to conduct similar experiment and sent it off to 30
            climate scientists.”

            Are you still willing to pay for such an experiment? If you define the conditions thoroughly then I would be willing to do it.

            “No one said “your experiment is not well-defined.”

            Given that no one took you up on the offer, they did not need to know the specifics that you were envisioning.

          • david russell

            This is just more of the same. I missed your questions about my experiment. But save some time: set up whatever conditions make you happen. The point of the experiment is to: A) have an environment with little/no temperature gradient; b) avoid extraneous heat interfering; c) allow free flow of IR to exit from the system (out the top) by using a material for the top of the tube that is IR transparent.

            Either you will see a higher temperature impact for the tubes with high CO2 ratios which will prove that you can have a GHE without a temperature gradient, OR you will not see a difference, in which case the GHE is total malarkey. You could probably do a quick and dirty test in an extant real greenhouse. GH operators typically inject CO2 to accelerate plant growth, so you have all the tools for the experiment readily available in one place. You might need an airtight partition separating the GH into 2 section, one of which you inject CO2 into and not the other. I’d say your typical high-school science student could conduct such an experiment.

          • Robert

            “This is just more of the same.”

            Yes. You keep making the same physically incorrect claims and I keep explaining the correct physics to you. Everything that I am telling you can be found elsewhere.

            “A) have an environment with little/no temperature gradient”

            OK, that is easy enough. But this will not give rise to any effect from CO2, because a temperature gradient is needed for a GHE.

            “b) avoid extraneous heat interfering”

            OK, so you want the sides to be insulated from any type of heat flux.

            “c) allow free flow of IR to exit from the system (out the top) by using a
            material for the top of the tube that is IR transparent.”

            OK, so you have some IR in one end and the same IR out the other end.

            “Either you will see a higher temperature impact for the tubes with high
            CO2 ratios which will prove that you can have a GHE without a
            temperature gradient”

            You will not see this because you have specified that the energy in is the same as the energy out. The temperature will remain at the initial temperature.

            “OR you will not see a difference, in which case the GHE is total malarkey”

            Your statement is wrong. The existence of the GHE requires a temperature gradient. This is what we have been discussing. In order to see the GHE you would have to have a temperature gradient in your tube, and you would have to have the heating side of your tube be able to absorb backradiation from the CO2. Under these conditions you would certainly see the effects of CO2.

          • david russell

            Your claim that the high CO2 will have no greater temperature increase is of course the matter at issue. I think you’re wrong. I actually saw a Mythbusters episode which tried a related experiment and the high CO2 container did heat up faster.

            Ultimately with no change in composition or energy input temperatures will equilibrate. But that’s not the issue.

          • Robert

            “Your claim that the high CO2 will have no greater temperature increase is of course the matter at issue.”

            That’s right for the equilibrium situation that you have described.

            ” I think you’re wrong.”

            You also think that oxygen, nitrogen, and argon can emit 15 micron radiation.

            ” actually saw a Mythbusters episode which tried a related experiment and the high CO2 container did heat up faster.”

            The Mythbusters experiment was not an equilibrium situation. Furthermore, I’m not sure that they controlled for the changes in specific heat of the gases they were looking at. In any case, the Mythbusters experiment was not controlled in a manner sufficient for high level scientific conclusions. It was fine as a grade school level science project, but not much more than that.

          • david russell

            What I think is that all of the following CANNOT be true:
            1) Virtually all of the 15 micron IR from the surface is thermalized almost immediately. CO2 emits pretty much zilch 15 micron IR except for CO2 close to the tropopause, where CO2 emissions basically cool the planet

            2) Measured DWR in the 15 micron bandwidth provide 110W/M2 of DWR in the atmosphere — more than 25% of the total DWR.

            3) CO2 is only 1/2500th of the total atmosphere.

            4) N2, O2 and argon (99% of the atmosphere cannot emit 15 micron bandwidth IR.

            I also believe there can be a GHE in situations of local thermal equilibrium

          • Robert

            “What I think is that all of the following CANNOT be true:”

            Again, you are making arguments from incredulity. You don’t understand the science.

            “1) Virtually all of the 15 micron IR from the surface is thermalized almost immediately.”

            First, this statement does not mean what you think it means. Why don’t you calculate how many CO2 molecules are in a mole of air and then calculate how many of those CO2 molecules are emitting 15 micron radiation at STP? Other scientists have made these calculations. Other scientists have also measured the results.

            “CO2 emits pretty much zilch 15 micron IR”

            False. CO2 emits radiation according to the temperature of the gas it is a part of.

            “except for CO2 close to the tropopause”

            In your mind, how does CO2 emit radiation here? Where is it receiving energy from in order to be able to emit radiation?

            “2) Measured DWR in the 15 micron bandwidth provide 110W/M2 of DWR in the atmosphere — more than 25% of the total DWR.”

            Weren’t you the one that provided this information? What are you unable to understand about the measurements?

            “3) CO2 is only 1/2500th of the total atmosphere.”

            Is this something that you think “CANNOT be true”? Are you trying to argue that the amount of CO2 is not approximately 400 ppm?

            “4) N2, O2 and argon (99% of the atmosphere cannot emit 15 micron bandwidth IR.”

            This is an established fact both in theory and by observation. Why don’t you look up the emission spectrum of these gases? There are no lines at 15 microns. You might as well be claiming that water isn’t wet.

            “I also believe there can be a GHE in situations of local thermal equilibrium”

            Yes, there is a GHE in local thermodynamic equilibrium. There is not a GHE in global thermodynamic equilibrium.

          • david russell

            1. About 6% of them at any given time So that’s 6% of 400/10000000ths of the atmosphere.
            All objects in the universe emit IR proportional to their temperature. CO2 emits at STP the same as any other component of the atmosphere. As such it’s an artifact of temperature and has nothing to with CO2’s feature as a GHG. Where do the molecules get this energy — from collisions.

            2. You say nothing here. so you’re confirm that [really 6% of] 1 molecule per 2500 in the air is providing 25+% of the DWR — when in fact that almost all of this is thermalized.

            3. I’m now revising my position from “1 molecule in 2500” to “6% of 1 molecule per 2500, close to 1 molecule per 41,666.”

            4. I’m not challenging this.

            So there is a GHE in local thermal equilibrium. That’s all Reinhart needs. Thanks.

          • Robert

            1. That’s a lot of 15 micron radiation.

            “All objects in the universe emit IR proportional to their temperature.”

            This is incorrect. Objects that are nearly blackbodies emit proportional to temperature raised to the 4th power.

            “CO2 emits at STP the same as any other component of the atmosphere.”

            This is incorrect. At STP CO2 emits a significant amount of radiation while nitrogen, argon, and oxygen do not due to the wavelengths that these gases radiate at. Again, you clearly do not understand how gases radiate.

            “Where do the molecules get this energy — from collisions.”

            Yes, CO2 molecules get energy to radiate from collisions. This occurs both near sea level and in the upper troposphere.

            2. You still don’t understand what “all most all is thermalized” means. You just stated that “6% of 400/10000000ths of the atmosphere” is emitting radiation.

            “close to 1 molecule per 41,666”

            That’s quite a lot of molecules emitting radiation. Have you calculated the number of such molecules in one mole of air yet?

            “4. I’m not challenging this.”

            Is this a new position now? You finally understand that nitrogen, oxygen, and argon do not emit 15 micron radiation? If so, then I’m glad we finally agree.

            “So there is a GHE in local thermal equilibrium.”

            Yes, I’ve never stated otherwise.

            “That’s all Reinhart needs.”

            Wrong. Reinhart’s calculation uses and needs global thermodynamic equilibrium, which of course makes his calculation irrelevant for the Earth’s atmosphere.

          • david russell

            I accept your correction. So what’s the emissivity of air (its closeness to being a BB)?

            So you ARE saying that the nitrogen in the air is very cold (it’s not radiating, right? — absolute zero then?) and the CO2 in the air is very, very hot). But that claim is incompatible with thermalization CO2’s absorbed IR.

            Every mole has the exact same number of molecules. Avogadro’s number as I recall — 10 to the 23rd power times 6.. But it’s the ratio that matters, not the absolute number. If you had 41,665 ice 1 cubic inch red hot rocks and you put a 1 inch cube rock from your freezer, shaking up the whole stew, you’d hardly move the temperature needle.

            I have not changed my position on N2, etc. I’m just wondering where the 110W/M2 of 15 micron IR is coming from.

            You’re wrong about Reinhart. Insisting you in you sole authority know more than he does, just doesn’t cut the mustard.

          • Robert

            “So what’s the emissivity of air”

            This is not a useful question. Air is not anything like a blackbody, or even a gray body with a wavelength independent emissivity. The radiaitve properties of air are dependent on its constituents. How much water vapor, how much CO2, how much methane, etc., etc.? One cannot approximate the amount of radiation emitted by air at a given temperature by knowing a single emissivity value. That’s just not how it works.

            “So you ARE saying that the nitrogen in the air is very cold”

            No, I have never stated this. Correcting your misrepresentations of my statements is getting exhausting. What I am saying is that nitrogen at 288K emits no 15 micron radiation. In fact, the total amount of radiation that nitrogen emits at 288K is quite small due to the fact that it primarily emits at short wavelengths, and the amount of energy in the Planck distribution at 288K at short wavelengths is very small. Do you understand that the amount of energy that a gas emits at a certain temperature can be computed from the Planck distribution?

            “Avogadro’s number as I recall — 10 to the 23rd power times 6.”

            Yes, that’s a lot of molecules.

            “But it’s the ratio that matters, not the absolute number.”

            Wrong. It’s the number that matters. In a solid object that is emitting radiation it is only the molecules near the surface that are emitting the radiation that escapes the object. The ration of these molecules to the total number of molecules in the object is tiny.

            “I have not changed my position on N2, etc.”

            Then why did you state that you were not challenging the fact that N2 does not emit 15 micron radiation? Do you think N2 emits 15 micron radiation or not?

            “I’m just wondering where the 110W/M2 of 15 micron IR is coming from.”

            Under clear skies it is coming from CO2. What other gas do you think it can come from?

            “You’re wrong about Reinhart.”

            No, it’s quite clear that he assumed global equilibrium. I’m not the sole authority. It is well-known and established science that a temperature gradient in the atmosphere is required for there to be a GHE. I have offered multiple times to provide a citation to Pierrehumbert’s book that describes this in more detail but you are apparently not interested in learning new things.

          • david russell

            I will accept the N2 emits very tiny amounts of IR (although this sounds to me like “None”). To me that means the nitrogen in the air is very, very cold (very very little IR). What else could it mean? I’m left with both N2 at ATP is very very cold in the air, or it isn’t. OF course N2 picks up some energy from the sun, but not much.

            I accept that solids have a surface. I would counter that even talking about the air as a black body (or a gray body) is meaningless….. for that very fact (no surface).

            If the CO2 is emitting the 15 micron IR, and if the 15 micron IR is [almost] all thermalized, then the CO2 can’t be emitting the 15 micron IR. Well, maybe a tiny bit close to the surface, but not 110W/m2. But we are told that it is emitting 110W/m2. It just doesn’t make sense.

            Anyway whatever CO2 is emitting today, doubling CO2 ppms can not produce no more that .24C worth of warming.. It might be a lot less.

          • Robert

            “To me that means the nitrogen in the air is very, very cold”

            That’s wrong. Again, if you think that then you don’t understand how gases radiate. Seriously, are you interesting in learning this simple bit of physics or not? Look at the Planck distribution at 288K and look at the spectral intensity at the emission peaks for N2 which are below ~500nm.

            “What else could it mean?”

            It means that you don’t understand how gases radiate.

            ” I would counter that even talking about the air as a black body (or a gray body) is meaningless”

            Talking about air as a gray body IS meaningless, not because of the reason you think, because even solids can be transparent, but because gases do not radiate anything like a gray body. Gases radiate in bands. Hence your continued request for an emissivity of air is nonsense.

            “If the CO2 is emitting the 15 micron IR, and if the 15 micron IR is
            [almost] all thermalized, then the CO2 can’t be emitting the 15 micron
            IR.”

            What don’t you understand about the word “almost” here? You stated yourself that 1 in 41,665 molecules are emitting. That’s a huge number of molecules that does explain the amount of 15 micron IR.

            “It just doesn’t make sense.”

            It would if you took the time to do the calculation and understand the physics.

            “Anyway whatever CO2 is emitting today, doubling CO2 ppms can not produce no more that .24C worth of warming.”

            This is simply wrong as has been explained to you.

          • david russell

            I suppose I could calculate the energy from E=hC/lamda and assume the mole of air was a rectangle sitting on a 1m2 footprint. Then stack say 20m worth of these on top of one another. Then take an estimate of how much attenuation impacts emissions both on the way up and on the way down.

            I take it you know of no paper or text that has done this.

          • Robert

            “I take it you know of no paper or text that has done this.”

            Such back-of-the-envelope calculations don’t generally appear in scientific papers when more precise calculations yield more precise answers.

            Blogsters do discuss such calculations.

            https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/

          • Robert

            “I suppose I could calculate the energy from E=hC/lamda”

            That is a bit of correct physics that you have there.

            “and assume the mole of air was a rectangle sitting on a 1m2 footprint”

            That approach might get you in the ballpark, but you will need to look at the transmissivity of such a volume and there will probably be some self-absorption effects that you might need to worry about.

            “Then take an estimate of how much attenuation impacts emissions both on the way up and on the way down.”

            It looks like you have the right ideas, but you are doing a lot of handwaving now.

            “I take it you know of no paper or text that has done this.”

            This type of handwaving argument would not appear in a paper. Radiative transfer through gases is quite a quantitatively advanced topic. But such arguments do appear on blogs.

          • david russell

            My argument is not an ‘argument from incredulity.’

          • Robert

            It is. You are arguing against things because you are unable to understand them. Other people do understand these things.

          • david russell

            That is your suggestion, but not my meaning.

          • Robert

            “The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.”

            This is exactly what you are doing.

          • david russell

            No. That’s no my argument. That’s your characterization of it.

          • Robert

            Yes, that is my characterization of it. It’s obviously what you are doing. Perhaps it’s not obvious to you.

          • david russell

            So now you are a psychologist.

            I really don’t care about your unsupported opinion.

            What I do care about is to understand how the 4 facts I posted could all be true. You haven’t explained how. So you either don’t know either or are unable/willing to explain.

            I say, that only 1 molecule in 42,000 is emitting 15 micron IR and that can’t explain how 25% of the DWR IR is from this 1 in 42000 molecules. Your answer is “Well that’s a lot of CO2 molecules per mole.”

            I say all small parcels of air are at thermal equilibrium. You say that 99% of the molecules in the air aren’t radiating …. presumably at all.

            I say almost all 15 micron IR absorbed by CO2 is thermalized below near the tropopause. You have no response to this.

            I’m still waiting for the emissivity of air.

          • Robert

            “What I do care about is to understand how the 4 facts I posted could all be true.”

            I’ve provided the explanations.

            “You haven’t explained how.”

            I have. You simply cannot or refuse to attempt to understand.

            “So you either don’t know either or are unable/willing to explain.”

            I do know and I have explained. It’s either your stubbornness or your inability to understand basic physics that is inhibiting progress.

            “I say, that only 1 molecule in 42,000 is emitting 15 micron IR”

            That’s about right.

            “and that can’t explain how 25% of the DWR IR is from this 1 in 42000 molecules’

            It can and it does explain the amount of 15 micron radiation.

            “Your answer is “Well that’s a lot of CO2 molecules per mole.”

            Yes it is, and if you would go ahead and perform the calculation then you might make some progress. Instead your stance is “it can’t explain it because I can’t imagine that it can explain it”. That is the very definition of an argument from incredulity.

            “I say all small parcels of air are at thermal equilibrium.”

            Who knows what you think this means. You still don’t seem to understand the distinction between local and global thermodynamic equilibrium.

            “You say that 99% of the molecules in the air aren’t radiating …. presumably at all.”

            That is the physics, although the “presumably at all” part is yet again another of your misrepresentations.

            “I say almost all 15 micron IR absorbed by CO2 is thermalized below near the tropopause. You have no response to this.”

            I have responded to this. That almost all of the IR is thermalized is well-known and understood physics. Did you think that climate scientists do not know this? This does not change the fact that CO2 is emitting radiation at all levels in the atmosphere in accordance with the temperature at those locations.

            “I’m still waiting for the emissivity of air.”

            Wait all you like. I have provided my response. The first time it is asked it is a valid question. After the rationale has been explained, the second time it is what would be called a stupid question.

          • david russell

            “If you would go ahead and perform the calculation….” What calculation? — the number of photons per mole of 15 micron IR at a given time? Well that’s 41,66 divided by Avogadro’s number. What does that explain? I suppose you could convert that to energy, probably electron volts and then to W/M2. Is that your suggestion?

          • Robert

            Calculate the amount of energy being emitted by the 1 in 42,000 air molecules.

            “the number of photons per mole of 15 micron IR at a given time? Well that’s 41,66 divided by Avogadro’s number.”

            Apparently basic arithmetic is something that you need to brush up on. If 1 in 42000 air molecules is emitting, then the number of photons per mole is Avogadro’s number divided by 42000.

          • david russell

            Yeah, yeah. I got the basic idea. Bit this only takes you so far. How many moles (presumably vertically) and then you have some decreasing number of photons emitting per mole as you rise because fewer make it up.. At 10m up (the free path to extinction according to Hug) you’ve only got 6% of 6% ( and after another say 11m 6% of 6% of 6% and so on). AND you have to run the sane gauntlet for photons on the way down. I don’t even have the energy value of a 15 micron photon emitten at STP.

            I doubt if anyone has done this calculation. Do you know otherwise?

          • Robert

            “Yeah, yeah. I got the basic idea.”

            OK, good.

            “Bit this only takes you so far. How many moles (presumably
            vertically) and then you have some decreasing number of photons
            emitting per mole as you rise because fewer make it up”

            You seem to understand some of the issues.

            “At 10m up (the free path to extinction according to Hug) you’ve only
            got 6% of 6% ( and after another say 11m 6% of 6% of 6% and so on).”

            Yes, ultimately the atmosphere is completely opaque at 15 microns and the more rigorous approach is to utilize Planck’s distribution to compute the spectral intensity.

            ” I don’t even have the energy value of a 15 micron photon emitten at STP”

            The energy of 15 micron photons is independent of temperature and pressure, it is 1.3243 x 10^-20 J, or about 8000 J/mol.

            “This doesn’t factor in the temp gradient with altitude.”

            No it doesn’t, but I thought you were interested in the downwelling radiation at the surface. At 15 microns I believe the spectral intensity was about 110 mW/m^2/cm^-1/sr, correct?

            “I doubt if anyone has done this calculation. Do you know otherwise? It’s not a trivial math question.”

            It is not a trivial question. But you can get decent estimates if you know what you are doing. Here is a discussion of such a calculation.

            https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/molecular-radiation-and-collisional-lifetime/

          • david russell

            Well the gist of this site is that the 15 micron IR amounts to .001 W/M2 at the surface at STP. Then presumably you have to integrate across the entire 14-16 micron range to get the energy for “the 15 micron bandwidth range.” That’s beyond me.

            This .001W/M2 is calculated for at 2mm thick surface 1 square meter. This is used to minimize self-absorption. But the point is [asserted] that the number of photons emitted is really just a matter of temperature (and the relative # of CO2 molecules), which tells me that that layers above the 2mm level have no impact (because if they did, they’d change the temperature). So you don’t have to calculate the cumulative effect of higher layers (i.e., it’s already baked into the bottom layer by virtue of its temperature). Of course this ignores the impact of self-absorption, in the thicker context (more than 2mm thick). Factoring that in is beyond me.

            One of the comments suggests that integration leads to 32W/M2 over the entire range of 15 micron band-width IR, but that is without explanation.

            All this is further complicated by the fact that the exact 15 micron IR escapes to space high in the stratosphere (not the troposphere), which means more CO2 in the air will actually cause surface cooling at the exact 15micron IR line, as the stratosphere gets hotter with altitude (with a rising effective emission altitude).

            That’s all I could glean from this link. The explanations are difficult to follow as many variables are not explained (presumably they’re just assumed to be common knowledge I imagine).

            So if I could integrate this logic across the entire 15 micron bandwidth I’d at least have the answer to the W/M2 CO2 15 range DWR there is…. ACCORDING TO THIS GUY.

            On the other hand, I’ve read in several sources that CO2 IR (including the 2.7, 4.3, and 15 micron ranges total) amounts to 8% of the GHE. This claim is not justified, but merely stated as a known. Presumably about half, or 4%, is due to the 15 micron range…. maybe a bit more (I’m looking at a graph of a BB curve for today’s conditions and vertical bars representing the 3 resonant CO2 bands, and the 15 micron band looks to be about 50% of the total).

            The comment in your link says the integration yields 32 W/M2. Take that and divide by 4% and you get a total implied GHG of 800W/M2, which is wrong. But then so is 32 / 25% (25% is from my chart) = 128W/M2 total GHE, which is also wrong (in the other direction).

            That’s as far as I can take this.

          • Robert

            “Then presumably you have to integrate across the entire 14-16 micron
            range to get the energy for “the 15 micron bandwidth range.” That’s
            beyond me.”

            Would you like me to explain it to you?

            “which tells me that that layers above the 2mm level have no impact”

            This is wrong. The 2mm layer has a transmissivity of 0.992. So obviously the layers above matter. As a whole the atmosphere is entirely opaque at this wavelength.

            “One of the comments suggests that integration leads to 32W/M2 over the
            entire range of 15 micron band-width IR, but that is without
            explanation.”

            This is correct. It comes from the Planck distribution, which is the fundamental physics behind radiative transfer. Would you like me to explain it to you?

          • david russell

            I understand what integration is (finding the area under the curve here). I just can’t do it without substantial review work. And the Planck distribution is just the BB curve. Integrating over all frequencies gives the Stefan-Boltzmann BB formula for energy being related to temperature to the 4th power.

            That doesn’t mean I can do the actual math. The answer should be here:

            http://spectralcalc.com/blackbody/inband_radiance.html

            But I’m not going to brush up on my calculus just to do the math.

            Anyway, your claim that each 2mm thick stack is going to add almost 100% of the previous (lower) stack, but declining to zilch say in 10m is just another barrier to figuring this out. Actually if transmissivity is .992, then the 87th 2mm thick stack up will only by 50% to the ground (.992 to the 87th power). At 500 stacks (1 meter above ground) only 1.8% gets back to the surface.

            That suggests the free path to extinction is much less than 10m, which is just a side observation. But just taking 87 stacks ranging from 32W/M2 getting to the surface at the first and 50% or 15W/M2 at the 87th, you’re way over anything like a reasonable value. Quick and dirty that’s 87 x [(32+16/2)] = 2,088W/M2. Not likely. And that’s just 87 2mm thick stacks totaling 17.4% of a meter from the surface

          • Robert

            “I understand what integration is (finding the area under the curve here). I just can’t do it.”

            I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying that you know that integration is an area under a curve, but you don’t know how to calculate integrals? If that is the case then we can get an approximation from the curve that you posted a while back.

            “And the Planck distribution is jus the BB curve.”

            Yes, that’s right.

            “Integrating over all frequencies gives the Stefan-Boltzmann BB formula for energy being related to temperature to the 4th power.”

            Yes, that is correct too.

            “That doesn’t mean I can do the actual math.”

            I can do the math for you. From 14 to 16 microns, the integral under the Planck curve for a temperature of 288K is 36.6 W/m^2.

            “That doesn’t mean I can do the actual math.”

            OK. I did it for you.

            “Anyway, your claim that each 2mm thick stack is going to add almost 100%
            of the previous (lower) stack, but declining to zilch say in 10m is
            just another barrier to figuring this out. Actually if transmissivity is .992, then the 87th 2mm thick stack up
            will only by 50% to the ground (.992 to the 87th power). At 500 stacks
            (1 meter above ground) only 1.8% gets back to the surface.”

            I have no clue what you are talking about here. All you need to know is that at 15 microns the atmosphere is for all intents and purposes entirely opaque. That means that the wavelength dependent emissivity that you use to multiply the area under Planck’s curve is 1. That’s really all you need to know. The fact that the integral under Planck’s curve and the plot that you posted earlier are in agreement should be pretty convincing evidence that this is correct.

          • david russell

            So net/net 15 micron range CO2 is [currently] providing 36.6W/M2 to the surface. Yes?

          • Robert

            In the 14-16 micron band. I can compute the other bands as well. Do you know the wavelengths?

          • Robert

            From 2.5-3 microns it’s 0.02 W/m^2, and from 4-5 microns it’s 3 W/m^2.

            Are there any other bands? This is all at 288K. I have no idea where you are pulling most of your numbers and percentages from, so a reference to where your statements are based would be helpful.

          • david russell

            It occurs that it should be about half these values because only half the photons are going down, right?

          • Robert

            That factor is already accounted for with the steradian calculation. You multiply by pi (you always see per sr. in the spectral intensity).

          • david russell

            Ok. So CO2 then in the 15 micron range accounts for about 11% of the GHE (of 340W/m2), ignoring feedbacks.

          • evenminded

            I guess that depends on what you mean by “percentage of the GHE”. ~40 W/m^2 out of ~340 is 11% or so.

            Other calculations come up with other things depending on how “percentage of the GHE” is defined.

            https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf

          • david russell

            The IPCC (and Wikipedia) say CO2 is 9-26% of the GHE. I presume the 36W/M2 is the 9%, since there was some ambiguity in what the correct 15 micron value was on the blog. But 11% is close enough to 9% to make sense.

            Would you share the program you used to integrate the 14-15 micron bandwidth or does it require a subscription?

          • evenminded

            I just used Mathematica to do the calculation myself. You can program in the Planck distribution and it has tools for numerical integration.

            This page does it to reasonable accuracy.

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/radfrac.html

          • david russell

            Thanks. Very helpful.

          • david russell

            It gives 9.4% as the percentage total of BB radiation for the 14-16 micron range, which is really spot on for the 9-26% given by the IPCC.

            On the other hand it’s just in that range that looks THE LEAST like a black body in the atmospheric spectrum.

            That leaves me feeling unsure of what to make of it.

            But the mathematica site is very cool.

          • evenminded

            “It gives 9.4% as the percentage total of BB radiation for the 14-16 micron range”

            That’s the percentage of radiation in that band that a blackbody gives off. That’s not the percentage of the atmospheric radiation.

            If you like the Mathematica site, you can also play around with Wolfram Alpha.

            http://www.wolframalpha.com

          • david russell

            I believe your are restating what I just stated, namely that the calculation assumes the atmosphere is a black body and it’s not even a gray body (you can’t fix the calculation by adjusting emissivity) to come up with an accurate CO2 percentage of total forcing.

            I’ve give a peek at the other link you provided (thanks, again). It’s going to take a while to find something useful I feel.

            I suspect nothing available on the Internet (for free) is going to address this specific problem. One probably has to go line by line to get an accurate answer.

          • evenminded

            “I believe your are restating what I just stated, namely that the
            calculation assumes the atmosphere is a black body and it’s not even a
            gray body (you can’t fix the calculation by adjusting emissivity) to
            come up with an accurate CO2 percentage of total forcing.”

            No, that’s not what I was attempting to explain. The link that I provided is not for the atmosphere. It’s only for black or gray bodies. However, since the atmosphere is opaque in the 14-16 micron band, this tool can be used to calculate the amount of radiation the atmosphere emits in this band. Overall, the atmosphere emits about 330 W/m^2 at 288K, but a blackbody emits 390 W/m^2 at this temperature. So, if you want to compute the percentage of the atmospheric radiation then you should be dividing by 330, not 390.

          • david russell

            I see what you’re saying — forget the mathemantica percentage and calculate the percentage by hand using a 340 as the denominator

          • david russell

            Thank you. I’ve learned a lot from our exchange. I appreciate your efforts.

          • evenminded

            You’re welcome.

          • david russell

            Thanks. Seriously. This is helpful.

          • david russell

            I like this project. I think I calculate the amount of surface IR pretty closely. I’ll be back on this.. probably tomorrow as I’m headed out for the evening.

          • david russell

            In Reinhart’s own words:
            [quote]
            The constant temperature assumption is contrary to experience. It tends to overestimate the absorption, because the temperature decreases for all x < 12 km. Reduced temperatures imply decreased ground state probabilities and reduced absorption. Secondly, the half widths of the absorption lines include collision and Doppler broadening. These values are also reduced at high atmospheric levels. This fact again leads to a slight overestimation of the absorption.

            [end]

            I find the above compelling.

          • Robert

            “The constant temperature assumption is contrary to experience.”

            No kidding. In fact it is just plain wrong if you want to calculate the effects of doubling CO2. A constant temperature atmosphere has no greenhouse effect. You can read the work of Pierrehumbert to learn more about this if it was something that you didn’t know.

            If you find this compelling then you clearly don’t understand how the greenhouse effect works. The greenhouse effect requires the upper atmosphere to be cooler than the lower atmosphere. In fact, when there is a temperature inversion, as can occur over Antarctica, there is then a negative greenhouse effect. This is well-known climate science.

          • david russell

            You’re on your own as regards this point (I’ve seen no one else focus on this). It’s irrelevant for his analysis, which requires only local equilibrium. As Reinhart says, were he to use the real temperature profile, his analysis would be much more complex, but also show a lower than .24C temperature response to 2X CO2.

          • Robert

            “You’re on your own as regards this point”

            What point? I’m certainly not on my own with anything that I have written above. Everything that I wrote is known climate science.

            “As Reinhart says, were he to use the real temperature profile, his analysis would be much more complex”

            Yes, it would be more complex. That’s what climate scientist do. Look up MODTRAN if you are interested. Apparently Reinhart is not a climate scientist.

            “but also show a lower than .24C temperature response to 2X CO2.”

            This is simply wrong. You even quoted Myhre’s work, which does account for the differential temperature throughout the atmosphere.

          • david russell

            Reinhart uses 200,000 spectral lines in his analysis (many more than Myhre) but doesn’t specify that he uses Modtran to do so. Why would he? It’s a logical presumption.

            Reinhart is a physicist specializing in radiation. The fact that he’s not a climate [pseudo-]scientist is a plus.

            Myhre doesn’t talk about temperature at all. He talks about radiative forcing (W/M2) which occurs AT THE TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

          • James Owens

            David – the radiative forcing of the greenhouse effect, at the earth’s surface, averages 342 Watts per square meter over a calendar year (recorded by surface stations). The earth loses 240 Watts per square meter in the form of infrared radiation at the top of the atmosphere – as recorded by satellite.

          • david russell

            Radiative forcing is DEFINED as the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. You didn’t get the memo.

            The problem is that no one knows what the correct value of this imbalance is. The spread of the estimates by 126 GCMs is over 6 W/M2.

            The only thing we have to go on is the increase in OHC which appears to be on the order of .5W/m2. I recall on of Trenberth’s Energy budgets had it down as .6W/M2. Robert Stevenson had it at .6W/M2 + or – .4W/M2.

          • James Owens

            There is no “memo” David.
            The models approximate the imbalance as 0.8 Watts per square meter.
            The satellite balance is consistent with that.
            And you have the increase in the ocean heat content just slightly low.
            I presume we agree that an imbalance exists … so, what’s causing the imbalance?
            The scientists say it is the increase in greenhouse gases and associated feedbacks

          • david russell

            I was wrong. The spread among the 126 GCMs for TOA imbalance has a 12 W/M2 spread, not 6 as I said. See figure 5 here:

            https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2015/08/10/no-consensus-earths-top-of-atmosphere-energy-imbalance-in-cmip5-archived-ipcc-ar5-climate-models/

            Like I said, no one has a clue.

            The only thing we know (presumably) is the increase in OHC and that’s the ‘best guess’ of the TOA forcing…. nothing to do with GHGs.

          • James Owens

            David, Figure 2 cell A in the blog is the multi-model TOA mean imbalance and it’s about right.
            There are 21 models according to the blog (not 126)
            The RCP used should be 4.5 (the blog apparently used 6.0, which is somewhat unrealistically high)
            Also, the starting TSI should be 1361 Watts per square meter (long story short, the aperture of the first generation of satellite instruments allowed some internal reflection resulting in an an erroneous higher number).
            And since the TSI is measured and is normally used as an input parameter for the models, the scatter in Figure 3 makes Tisdale’s whole blog exercise suspect.
            Start over with the basic forcings (both positive and negative) – some of which are greenhouse gases, some aerosols, etc.

          • david russell

            I misremembered 126 from another article.

            Anyway, here’s what Wikipedia says:

            [quote]
            The energy imbalance has been variously measured (during a deep solar minimum of 2005–2010) to be +0.58 ± 0.15 W/m²),[21] +0.60 ± 0.17 W/m²[22] and +0.85 W/m2. Estimates from space-based measurements range from +3 to 7 W/m2. SORCE/TIM’s lower TSI value reduces this discrepancy by 1 W/m2.
            [end]

            Then it concludes the energy imbalance is .8w/m2 (!!!???) — with no error bars (!!!).

            I’m sticking with “no one has a clue.” Furthermore, I’m sticking with the imbalance is almost all due to increases in OHC, having nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with variations in surface insolation.

            The whole idea that TOA temperature imbalance has anything to do with GHG’s is rather loony. Changes in GHG levels will cause an imbalance lasting more than a second and less than a few days, and then equilibrate. The oceans has massive heat storage and in change in say long term cloud cover can result in years of TOA imbalance before the oceans equilibrate.

          • James Owens

            David, the oceans and their heat content are “passive” – external forces cause the heat content to increase or decrease. The oceans are where over 90% of any imbalance in the earth’s climate system will go to or come from
            The amount of added heat is massive – over 30 x 10^22 joules in the last 40 years.
            Meanwhile, surface temps are up, lower troposphere temps are up, montaine glaciers are melting, and polar ice caps are melting. So this heating is common to the entire climate system of the earth.
            So the imbalance is clearly there – the heat output of the sun has been measured and has actually declined ever so slightly during those 40 years.
            So it’s something on earth changing the balance – and the scientists are nearly uniform in saying it’s an increased greenhouse effect (and the necessary change in the greenhouse gases have been measured)

          • david russell

            Yes, heat sinks are passive. I know that. The TOA imbalance is passive too. The oceans get all their energy from the sun at the surface, and as TOA insolation is rather steady, it’s variations SURFACE insolation that matter. That in turn is largely due to cloud cover….. nothing to do with NCGGHGs.

            The amount of heat getting into the oceans amounts to about .5W/M2 as I recall…. about the same as the TOA imbalance that you aver. So the likelihood is that the TOA imbalance is all due to the oceans absorbing more solar heat than the emit out-going.

            Since the oceans are warmer than the air, it’s the oceans that warm the air, not vice versa. Indeed, temps are not showing any warming trend AT ALL since 1900 to 2010 if you just consider the 450 measuring stations isolated from ocean and ocean wind influences (see Lansner and Pederson, 2018).

            We don’t know what “scientists are saying,” for the very simple reason that we haven’t asked. Indeed “asked what?” And of course not all scientists are qualified to answer specific questions. So you just made this up.

          • James Owens

            David, the downwelling IR average from the greenhouse effect over the oceans is 356 Watts per square meter.
            The TOA imbalance is positive – meaning the earth’s climate system is gaining heat
            Since over 90% of the climate system’s heat ends up in the oceans in a positive imbalance – the ocean heat gain should be approximately the same as the TOA – and it is.
            See the figure from Cheng et al (2017) – the blue shaded areas are the ocean heat content of various depths – stacked to give a total
            Then the total amount of energy from the TOA imbalance – times 0.93 – is the yellow line. They match well, as they should.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/419613f9cc7a6694fb2436b51bec74cd66abb99505a9195c7cbc1d1a7ed9d148.png

          • david russell

            Now we’re on the same page.

            1) The oceans are absorbing more heat than they’re emitting.
            2) This is the cause of the TOA energy imbalance.
            3) as CO2 15 micron IR cannot penetrate the oceans skin, CO2 IR is not warming the oceans
            4) As the oceans are 1-2C warmer than the air, the oceans are warming the air.
            5) Confirmation of point #3: ARGO reports that up to 98% of recent years’ warming is going into the oceans south of the Equator (which only have 58% of the ocean surface, so something other than NCGHGs (which are presumably well-mixed in the troposphere) is causing this increase in OHC.
            6) Before ARGO values for OHC in the deep ocean were mostly make believe and even ARGO only goes down 2000m. Thus a good deal of your chart is mostly made up.
            6) Confirmation of points #3 and #4: Lansner and Pederson (2018) which shows no warming atmospheric trend at all since 1900 (to 2010) for the 450 stations they identify as isolated/insulated from ocean influence.

          • James Owens

            No, David.
            There is a top of the atmosphere (TOA) imbalance due to the increasing greenhouse effect – and that is causing the heat increase in the earth’s climate system
            As the oceans are far and away (over 90%) of the earth’s climate system’s heat reservoir …
            The ocean heat content is increasing in about the same quantitative proportion (~90%) and the same rate (slope) as the TOA imbalance – as shown in the figure
            On the Lansner and Pedersen – do a simple sanity check. The ocean surface temps are indeed increasing, but more slowly than the land surface temps.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6a969de4d4d4fbdecf4fa29cb3323ac8f8d137a8df643bac4ea75be11609f135.png

          • david russell

            L&P have isolated just the land stations that are insulated from ocean influence and plotted these 450 stations over time anchoring 1900 as the “ground zero” temperature. the temperatures do meander slightly over that time but end at the ground zero temperature…. the same as 1900.

            Also, L&P end their data in 2010. Your graph seems to end right in the height of an el Nino maximum. Global (air) temps have declined .56C in the last 2 years, reverting to pre-elNino levels as they always do.

            Furthermore, this chart is inconsistent with what was presented in the Columbia University seminars on the subject several years ago, to wit that the oceans are typically 1-2C warmer than the air. I doubt the profs at Columbia would get this wrong, and suspect the gremlins at the NASA climate factory have been retroactively adjusting the historical record. Of course I can’t prove this, but I note that not a single point on your graph shows even a 1C difference and post 1980 all the difference is the opposite sign.

            Indeed your chart show the oceans (70% of the surface) have been cooling the atmosphere — not likely.

          • James Owens

            Just data and facts, David.
            You can argue with data and facts all you like.
            Here is the land and the ocean temp figure from the Columbia site itself, through 2017 – also includes an ENSO index as warm waters come to the Pacific surface in an El Nino and cold waters come to the surface in La Nina – and that oscillation indeed influences the temps.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/60386e045169cb302ec195be39f7a267f637d30b8d850a4c1ec8446fdafc2df8.png

          • david russell

            John Christy et al (2018) shows the last 35 years (ending 2016) warming according to the UAH satellite network to be .1C per decade. From his paper abstract:

            [quote]:
            The satellite results indicate a range of near-global (+0.07 to +0.13°C decade−1) and tropical (+0.08 to +0.17°C decade−1) trends (1979–2016), and suggestions are presented to account for these differences. We show evidence that MSUs on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s satellites (NOAA-12 and −14, 1990–2001+) contain spurious warming, especially noticeable in three of the four satellite datasets.
            [end]

            Your graph from visual inspecting seems to show about 1.2C of warming from 1979 on (35 years?), or .34C per decade.

            Thus your chart is overstating global warming since 1979 by 3.4X, assuming Christy is right.

          • James Owens

            Good Lord David, are you real THAT dense? You’re taking the land data and comparing it to the total surface data. Think a second!
            The global surface is land + ocean. About 30% and 70% of the surface area, respectively. So you must average them together with appropriate weighting.
            Here’s the current satellite plot for the lower troposphere (TLT), including the long term temperature rise – which is very close to the overall surface rise. Do note the sampling distribution curve for the TLT at the left of the figure.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcd479904f536ade87d1201883874290d679382e2d48de05656becc72b405b86.png

          • david russell

            So you are claiming that the oceans are cooling the atmosphere!!!

            While this isn’t an exact comparison, if you take the .6C increase in your chart for 70% of the earth that’s ocean and the 1.2C increase for the land 30%, you still come up with .3C per decade warming since 1979, which is 3X what Christy reports.

          • James Owens

            David, divide by the number of decades, please. I’ll help you a bit. The temp rise begins about 1975 – so 4 decades. Here’s the full Columbia figure with the actual global surface at the top – that will simplify the math for you a bit.
            And remember, Christy has a history of problems with his calculations – suggest you use the RSS, they’ve been helped by Lawrence Livermore and the Univ of Washington to do the satellite orbital decay calculations and instrument drifts correctly
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ed11ac7821ea5bcd082c4a21b7744f78aa3a1ba9a35c37641d0ed8cee84de8d8.png

          • david russell

            I divide by 3.5 because I start at 1979 and I’m relying on my eye to judge the number of years.

            You’re getting too far into the weeds here. The point is that the satellites show much less warming than the land stations. That’s indisputable.

            As for the UAH network, known errors have been corrected. None of the temperature histories are very good. Indeed, the claims for how much warming we’ve experienced since the advent of material thermometer measurements (~1880 or so) are all over the map and none expressed with error bars. You can go to the TAR and see they asserted .6C of warming for the 20th century. Your original chart show more than that for the 2nd half of the 20th century. Someone’s been mucking with the numbers.

          • James Owens

            David, the RSS satellite and surface measurements basically AGREE when compared on the same baseline and in the time period they overlap.
            (and remember, the land data is only 30% of the surface; no data “mucking” – the land and ocean data in both figures are GISTemp)
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4a7e55e29c5c856ff67bfc9e7a88292fb4da58e5c42eeb957ac8499eb1d972b7.png

          • david russell
          • James Owens

            Again, David – go to the horse’s mouth, the RSS site that is updated monthly – and think a second, 1. both RSS and UAH use the SAME satellite data feed
            2. they do use different algorithms and assumptions to infer/estimate the temperatures (they are not actual temperature measurements)
            3. the UAH calculations do result in a slightly lower trend, but almost all of the difference if you compare is after 2000
            Anyway, the RSS figure – so compare RSS and the figure you posted – obviously that figure has some grievous errors (probably deliberate)
            Suggest you promptly disown it.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bcd479904f536ade87d1201883874290d679382e2d48de05656becc72b405b86.png

          • david russell

            My chart was RSS data….. as recorded in the past.

          • James Owens

            Obviously someone muddled with the data in your chart, David.
            Again, best to disown it – it’s an albatross on anyone’s credibility and honor.

          • david russell

            That’s possible. Another possibility is that the gremlins at the climate factory got to the RSS team and tortured them into compliance.

          • James Owens

            Fantasy (you like to joke in your comments) or delusion (you were half-way or more serious)?

          • david russell

            I’m just saying that’s possible. You’re assuming another possibility. Fact is there are multiple images if you google “RSS temperature trends” and click “IMAGES.” Are all of them ‘made up’ in your opinion? They seem to say the same thing, namely much less 20 years warming than your chart shows.

          • James Owens

            Simpler – go to the RSS site and check their publications.
            Again, the horse’s mouth – not someone else’s horse s&@t

          • david russell

            One of the differences between us I posit is that I don’t trust the gurus at the climate factory (as I call them). The data from yester-years disappears and is replaced by [further] adjusted data that typically results in more AGW. As Ronald Coase said, “If you torture the data long enough, they will confess.”

          • James Owens

            Forget the conspiracy nonsense, David.
            Topline – the data was grabbed as weather data for the moment, not for long-term climate comparisons.
            So there are lot’s of noise, errors, and problems to weed out – plus the many changes in equipment and procedures (example – changes in time when temperature reads were taken – and the human foibles of doing that early or late anyway). Plus the haphazard record keeping.
            Put it all together and hat’s a key reason for slowing wringing out these errors and problems and still the uncertainty bars before 1950 tend to be so large whether NOAA, HadCRUT or anyone else.

          • david russell

            All temperatures are inferred….. even thermometers.

          • James Owens

            No, David. Here’s the algorithm diagram of what RSS goes through to convert the reading into an inferred temperature
            It’s not liquid expansion, a voltage in a thermocouple, or an IR wavelength
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1bfef4b916eacdaf2d62bb189d92f490038af4b3d8750845048f68c5e779897e.png

          • david russell

            This is a pointless semantic argument.

          • James Owens

            Does that means
            You didn’t know it was that complicated for either RSS or UAH to infer temperature of the troposphere and stratosphere from satellite AMSU readings?

          • david russell

            No. I’m quite well aware of how the satellites work. Unfortunately, the more you know, the less confidence you have in any of it …any of the various temperature historical records.

          • James Owens

            Then stop fearing and being suspicious.
            Learn and understand.

          • david russell

            As I said, the more I learn the less confidence I have in the experts.

          • david russell

            As the oceans are not in the sky, the insolation TOA is irrelevant. I didn’t say “insolation TOA”, but rather “surface insolation.”

            Here’s a little tidbit: 58% of the ocean surface is south of the Equator, but ARGO reports that up to 98% of recent buildup in OHC has been in the Southern Hemisphere. This tells us the CO2 (presumed to be a well-mixed gas in the troposphere) is not responsible, or 58% of the built up would be in the southern oceans.

          • James Owens

            Better check – again, see Figure 5 Cheng et al (2017) ocean heat content increase by basin and depth. It’s not all the Southern Ocean as you imply
            And yes – wind speed and consistency at the surface has a lot to do with differences in heat exchange. And that varies by area and in mulit-decadal oscillations – so common sense says there has to be differences.
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/db9c88231ede3089e0aa36ddee0ecbc9506315c8f92d138acf3340a4a97f80b0.png

          • david russell

            The chart isn’t actually delineating by “north of the equator” and “south of the equator.” Parts of the Indian, and Atlantic ocean are in the southern hemisphere.

            Moreover, I’m merely reporting what ARGO reports.

            Finally you just have to judge by eye what the above chart shows. To my eye is shows very little in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, which is rather consistent with my point — the increase in OCH is disproportional to the ratios of ocean surface area.

          • Robert

            “Reinhart uses 200,000 spectral lines in his analysis (many more than
            Myhre) but doesn’t specify that he uses Modtran to do so. Why would he?
            It’s a logical presumption.”

            I didn’t say that he uses MODTRAN. I was pointing out that MODTRAN has the correct atmospheric temperature profile and computes the radiative effects of gases in such an atmosphere correctly. It doesn’t matter how many lines he uses. If he doesn’t use the correct temperature profile and calculate the resulting effects of doubling CO2 on that temperature profile, then he has done a calculation that is relevant to the greenhouse effect.

            “Reinhart is a physicist specializing in radiation.”

            That’s nice. There are many scientists that can do radiative transfer calculation. I did not say that his error was on the radiaitve transfer calculation, but rather on assuming that the greenhouse effect can be calculated by assuming a constant temperature atmosphere. It cannot, which makes his calculation irrelevant to what is going on on Earth.

            “Myhre doesn’t talk about temperature at all. He talks about radiative forcing (W/M2) which occurs AT THE TOP OF THE ATMOSPHERE.”

            What paper are you looking at?

          • david russell

            You’re just repeating yourself. No need for me to repeat myself. Your claim that he has to use the correct temperature profile is just that…. your claim, your unsupported opinion. You yourself said local equilibrium is all he needs and all he uses.

            His calculation OVERstates the amount of warming from 2X CO2. It’s therefore a lot less that .24C, given he’s doing the radiative transfer calculations correctly, which you grant.

          • Robert

            Repeating myself? I’m responding to your posts. If I have repeated myself then that is because you have presented a claim that is refuted by the same scientific explanation that I have given previously.

            That he has to use the correct temperature profile is established physics. Even you admitted that there is no greenhouse effect if there is no temperature gradient.

            His calculation certainly does not overstate the amount of warming. The amount of warming is much greater when the correct temperature gradient is used. You can do the calculation on MODTRAN yourself.

          • david russell

            Your refutation is totally in your own mind. YOU ADMITTED that local thermal equilibrium is all Reinhart uses and all he needs. The “thermal equilibrium is not the case for the entire tropospheric profile” meme is a red herring.

            On reflection, I’m not sure I should have said there would be no GHE if there were thermal equilibrium throughout the troposphere. So I’m retracting that. I aver that you could take multiple tubes filled with different percentages of N2 vs CO2, heat them at the base, and the gases would warm to different temps, even though the column of gas was in local thermal equilibrium. Of course the top of the tube would have to be of special material to let IR pass through freely. Consider: if this did NOT happen, then there would be CO2 GHE.

            Didn’t I ask you how 1/2500th of the atmosphere at 288K could produce 110W/M2 at the surface without the other 2499/2500ths of that atmosphere (at the same temperature) produce 2499ths as much and thus the surface get 44,000 W/M2?

            Didn’t I ask you also that if the GHE couldn’t operate under thermal equilibrium conditions, then since the atmosphere is multiple layers all at thermal equilibrium stacked on top of one another, how could a large number of layers each with no GHE add up to anything other than no GHE collectively.

            I didn’t get answers to these 2 questions. Or did I miss the answers?

          • Robert

            “Your refutation is totally in your own mind.”

            Actually it’s been based on science.

            “YOU ADMITTED that local thermal equilibrium is all Reinhart uses and all he needs.”

            No, I certainly NEVER admitted that all Reinhart uses is local thermodynamic equilibrium. He obviously uses GLOBAL thermodynamic equilibrium which is what makes his calculation WRONG. Are you purposefully misstating what I have written in the past?

            “The “thermal equilibrium is not the case for the entire tropospheric profile” meme is a red herring.”

            It’s not a red herring at all. It’s what makes the calculation of no relevance to the Earth’s atmosphere. Clearly Reinhart’s result differs from all published science on this matter. Again, you can use MODTRAN and do the calculation yourself with the correct temperature profile.

            “On reflection, I’m not sure I should have said there would be no GHE if
            there were thermal equilibrium throughout the troposphere.”

            Then you don’t understand how the GHE works. Again, I can provide citations to Pierrehumbert’s book and I might even be able to dig up something on the negative GHE. This is all established science. You clearly don’t understand it.

            “So I’m retracting that.”

            That’s a shame that you’ve regressed.

            “I aver that you could take multiple tubes filled with different
            percentages of N2 vs CO2, heat them equally at the base, and the gases
            would warm to different temps, even though the column of gas was in
            local thermal equilibrium. Of course the top of the tube would have to
            be of special material to let IR pass through freely. Consider: if
            this did NOT happen, then there would be CO2 GHE.”

            If you describe this thought experiment carefully then I can probably tell you what will happen. Again, it is apparent that you do not understand what local thermodynamic equilibrium means.

            “Didn’t I ask you how 1/2500th of the atmosphere at 288K could produce
            110W/M2 at the surface without the other 2499/2500ths of that atmosphere
            (at the same temperature) produce 2499X as much and thus the surface
            get 44,000 W/M2?”

            You did, and I responded. It might have been one of my comments that got marked as spam. Let me check. No, it was not one that got marked as spam. Here it is:

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3918953311

            This is again another instance of you not understanding the science. In this case you don’t understand how gases radiate.

            “Didn’t I ask you also that if the GHE couldn’t operate under thermal equilibrium conditions”

            I don’t recall this specific question. I have tried to respond honestly to all of your questions. I think I have stated over and over again that the GHE does not exist without a temperature gradient. Temperature gradients don’t exist at thermal equilibrium. So the GHE does not exist at thermal equilibrium. Please don’t confuse thermal equilibrium with steady state as they are different.

            “then since the atmosphere is multiple layers all at thermal equilibrium
            stacked on top of one another, how could a large number of layers each
            with no GHE add up to anything other than no GHE collectively”

            Ah yes, I do remember this now and I did respond. Let me find it. Here it is.

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3918965490

          • david russell

            I just now responded in situ to your 2 links. I didn’t find your answers there informative, worthwhile or particularly relevant.

          • Robert

            Apparently my comment that you have responded to here got marked as spam. I guess that you received it though.

            I will respond elsewhere.

          • david russell

            I’d say all Reinhart needs is Local Thermal Equilibrium. After all, how much does the temperature change in 30-35m altitude?

          • Robert

            That should be all he needs and all he uses, but you wrote that he assumed that the atmosphere has a constant temperature. Such an atmosphere has no greenhouse effect and doubling CO2 would do essentially nothing to the surface temperature. Again, you can read the work of Pierrehumbert for more information on this. I can provide you with a citation and probably a link to his book if you are interested.

          • david russell

            As you say, “local is all he needs.” I don’t need to read anything to agree that if the atmosphere were 288K everywhere there would be no GHE. That’s almost a priori. This doesn’t impact Reinhart’s analysis one way or the other.

          • Robert

            “As you say, “local is all he needs.””

            Yes, that is all he needs, but you said he used global, which means his calculation is wrong. Do you understand that global equilibrium is not occurring in the atmosphere?

            ” I don’t need to read anything to agree that if the atmosphere were
            288K everywhere there would be no GHE. That’s almost a priori.”

            OK, then you should understand that any calculation that assumes this cannot calculate the effect of increasing CO2.

            “This doesn’t impact Reinhart’s analysis one way or the other.”

            It certainly does. It renders his calculation meaningless.

          • Keith Foster

            “Local thermal equilibrium.” Who was your professor in 1st grade, Irwin Corey?

          • david russell

            I remember Professor Irwin Corey fondly. I saw him many times on Johnny Carson. You realize he wasn’t a real professor, right? That may have slipped your attention, being the doofus that you are. You also realize that professors teach at colleges and universities, not 1st grade, right? So even were Corey a professor, he wouldn’t teach grammar school.

            Finally, I’m confident there’s no first grade in the world which delves into local thermal equilibrium.

            You just can’t construct a decent insult, can you? Oh well.

          • Keith Foster

            Everybody knew he wasn’t a real professor, except you.

            Look at you being so confident, as if you had any idea of what you’re writing about.

          • david russell

            “Everybody knew he wasn’t a real professor, except you.”

            Except clearly I did know. It was I who pointed this fact out to you, was it not?

            You really aren’t very good at this, are you?

          • Keith Foster

            You found out about Irwin Corey years later.

            Good at what? How can you ask or imply as to what I’m good at when you hide who you are? I know that you belong to NAMBLA, but other than that you have no identity.

          • david russell
          • Robert

            So, not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Let’s see, this publication has been described as, “21st Century Science & Technology is a quarterly magazine published by 21st Century Science Associates, which is affiliated with the political movement of Lyndon LaRouche. … The magazine mainly serves as an outlet for LaRouche’s crank views on science…”

            And where does it state “the 20th century spikes in OHC preceded the CO2 increases”?

            Oh, it doesn’t. So, were you intending to deceive me with that false statement?

          • david russell

            Who said anything about a peer-reviewed journal? This man is (or was) an icon in oceanography. Anyway you can’t read. From the paper (note he’s quoting NOAA, and pay particular attention to point #5):

            [quote]:

            The NOAA Conclusions
            The “bottom line” conclusions claimed by the NOAA study are these:
            (1) The world ocean has exhibited coherent changes of heat content during the past 50 years, resulting in a net warming.
            (2) There is no determination whether the observed warming is caused by natural variability or anthropogenic (man-induced) forcing.
            (3) The warming supports the contentions of global-climate modellers that the planetary radiative disequilibrium, for the period of 1979 to 1996, may be the result of “excess heat accumulating in the ocean.”
            (4) Sea-surface temperatures have had two distinct warming periods over the past century; from 1920 to 1940, then a cooling period until the second warming began in the 1970s.
            (5) In each period of warming, an increase in the ocean’s heat content preceded the observed warming of the sea-surface temperatures. The NOAA scientists concluded that it could be the result of natural variability, or anthropogenic effects, or more likely both.
            (6) It was speculated that the extreme warmth of the world ocean during the mid-1990s was caused by (a) the multi-decadal warming of the Atlantic and Indian oceans, and (b) a positive polarity in a possible bidecadal oscillation of the Pacific Ocean heat content.
            (7) And a final point, regarding the large change in Atlantic heat storage at depths exceeding 300 meters: The convection in the Labrador Sea, by mixing the ocean through a 2,000-meter-deep water column, may keep sea-surface temperature changes relatively small, despite a large heat flux from ocean to atmosphere. Such convection must be addressed, especially when anthropogenic forcing is being considered.

            [end]

            Oops. Did I just hear a toilet flush? Oh, it was Robert’s position going down the drain.

          • Robert

            “Who said anything about a peer-reviewed journal?”

            I did. At least we agree that this is not a scientific paper.

            “Anyway you can’t read.”

            I can read rather well. Nowhere does anything to the effect of “the 20th century spikes in OHC preceded the CO2 increases” appear. That’s what you stated this article showed. It does not.

          • david russell

            Point #5 from above:

            5) In each period of warming, an increase in the ocean’s heat content preceded the observed warming of the sea-surface temperatures.

          • Robert

            Yes, I have thought it through. Point 5 makes sense. Your claim that “the 20th century spikes in OHC preceded the CO2 increases” does not. Point 5 is not the same as your claim.

            Think that through.

          • david russell

            1920 – 1940 increase in ppms =~ 10, negligible and no change in slope from prior years. Spike in 1970’s followed about 30 years of cooling from about 1940 (again no change in slope from prior years):

            http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vJzih3M2klA/UY6wrqMX_OI/AAAAAAAAId0/aX_WlLwjKFc/s1600/graphs+-+carbon+dioxide+concentration+over+time.png

          • Robert

            That’s a nice plot. So what?

            “the 20th century spikes in OHC preceded the CO2 increases”

            The paper does not state what you claimed. CO2 increase is NOT ocean surface temperature increase.

          • david russell

            Here’s something else: If as you say CO2 IR is depositing all it’s energy in the top 3 millions of a meter, then why isn’t the sea surface temperature going up lock-step with CO2 levels. The fact the what drives the increase in sea surface temperature is rising OCH from below the surface, disproves that the oceans are warmed from CO2 above.

            And then there’s the 4th chart down on the right here (temperature profile of the oceans, day vs night):
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_surface_temperature

            Note that no heat is getting into the oceans from above at night, but CO2 works when the sun goes down

          • david russell
          • Robert

            RIP

          • Robert

            “I’ve dispostively proven that CO2 can’t explain the build up in OHC.”
            A claim made in a comment thread…..
            Not supported by showing a substantive history or review or analysis of published science supporting your claim.

            “Robert E Stevenson (2000) “

          • Keith Foster

            Great, another subject you know nothing about.

          • david russell

            This guy is a cherry. His mouth is bigger than his brain. Pay him no heed.

          • Keith Foster

            How can you talk about someone having a mouth bigger than his brain, when that describes you.

          • david russell

            More cherry humor. I recall this kind of line from kindergarten. It’s the “I’m rubber and you’re glue and everything you say bounced off me and sticks to you” meme. Thanks for taking me back to the 1950’s. I haven’t heard that one in quite a while.

          • Keith Foster

            Sure you recall it from 1st grade, you had to repeat it 3 times.

          • david russell

            You can’t count. Perhaps math is not your forte.

          • Keith Foster

            It’s you who can’t count, that was one of the reasons you needed to repeat 1st grade 3 times.

          • david russell

            How old are you? Really? You sound about 12.

          • Keith Foster

            Who am I? Who are you? If I was 12 I would have twice as much knowledge than you.

          • david russell

            You have such a rapier wit. Bwahahaha. I’m sure you’re the life of the party at the bowling alley.

          • Keith Foster

            You’re a coward. That’s why you’re a member of NAMBLA.

          • david russell

            So I’m not just ignorant…..not just poor (bankrupt)…. not just a homosexual or something higher order…. but I’m also a coward?

            Your failure is complete. You’ve outed yourself as a total goof-ball.

          • Keith Foster

            I never accused you of being homosexual, you couldn’t attain so high of a status. But you are most definitely a coward.

          • david russell

            You’re sooooo crazy. But I’ve enjoyed slapping you around.

          • Keith Foster

            I’ve slapped you around, NAMBLA man.

          • david russell

            Uh huh. Bwahahahaa.

            Time to block you.

          • Robert

            “My main point is that the North has only 42% of the world’s oceans by
            ARGO reports as much as 98% of the recent increase in OHC is happening
            in the south (with 58% of the ocean surface area as in the north).”

            The global Argo dataset is not yet long enough to observe global change signals. Seasonal and interannual variability dominate the present 10-year globally-averaged time series. Sparse global sampling during 2004-2005 can lead to substantial differences in statistical analyses of ocean temperature and trend (or steric sea level and its trend, e.g. Leuliette and Miller, 2009). Analyses of decadal changes presently focus on comparison of Argo to sparse and sometimes inaccurate historical data. Argo’s greatest contributions to observing the global oceans are still in the future, but its global span is clearly transforming the capability to observe climate-related changes.”

          • david russell

            Your above reflects your unvarnished and unsupported opinions only. Who said anything about 2004? I said “in recent years.” Indeed your basic claim is absurd since ARGO has actually identified the added heat content and on a much less that 1 year time scale.

            You seem to merely cavalierly throw out years of ARGO data…. for no reason at all (well, the reason is that it disconfirms your AGW warms the oceans thesis).

            Climate science is pseudo-science. Corollary: If the data don’t say what you want, change the data. And if you can’t change the data, ignore the data.

            Here’s something else: Robert E Stevenson (2000) makes the point that increases in OCH in the 20th century came first, and then the rise in temperature. Which is of course my point: the oceans warm the air, not vice versa.

          • Robert

            No, this is a copied and pasted statement from the ARGO website.

            It is the expert opinion of the scientists that run the project.

          • david russell

            Well then they are wrong. They’re rejecting their own data. NASA did the same when their NVAP and NVAP-M projects showed that over 21 years ending 2009 their measured tropospheric precipitable water column showed a slight decline despite 21 years of rising temps and CO2 levels. They couldn’t allow this conclusion to stand without collapsing the foundations of AGW theory.

            Climate science is the field where the data are changed, ignored, or tortured until they confess.

          • Robert

            That’s a pretty extreme position to take given the fact that you have no expertise in the field.

          • david russell

            I don’t need experience in the field to know that 387ppm here and 410 ppm there isn’t well-mixed. I just need common sense and high-school math.

            I’m not sophisticated enough to believe nonsense.

          • Robert

            You do when it is clear that you don’t know what that term means.

            “CO2 concentrations aren’t the same everywhere. In general, CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, mainly because it’s so long lived.”

            https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/perspective/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

            “The well-mixed greenhouse gases have lifetimes long enough to be relatively homogeneously mixed in the troposphere. In contrast, O3 (Section 6.5) and the NMHCs (Section 6.6) are gases with relatively short lifetimes and are therefore not homo-geneously distributed in the troposphere.”

            https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/218.htm

          • david russell

            Your first quote is both nonsense and wrong. It’s nonsense because the premise doesn’t imply the conclusion. (restated: Because CO2 is long-lived, therefore it’s well-mixed” === nonsense). Moreover CO2 is not long-lived, at least not in the atmosphere. CO2 molecules in the air are not going to be in the air in 6 or 7 years because they will have moved to the other carbon sinks — the soils, the biosphere, the oceans. Finally, water vapor levels in the atmosphere don’t change much over time (except around big el Ninos) — i.e., it goes up into the sky, precipitates, falls to the ground. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat

          • Robert

            Again, these statements are made by experts. This is the terminology that is used in the field.

            You are not an expert in the field. You have no clue what you are talking about.

          • david russell

            Correction: These silly, nonsensical and wrong statements are made by people who want to disregard what the data show.

          • Robert

            What is you rigorous scientific definition for a well-mixed trace gas?

          • david russell

            I don’t have to be a good actor to recognize a bad one. Most things derive their meaning from their use

          • Robert

            So you don’t have one.

            The experts do and they know what it means.

          • david russell

            I know what they said is both nonsense as a reason, and wrong as a fact.

            I also know that you have a losing hand and the stakes on the table are chump change, so you should really fold your hand.

          • Robert

            Your stubbornness notwithstanding, you can’t even come up with a definition of a well-mixed trace gas that you would deem acceptable.

            I imagine that you are itching to say zero variation, but then even you probably realize how ridiculous that definition would be.

          • david russell

            My stubbornness maintaining what is both obvious and true, is unrelated to my ability or requirement to solve what is essentially someone else’s error. Real lawyers are not Perry Masons who not only have to show their client not guilty but also have to identify the actual killer.

            You are digging a deep hole with no upside even if you win. What’s wrong with you? You’re making yourself look foolish.

          • Robert

            What is obvious is that you have no desire to understand science.

            That you don’t like the terminology that is used is no reason for the scientific world to abandon it.

            Perhaps if you provided a definition that you like, then its efficacy can be evaluated. But you won’t even do that.

          • david russell

            I’ve no problem with the terminology (here, presumably “well mixed gas”). It’s the explanation of why CO2 is considered well-mixed that makes no sense, and is wrong.

            Presumably N2 is well-mixes as well. Presumably that means that wherever you are, the percentage of N2 in the air is the same. Not so with CO2.

          • Robert

            CO2 is well-mixed because the atmospheric currents have enough time to mix it throughout the atmosphere due to the fact that it is long-lived.

            This explanation makes sense and is correct. What about it do you not understand?

            If the percentage of one gas changes, then the percentage of at least one other gas must also change. This is a mathematical certainty.

          • david russell

            I’m going to give you a break and let your above be the last word on this topic. I have nothing further to say.

          • Robert

            So you are not going to attempt to learn why a long-lived gas will become well-mixed?

            It’s really not that difficult to understand.

          • david russell

            School’s out.

          • Robert

            OK

          • socalpa

            David , your stalker is back as evenminded/halush/Robert . slipped up above and posted same text as Robert as halush . .
            .
            Off the meds again , unable to resist its compulsions ..

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            halush/evenminded/Robert ?
            .
            You slipped little monkey !
            .
            Flagged and tagged ! Impersonation.. .

          • Robert

            Are you still upset that you couldn’t answer my simple question about gravity?

          • socalpa

            Upset ?
            .
            Not at all ,little impostor monkey Robert/halush/evenminded ! I am highly entertained by your desperate antics ! .
            .
            Dance little monkey ….dance !

          • Robert

            How old are you?

            Are you able to understand that gravity does not provide any energy to a parcel of air that ascends from the surface to altitude and then descends back down to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Old enough not to play childish little games on the internet ,like impersonation ,little monkey ..
            .
            No one cares what little monkeys pretending to be other people say about Gravity ..
            .
            So ,Robert/halush/evenminded .. you can just “FO” ..
            .
            Take my Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! with you !

          • Robert

            It seems that you are always playing childish games on the internet.

            You avoid technical questions and don’t partake in discussions when you are shown to be wrong.

            Here’s the physics associated with the energy that gravity can supply to a system.

            change in gravitational energy = m g (h2 – h1)

            A parcel of air that goes through a full cycle and starts and ends at the surface has h2 = h1, and hence gravity supplies no energy to the parcel.

            QED

          • socalpa

            Dance little monkey … Dance !
            .
            Stupid little monkey halush/evenminded/Robert .. no one cares what moneys chatter and copy .
            .
            We just enjoy the show !
            .
            Ho ! Ho !

          • Robert

            QED

          • socalpa

            “FO”

          • Robert

            Grow up. Learn to accept your failures.

          • socalpa

            Changed back to evenminded ID ?
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !
            .
            Once an impersonator , always an imrpersonator !
            .
            What a disaster you are evenminded/Robert/halush/socalpa/david russel..
            .
            It was fun watching you forget which account you were posting from .
            .
            Your claim gravity is not a constant source of energy to Earths atmosphere shows in addition to being an impersonator .you are a science illiterate as well !

          • evenminded

            Funny how changing one’s moniker and avatar is so easy. I like the fact that you are so obsessed with stalking me and trying to figure out who I am. Am I evenminded, Robert, halush, ROO2, 9.8, waxliberty, CB …? Maybe I am all of these and more.

            Whoever claimed that gravity is not a constant source of energy to the Earth was correct.

            Are you still having difficulty with scientific concepts that are taught in high school?

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            ” Maybe I am all of these and more”.. maybe you are a mental case .
            .
            No , no maybe , you are certainly a mental case !
            .
            What temperature would the earths atmosphere be with no gravity ?
            .
            What temperature would Earths interior be ?
            .
            What gravitational forces drive tides In the oceans and atmosphere ?

          • evenminded

            “What temperature would the earths atmosphere be with no gravity ?”

            There would be no atmosphere. You really aren’t very good at science.

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Does the tidal motions of the atmosphere and oceans require energy ?
            .
            What is the continuous source of that energy ?

          • evenminded

            The gravitational energy of the oceans is the same at the same point in the cycle separated by an integer number of periods. Hence, the change in gravitational energy is zero. Gravity is not a continuous source of energy. You really are terrible at science.

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Do the tidal motions require an energy source ?
            .
            What is it ?

          • evenminded

            Does a vibrating spring-mass system require an energy source?

            No.

            You really are terrible at science.

            When are you going to address my question?

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            What winds the spring ?
            .
            What drives the tides in the atmosphere and oceans ?
            .
            Starts with a G !

          • evenminded

            You stretch the spring once and let go. There is no continuous source of energy.

            You are clueless. When are you going to answer the question?

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Energy required to wind the spring .
            .
            Continuous energy required to drive the tides of the oceans and atmosphere .
            .
            YOU are clueless .

          • evenminded

            “Energy required to wind the spring .”

            I told you. You pull it once and let go. There is no continuous source of energy.

            The change in gravitational energy for a cycle of the tides is zero. Gravity is not a continuous source of energy.

            This is basic physics. You are clueless.

          • socalpa

            Without gravity ,there would be No tidal energy on Earth ..
            ..
            and it changes significantly depending on orbital positions of Sun ,moon .. example ; King tides at Syzygy ..
            .
            Without gravity ,no solar energy input ..
            .
            Now, get lost .. whoever you are..
            .

          • evenminded

            “Without gravity ,there would be No tidal energy on Earth”

            So what? That does not mean that gravity is a constant source of energy. Without the spring in the spring-mass system, there would be no fluctuation of the kinetic energy of the mass. The spring is still not a continuous source of energy. Both the spring and gravity are conservative forces. Not that you would have any clue what that means or implies.

            You have no clue what you are talking about.

            Now, what is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            ” That does not mean that gravity is a constant source of energy”
            .
            What an idiot !
            .
            When does Gravity stop acting ? Creates the potential energy ,and the Kinetic energy ,the tides temperatures ,
            .
            Whatever you call yourself ,you are still an idiot and an ignoramus

          • ROO2.1

            I never said gravity stops acting. I said it is not a constant source of energy.

            In order for gravity to be a constant source of energy in a cyclic process there would have to be a change in the gravitational energy from the beginning to the end of the cycle.

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            You wrote previously that gravity is not a continuous source of energy ..
            .
            At least one of your identities wrote that .. .
            .
            Now you reply that a “change” in gravitational energy is the issue..
            .
            So you agree gravity is a constant source of energy …
            .
            Make sure to check who you are today !
            .
            Take care !

          • evenminded

            “You wrote preciously that gravity is not a continuous source of energy ..”

            That’s right. It’s not.

            “Now you reply that a “change” in gravitational energy is the issue..”

            You really are terrible at science. In order for gravity to be a constant source of energy there has to be a change in the gravitational energy from one cycle to the next. There is not, hence gravity is not a constant source of energy. The sun is a constant source of energy because energy leaves the sun and goes into the earth continuously.

            You truly have no clue about how to think about even the most trivial scientific concepts.

          • socalpa

            ” In order for gravity to be a constant source of energy there has to be a change in the gravitational energy from one cycle to the next. ”
            .
            Nonsense .
            .
            Gravity drives the nuclear energy of the Sun and is the energy driving the ocean and atmospheric tides .
            .
            Also drives the earths internal heating and temps .
            .
            You are caught ,impersonator . .

          • evenminded

            It’s not nonsense. It’s physics. More precisely it the first law of thermodynamics.

            Change in internal energy = energy in minus energy out plus the change in gravitational energy

            On the sun the gravitational energy is changing to a significant extent. No so on the Earth.

            You really have no clue about basic science. Now, when are you going to answer that question.

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            The change in energy is irrelevant .notthe original issue .
            .
            The G energy in the system is a constant producing temps ,tides on Earth and nuclear reactions continuously in the Sun .
            .
            You are ridiculous . .

          • evenminded

            The change in energy is all that is relevant. That’s what the first law of thermodynamics requires.

            Now, I have addressed your questions. When are you going to answer mine?

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Yes ,you did ..
            .
            You admitted gravity is a constant source of energy .
            .
            Take care ,whoever you are today..

          • evenminded

            “You admitted gravity is a constant source of energy .”

            Are you a child? I specifically stated that gravity is not a constant source of energy on multiple occasions and explained the physics of why this is the case.

            Now, are you going to answer the question?

            What is the change in gravitational energy of a parcel of air that rises from the surface and then falls back to the surface?

          • socalpa

            Hey david !
            .
            Your impersonator/stalker switched his post back to the evenminded ID !
            .
            What a sicko !

          • david russell

            Maybe, but I actually learned some things in our interaction.

          • david russell

            With further links now and further information, my conclusions are confirmed.

          • Popcorn Joe

            Robots don’t read books.

        • Robert

          “I don’t have to support every claim I make.”
          Oddly, middle school kids know they do, and do so.

          Readers should note, in this day and age, that developing fake news is quite easy. Here we have some random poster on the intertubes making claims about science that isn’t held up well in the actual science literature.
          Otherwise, there would be links to reputable sources, actual science literature, not a screed and unsupported claims.

      • david russell
    • Robert

      Readers should note, in this day and age, that developing fake news is quite easy. Here we have some random poster on the intertubes making claims about science that isn’t held up well in the actual science literature.
      Otherwise, there would be links to reputable sources, actual science literature, not a screed and unsupported claims.

      • socalpa

        I am glad you raised the issue of “fake news” since the article above is arguably “fake news” .
        .
        The claim AGW is “supercharging” hurricanes ,thus showing a detectable impact of anthro ghg emissions is contradicted by substantial data on upper ocean temps* since 2000 ,as well as being directly contradicted by the NOAA report on hurricanes and typhoons updated April 25 ,2018 .
        .
        Excerpted here ;
        .GFDL Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory
        NOAA
        updated 4/25/18
        ..
        1. Summary Statement
        .
        “Two frequently asked questions on global warming and hurricanes are the following:

        Have humans already caused a detectable increase in Atlantic hurricane activity or global tropical cyclone activity?.”
        .
        “Our main conclusions are”: (excerpted ) .;
        .
        ” It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.”..
        .
        Confirmation of no current detection of ghg impact ; .
        .
        .”That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are…[ not yet detectable ] due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).”

        https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
        .
        Also ,the data shows global tropical cyclone activity declined after 1997** ,sharply after 2005 (Maue global ACE 1970 -2018 ). .

        http://wx.graphics/tropical/
        .
        * Cheng et al 2015 , Hadsst3 .

        .

        • classicalmusiclover

          Sorry, socalpa, but if the rest of the NOAA report is included, not just the one sentence you quote, the above article is the very opposite of fake news.

          The evidence is against you.

          Your dishonest cherry-picking is almost as lame as your inability to read graphs. In the Maue graph, what is the long-term trend in intensity of storms?

          • socalpa

            “the above article is the very opposite of fake news.”.
            .
            If a reader does not know the difference between has been detected (present tense) ,and “may be detectable” (future tense ) ,you might fool someone ..
            .
            Alas , readers can easily tell the difference , and see you are lying .

          • classicalmusiclover

            I am certainly not lying about the contents of the extensive NOAA report, which you have dishonestly cherry-picked in order to imply that it says the opposite of what it does. “High confidence” that something will happen is hardly the same as “may be detectable. Likewise “premature to conclude” is simply boilerplate for “research is ongoing.”

            I recommend that readers read the full text of the report and not take socalpa at his lying, sniveling word.

          • socalpa

            What does “not yet detectable” mean ?
            .
            a. detected ?
            .
            b . Not detected .

          • classicalmusiclover

            What does: “human activities may have already caused changes” mean, especially in combination with “high confidence”?
            a) Scientists have strong confidence that the research is showing a growing connection between a warming atmosphere and storm intensity
            b) scientists are engaging in either wild guesses and speculations or lies.

            The dishonest intent of your cherry-picking is transparently obvious.

          • socalpa

            ” may have already caused changes” ,
            .
            “May have” ..also means ..
            .
            May ..not have ..
            .
            Have fun with your straws !

          • classicalmusiclover

            It would only mean “may not have” if the NOAA scientists who drew up the report were incompetent liars. The report runs to several pages, most of which document in detail the high confidence with which scientists view the connections between a warming climate and extreme weather.

        • Robert

          At least you were honest enough this time to note you were excising the bits not supporting your pov.

          There were two questions.
          And answers for the second question.
          Readers can view first hand the behavior of denialists by going to your link – https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ – and reading the answer to question 2:”
          “What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?”

          • socalpa

            Tell us (which ever Robert you are) .
            .
            Is the article above claiming an impact by AGW (anthro ghgs) , currently , or by the end of the 21 st century ?

          • Robert

            Well, you could read the article. Pretty clear their focus is on a paper that was published after the NASA review page research was completed.

          • socalpa

            Tell us (which ever Robert you are) .
            .
            Is the article above claiming an impact by AGW (anthro ghgs) ,
            currently , or by the end of the 21 st century ?
            .
            Why no answer ?

            The NOAA report I linked was updated April 24 ,2018 .
            .
            Maintained the no detectible impact of GHGs .
            .
            The paper quoted was written in 2017 , submitted Jan 2018 .
            .
            We’ll see if NOAA changes the conclusions of 150 years of data analysis ,and 60 years of modern tropical cyclone analysis .
            .
            Not admitting to an impostor ? A funny one ,too ,a gravity denier .,Sock puppet of yours ? Maybe a buddy ?

          • Robert

            We’re liking your efforts at mccarthyesque rhetoric .

            “..a gravity denier .,”

          • collectivist

            I know this is unrelated to to what you are discussing right now, but I thought you might find it interesting.
            One of my main teachers, and, contemporaries: Bill Fletcher, Jr. (Warning:It’s a little long, so watch it when you have some time to spare. )lhttps://youtu.be/vQIwIWfs7TY

          • Robert

            Link seems illformed; but I’m headed out to the garden w phone in pocket listening to Bill Fletcher, Race and Labor, Feb21 in Eugene OR https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnOHOM59mA

          • socalpa

            Sharing your ID with halush/evenminded/Robert ?
            .
            Frauds of a feather , flocking together ?
            .
            How sweet !
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • Robert

            content free posting / harassment / spamming…

            Try again:

            At least you were honest enough this time to note you were excising the bits not supporting your pov.

            There were two questions.
            And answers for the second question.
            Readers can view first hand the behavior of denialists by going to your link – https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ – and reading the answer to question 2:”
            “What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?”
            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3914484941

          • socalpa

            I asked you this before ,you evade answering .
            .
            What period does the article and paper represent ?
            .
            Now ,and/or recent past ..
            Or by the end of the 21st century ?
            .
            Hint ;
            .
            “are …. expected … for the late 21st century ” .

          • Robert

            Previously answered. But, since you seemed to not have read for understanding, consider that your rebuttal source-the one you cited with egregious editing of your quotes – was published before the article you are basically trying to disprove. Disproving bt date.

            At least you were honest enough this time to note you were excising the bits not supporting your pov.

            There were two questions.
            And answers for the second question.
            Readers can view first hand the behavior of denialists by going to your link – https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/g… – and reading the answer to question 2:”
            “What changes in hurricane activity are expected for the late 21st century, given the pronounced global warming scenarios from IPCC models?”

            https://disqus.com/home/discussion/imageo/human_caused_climate_change_is_8220supercharging8221_hurricanes_raising_the_risk_of_major_damage/#comment-3914484941

        • Robert

          “..arguably “fake news” .”
          No, the article is discussing a paper that was published after the research was done for the review article you are linking to.

          So the only real argument should be around why you would be using parts of an older article as a basis for your argument.

          We should note that this paper needs followup research, or at least wait for NOAA’s update that includes this new paper, but socalpa is rather obvious in excising the parts ofe report that he doesn’t like. Extensive research points to intensification . The new paper is aying that intensification is measurable.

          • socalpa

            .
            Is the article above claiming an impact by AGW (anthro ghgs) ,
            currently , or by the end of the 21 st century ?
            .
            Why no answer ?

            The NOAA report I linked was updated April 24 ,2018 .
            .
            Maintained the no detectible impact of GHGs .
            .
            The paper quoted was written in 2017 , submitted Jan 2018 .Essentially an anecdote ,one storm ,one small basin . projected globally
            .
            We’ll see if NOAA changes the conclusions of 150 years of global data analysis ,and 60 years of modern global tropical cyclone observations . .
            .
            “extensive research points to intensification” ..late in the 21zt century.
            .
            There ,fixed it for ya ..
            .
            I see you are upvoting your impostor , a funny one too ,a gravity denier .,Sock puppet of yours ? Maybe a buddy ?

          • Robert

            And published when?
            Available to the NOAA reviewers when?
            And thanks for your mccarthyesque efforts.

    • Derpitudinous_Neologism

      It appears as if David Russel’s job is to make 200 gibberish comments to spam the thread in order to quash discussion.

      DNFTT.

      • 9.8m/ss

        When they were just getting started, the Brownshirts would barge into unionist meetings with drums and whistles, making it impossible for the meeting to continue. Censorship by drowning out.

        • socalpa

          Want to discuss the Crusher Crews ,organized by skepticalscience and exposed in a hack ?
          .
          “Drown them out” was the rallying cry !
          .
          Wednesday, September 26, 2012
          .
          Skeptical Science: “Drown Them Out” (pop tech H/T to musiclover )
          .
          In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums “hacked” and the contents posted online. In these it was revealed that Skeptical Science members are organizing themselves into eco-strike squads to “drown out” those who do not accept their alarmist positions,

          “I posted over at Politico just recently. Hey, we can tag team it a bit if you like, use time zone differences.” – Glenn Tamblyn [Skeptical Science], February 10, 2011

          “I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011
          .
          “Rob, Your post is music to my ears. I’ve been advocating the need to create a “crusher crew” for quite some time
          http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-drown-them-out.html
          .

          Stay tuned ..I will add more Green/brownshirt tactics later in an edit ..Starting with the Rico20 .

          • 9.8m/ss

            “Want to discuss the Crusher Crews”
            Sure. It was an idea that was floated, attracted no volunteers, and was abandoned. But the wack job fossil fuel advocates love to pretend it actually happened. You pretend a lot, socalpa. It’s part of a pervasive pattern of dishonesty. Which is why I usually ignore your writing. Why read stuff written by someone you know is probably lying?

          • socalpa

            How do you know the idea attracted no volunteers and was
            “abandoned” ?
            .
            We’ve got a crew of the Crazy Cartoonist Cooks Commandos right here .Looks like a Crusher Crew to me !
            .
            There are about 8 skepticalscience grads on this comment board alone ! Just look at the upvoters on CBs post .. 2 impostors , ROO2 &.evenminded Halush , 2 Roberts ..
            .
            Here is the king of the loon hatchery he runs ,endorsing the plan !
            This eco-strike squad was highly endorsed by John Cook,
            .

            “The Rapid Response Network would be a good way to coordinate this kind of activity, identifying new articles, logging responses, supporting each other. Can i suggest if a group engage in this, that they use the RRN as beta testers to he’ll me develop and refine the system?” – John Cook [Skeptical Science], February 11,
            2011″
            .
            I don’t care whether you read my writing or not ,I don’t write for religious zealots like you . I confront the BS for readers with open minds on the subject . ..
            .
            B.S like this article and the paper by Trendberth .. I posted the science that refutes it near the top.. The musiclover is trying to bury it . You have something to add on the topic , go ahead .
            .
            You should know there are about Five Billion that rely on FFs foe heat ,light and transportation .. They are certainly advocates for available and cheap access to FFs
            .
            Show any post where I lied , my history is open .

          • classicalmusiclover

            As 9.8m/ss wrote, you pretend a lot, socalpa.

            BTW, your reference to “skeptical science grads” is asinine, for two glaring reasons:

            1. Skeptical Science is a site that is routinely referenced by leading scientists, scientific institutions, and educational institutions for its educational value and the accuracy of its descriptions of scientific processes. Most of your attacks just focus on John Cook and lame attempts to discredit him. It has apparently escaped your attention that he is only one of many contributors to the website, and those contributors range from science graduate students in science at the University of Queensland to climate scientists to well-credentialed science journalists.
            2. The people you are trying to denigrate clearly got their knowledge of climate issues elsewhere, the old fashioned way, from university educations and following the journals.

            Of course, your tribal loyalties demand that you smear anything to do with websites whose purpose is at least partly to debunk the misinformation you spread. In a spirit of desperate self-preservation and a desire to maintain their Stockholm-syndrome-like control over their followers, your thought leaders have smeared skepticalscience with fallacious ad hominems, misrepresentations, and outright distortions, so you feel impelled to parrot them.

            On the evidence, though, you show little understanding of any of the science presented there–or anywhere, because your comments, as much as they pretend to refer to published papers, are indistinguishable from talking points at the denier and “skeptic” blogs, like WUWT and CFACT and right-wing “think tanks” like Cato and Heartland.

          • socalpa

            A D rated comment ..triple D actually .. A Defensive Dishonest Diatribe .
            .
            Ho ! Ho ! Ho !

          • classicalmusiclover

            More to the point is to show any post where you did not lie.

            If you actually believe your own lies, that would be pathetic in the extreme.

          • socalpa

            And another green brownshirt chimes in ! Are you 9.8s attorney ?

  • Denis Ables

    The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not begin increasing until the 1800s, long after the MWP, so neither was there any water vapor feedback !.

    With no co2 increase there is obviously also no further temperature increase provided by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been nothing apart from natural climate variation. It therefore becomes becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level, and Mann and his hockey-stick DENY that the MWP was global and likely warmer than now.

    However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. A significant subset of this group also insists that the “science is settled”.

    A brief meta-analysis, using numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as other easily accessible data follows to demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

    First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to be global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locals where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

    Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

    Finally, there have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were reflected in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. One of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it is a different “ballgame”. More important, peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

    The Greenland Temperature (gisp2) study, for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska.

    These numerous MWP studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers using various temperature proxy techniques and representing many different countries. Idso is merely operating as a librarian. These studies now span several decades and new confirming investigations continue to show up regularly.

    Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected study sites were warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

    There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

    The MWP studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

    One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies sited herein were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP will vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” constraint must also admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global event.

    For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”.

    There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures ran until at least 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly, after 2 centuries, merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. How much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

    Also, related to the “synchronous” claim, any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point after the cooling which ended in 1975, so no earlier than 1975. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has reluctantly acknowledged yet another GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. (That’s in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since it started around 1830-1850. NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” devoted significant time to wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. Such miniscule differences are not significant because it is clear that the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is as large as one degree.

    So, all this current “global warming” controversy involves just over two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But wait … ! It turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

    Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, all cherry-picked?) Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.

  • socalpa

    This article is clearly a PR piece intended to generate some concern about AGW by conflating hurricane activity with AGW . A single weather event ,in a single season , in a single small basin .. an anecdote used to buttress the fading dangerous global warming meme. .
    .
    PR without a doubt ,as the article ,and the paper it discusses , contain the hyperbolic phrase AGW “supercharging” hurricanes . this is of course .. ridiculous . No single hurricane is evidence of human caused climate change . NOAA as of 4/25/2018 reports no detectable impact of anthro ghgs on Atlantic, or global ,tropical cyclone activity (link below) .
    .
    “Supercharging” is unsupported by the following .
    .
    Hadsst3 1998- 2018 showing flat to declining temps , the El Nino spike of 2015/16 , and a retrun to the average of the past decade;;

    http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1998/to:2018.5
    ;

    The ARGO and XBT data showing upper ocean layers cooling 2000 -2014 (Cheng et al 2015)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4585812/figure/f2/?report=objectonly

    Further , global tropical cyclone activity declined sharply after 1997 (all categories) . .and large hurricanes after 1992 .are also show a flat to declining trend during the “hottest decade ever” , highest CO2 in millions of years .. ..
    .
    Mr. Trendberth is clearly an activist , not a scientist . .

    http://wx.graphics/tropical/global_major_freq.png

    .

    • classicalmusiclover

      “Mr. Trendberth is clearly an activist , not a scientist . .”
      1. There is no such person as “TrenDberth.”

      2. If Trenberth is not a scientist, how do you explain his many recent peer-reviewed papers and the Revelle Prize awarded him by the AGU?

      • socalpa

        1. untrue . ,you can’t spell .
        .
        2 . Revelle prize awarded ? Good question ! One can only presume the award was a reward for his efforts to defend the AGW faith ? Perhaps we should ask Dr.Chris Landsea , top NOAA hurricane specialist for his opinion ?
        ..
        I understand Trendberth also won the Nebula Award for Science Fiction ,and the Joey Goebbels Award for propaganda for some of his many papers about the future . I will update you on this later ,
        Stay tuned .
        Stay tuned .

        • classicalmusiclover

          1. Socalpa smears Trenberth again.
          2. Socalpa amplifies Landsea’s reputation, deflecting from the fact that the disgruntled Landsea has no now joined Michaels and Knappenberg among the Cato misinformers. Of course, NOAA’s most recent reports show that Trenberth was on the right track.
          3. More smears of Trenberth, claiming that his published research is “fiction” and comparing him to Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda.

          Socalpa has lost it, is lying incessantly, has gone beyond the pale in smearing a leading scientist, is trolling in extremely bad faith, and should be banned.

          Which of Trenberth’s peer-reviewed papers should be dismissed as “propaganda,” socalpa, and why?

          • socalpa

            Ho ! Ho ! Ho ! You are obviously the one who ” lost it” !
            .
            As to me being banned , no concern ,the mod isn’t even banning the Robert/halush/evenminded impersonator , why should I be banned for obvious snark ?
            .
            I made it clear why the paper by Trendberth discussed in the above article should be dismissed as propaganda .. reasons and support provided in the original post you have been relying to .
            .
            Read it again .

          • classicalmusiclover

            You made nothing clear except for your dishonesty and the shamelessness with which you distort the science. Your comments failed to address Trenberth’s paper in any specific or competent way.

            Your insistence on spelling his name “Trendberth” is troll-speak for “I will smear! I will smear!” It’s juvenile. But we already knew how much you admire Delingpole and Trump.

          • socalpa

            Anyone who followed the links to the ocean temp data of the past 20 years .
            .
            There was , and is ,no “supercharging” ..

          • classicalmusiclover

            Which of Trenberth’s peer-reviewed papers should be dismissed as “propaganda,” socalpa, and why?

            Please be specific and show the peer-reviewed science that refutes them.

          • socalpa

            Asked and answered .
            .
            The paper linked in the article is propaganda . I showed the ocean temp data for 20 years .
            .
            Harvey is an anecdote .
            .
            You are a liar and a fool.

          • classicalmusiclover

            Not answered, but dodged. You showed one data set and didn’t respond to anything specific in Trenberth’s paper.

            You claim that Trenberth is no longer a scientist. Which of Trenberth’s peer-reviewed papers should be dismissed as “propaganda”–the product of someone who is no longer a scientist and why.

            Please be specific and show the peer-reviewed science that refutes them.

            Insulting me is just another juvenile dodge, and really rich coming from someone who has never once represented a scientific paper accurately, honestly, and in proper context.

          • socalpa

            Read my post again . I included Hadsst3 data 1998 -2018 . and the ARGO XBT data from 2000 -2014 .and the global tropical cyclone data since 1970 .
            .
            The data shows no “supercharging” of ocean surface temps ,and no increase in global tropical cyclone activity .
            .
            The article ,and this paper a pure PR at best ,propaganda at worst .

          • classicalmusiclover

            You claim that Trenberth is no longer a scientist. Which of Trenberth’s peer-reviewed papers should be dismissed as “propaganda”–the product of someone who is no longer a scientist and why.
            Please be specific and show the peer-reviewed science that refutes them.

          • socalpa

            See above .

          • classicalmusiclover

            Fail

          • RealOldOne2

            Kevin ‘Travesty’ Trenberth is peddling pseudoscience, ignorantly claiming that humans have caused the increase in OHC. The only physical mechanism that transfers heat into the oceans is solar radiation, and that is not human-caused.

  • classicalmusiclover

    Readers who are familiar with socalpa’s posts, riddled as they are with smears of leading scientits, distortions of published papers, outright misrepresentations, and general science-illiteracy, will disregard his comments below.

    Far from being a “PR piece intended to generate some concern about AGW by conflating hurricane activity with AGW,” this article is actually a well considered report about how the most recent research on the connections between a warming atmosphere and storm activity are buttressing the recent NOAA report documenting the high confidence with which scientists are seeing this evolving connection and the dangers it poses.

    It is fitting that it relies heavily on the work of Revelle Award-winning climatologist Kevin Trenberth, who has been building up an unimpeachable body of work.

    The supercharging of hurricanes is undeniable.

    • socalpa

      “The supercharging of hurricanes is undeniable”?
      .
      Not according to the data , and NOAA (as of 4/25/2018 reports no currently detectable impact of ghgs on Atlantic or global tropical cyclone activity . (See my posts below on ocean temps , no “supercharging” in the data) . .

      • classicalmusiclover

        Stop distorting (lying about) the NOAA report, socalpa

        It argues nearly the opposite of what you claim.

        Your ridiculous cherry-picking has been unmasked.

        Trenberth’s work, reported above, post-dates that report.